Addressing lgbtq+ prior to coming out

[lightparticle]

16 minutes ago, rongo said:

"Active homosexuality" was actually my phrase for "performing homosexual acts." That is clearly a sin as the Church defines it.

Being gay is not a status that you just switch on or off. That's not how any of this works. Someone who is gay (or LGBTQ+ in general) doesn't cease to be so just because you don't perceive them to be so. An active, "in good standing" gay member is still actively homosexual regardless of whether they are in lock-step with all church declarations or not. Their attractions don't change because the church says so. They don't stop being human when they enter the church building. What you've done is defined being gay as being purely about sex acts.

 

25 minutes ago, rongo said:

I would say yes, and under the same logic used by Elder Paul Johnson when he addressed the gay dating fiasco at BYU over a year ago. 

https://universe.byu.edu/2020/03/04/ces-letter-addresses-byu-honor-code-updates/

"Same-sex romantic behavior cannot lead to eternal marriage and is therefore not compatible with the principles included in the Honor Code."

This would apply to hand-holding, kissing, or any other "same-sex romantic behavior" outside of BYU, and for the same reason: it cannot lead to eternal marriage, and thus will only end in sorrow, ultimately. 

You say yes, but only because you have interpreted too far. The BYU honor code (thankfully) is not doctrine. Let's reverse this concept for a moment. If an unmarried man and woman held hands romantically, would they be guilty of sin and subject to church discipline? I am certain they would not. How about if they kissed? Even if it was during sacrament meeting? Nobody would lose an ounce of sleep over it. Why? Because the focus is on the act itself, not what it COULD lead to. You're applying differing levels of judgment to people solely because their life isn't exactly like yours. The last time I checked, God was no respecter of persons and all are alike to him. As a side note, I know quite a few married LGBTQ+ people and their lives seem to mirror those of non-LGBTQ+ people (going to work, watering the garden, walking the dog, BBQ on the weekends) and they're quite happy. If wickedness never was happiness...you get the idea.

[Jamie]

On 5/12/2021 at 7:40 AM, Fether said:

I want to preface this with my beliefs. I believe whole heartedly that the Church is all it claims to be. I am a very orthodox member in the doctrine, and I recognize the many failings failings in the orthodox culture. Any response that includes suggestions that conflict with this will likely fall on deaf ears.

Some time around 2017, shortly after I got off my mission, my sister left the church, my brother came out as gay, and my other brother began to socially transition to be a girl. Though our quaint little stereotypical Utah Mormon family was rocked by all this coming all at once, we all quickly and effectively worked through it. Today, despite our difference in belief, we are a very tight knit family. I play video games with my siblings every weekend, we have very positive interactions and we speak about our difference in opinion openly and productively (except, of course,  for politics... politics is a hot topic we often avoid).

My question today is not how to deal with family and friends who come out as gay, there are ample resources for that. My concern is how do we teach our children gospel truths, urge them in that direction, but not teach it in such a way that if they do identify on the LGBTQ+ spectrum, they feel ostracized and like they can’t share.

I have listened to many podcasts on people sharing their experience growing up gay in the church and a lot of them share how traumatizing it was to be told homosexuality was a terrible sin. They even share how frustrating it is to hear “being gay is ok, doing gay is bad”.

I want to be able to raise my kids in the gospel, but do it in such a way that if they are gay, they don’t feel like they have to leave the church. I feel this is how my siblings and many others were taught. You can believe in God or you can be gay. I want to avoid that.

If I am honest with myself, I fear that if I introduce homosexuality to my kids too young, it may confuse them and even open up the option and then turn my kid gay.

Are there any resources for this? Books, articles, etc.?

I think the only way someone can not feel ostracized as an outsider of any particular group is to feel accepted as a member of that group, even when everyone in that group is not the same.  And since everyone in any church is not the same, then all should feel welcome in any church.  Or even outside of the church, or a church.

So to answer your question I would advise you to do what you want to do.  I believe you should teach your children gospel truths as you can and want to do, urging them in that direction by living those gospel teachings while helping them to realize that everyone is not the same. And since everyone is not the same I would want them to realize that everybody is different.  That not everyone has the same ideas or follows the same teachings or teaches the same things to their children.  And I would hope that your children would feel comfortable being different than other people, deciding for themselves if and when they wanted to share their most personal thoughts with other people.  And I would do all I could do to inspire them to be the best kind of people they wanted to be, being as good as they thought they could be even if and when other people wanted to be different than them.

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

Being gay is not a status that you just switch on or off. That's not how any of this works. Someone who is gay (or LGBTQ+ in general) doesn't cease to be so just because you don't perceive them to be so. An active, "in good standing" gay member is still actively homosexual regardless of whether they are in lock-step with all church declarations or not. Their attractions don't change because the church says so. They don't stop being human when they enter the church building. What you've done is defined being gay as being purely about sex acts.

Nobody has said that being gay is a status you just switch on or off. If you replace "gay" above with "straight" --- there are a lot of straight people who remain so (not switched on and off like a switch), without being able to act on it (whether due to self-control or lack of opportunity). Outside of physically expressing their sexuality, any single gay or straight person at church is identical in this narrow area.

For purposes of church/membership status, it is **all** about sext acts --- not attraction or orientation alone (the switch that remains always on). Gay or straight.

16 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

The BYU honor code (thankfully) is not doctrine. Let's reverse this concept for a moment. If an unmarried man and woman held hands romantically, would they be guilty of sin and subject to church discipline? I am certain they would not. How about if they kissed? Even if it was during sacrament meeting? Nobody would lose an ounce of sleep over it. Why? Because the focus is on the act itself, not what it COULD lead to. You're applying differing levels of judgment to people solely because their life isn't exactly like yours.

No, I'm applying differing levels of judgment because of belief in the doctrines and principles in the Proclamation. I think Elder Johnson's logic aptly applies outside of the BYU honor code, to this discussion. Gay dating and expressions of affection are not compatible with the plan of salvation, because one would have to abandon them in favor of straight dating and expressions of affection to attain eternal marriage. They are a complete dead-end that one must backtrack out of for purposes of gospel compliance, so it is incorrect (from the orthodox LDS perspective) that they are harmless or have no effect on one's eternal status. 

It has nothing to do with judging people "solely because their life isn't exactly like yours," and everything to do with institutionally encouraging/forbidding behaviors that lead to or away from eternal life.  

[Meadowchik]

44 minutes ago, rongo said:

If gender and orientation really is an "essential characteristic of individual pre-mortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose," then it is untenable. This means that it wasn't who people were before earth, and won't be who they are after earth life --- it's a struggle during mortality only. 

If the doctrines and principles in the Proclamation are actually wrong, then there are no barriers to it being tenable. 

If gender and orientation are eternal characteristics then what's the problem?  Where is the conflict?

[Meadowchik]

41 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

@rongojust expressed this along the same lines I would have above . And to be clear I'm saying homosexual SEX not homosexual love - not forcibly the same thing.

Why would that be a conflict with the plan?

[CV75]

12 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I was thinking specifically of BYU, where they explicitly state that "same-sex romantic behavior cannot lead to eternal marriage and is therefore not compatible with the principles included in the honor code." Apparently, "romantic behavior" that does lead to eternal marriage is fine. If you're gay and get caught kissing or holding hands at BYU, you're headed to the Standards office. 

That was the only thing I could think of, too. This relates to my comment above, about the tendency to focus on the social role of the Church (and your comment about conflating a church with Christ). The Church is a secondary "appendage" to the Atonement of Christ. This also relates to another comment I made about norms that differ with culture and change over time. Posted 39 minutes ago

I'm pretty sure the more heightened expressions of romantic behavior that cross moral lines are addressed in the BYU honor code. I don't see this particular reference being a moral issue, but a cultural one.

Schools are going to have honor codes and cultures. BYU's honor code and cultural norms (which change) should not be conflated with the Gospel, nor should BYU be conflated with the Church, as mutually supportive as any/all these may be. What might be construed as romantic behavior in one setting is quite fraternal behavior in another; BYU administrators define appropriate romantic behavior for its setting, but in another country and culture, Church leaders will see hand-holding as fraternal. In either case, it is not a moral issue.

The honor code justifies the "ban" on same-sex romantic behavior not on moral grounds but on culturally-adopted doctrine.

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Maestrophil said:

getting married to a person of the opposite sex and faking it with lots of prayer, faith and struggle

There is another option for some as there are gay members who have married a woman they love and who have been able to maintain the romantic relationship long term. While many may eventually divorce and decide they were fooling themselves, there are those who are successful and who anticipate being successful the rest of their life. 
 

This would not be an option for all homosexual members in the Church; love needs to come before marriage with an understanding partner willing to work with them and that doesn’t always happen. 

[rongo]

7 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

If gender and orientation are eternal characteristics then what's the problem?  Where is the conflict?

Because the whole point is to become like our Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. In LDS theology, only straight gender/orientation settings are eternal. 

You are assuming hypothetically that anything on the spectrum of gay orientation is also eternal. People can think what they want, but this is in conflict with Mormon doctrine. 

[Meadowchik]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

Because the whole point is to become like our Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. In LDS theology, only straight gender/orientation settings are eternal. 

You are assuming hypothetically that anything on the spectrum of gay orientation is also eternal. People can think what they want, but this is in conflict with Mormon doctrine. 

That's the thing. If orientation and gender are eternal that still leaves room for current genders and orientations to be eternal. You're the one who is changing the principle, right? You're implying that sometimes gender and/or orientation is not eternal. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

How so? Is homosexual love really untenable with the Plan of Salvation? Or is it only in conflict because we are told by some that it is?

I think you might be looking at it backwards: we are “told” that the eternal Plan of Salvation, which is built upon and sustained by the Atonement of Jesus Christ and His perfect love, involves ordinances and covenants that includes marriage as scripturally instituted.

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

That's the thing. If orientation and gender are eternal that still leaves room for current genders and orientations to be eternal. You're the one who is changing the principle, right? You're implying that sometimes gender and/or orientation is not eternal. 

This seems to be wresting on your part. It's not the current, in-mortality setting that is eternal, it's whatever we were in the pre-existence. Barring a change, LDS theology does not allow for gay or dysphoric settings in the pre-existence. 

I'm not implying any sometimes about the pre-existence --- the confusion is in mortality. Most of it within the last 10 years (the huge shift with disproportionately out-of-whack numbers of people switching genders or identifying along the LGBT spectrum). Homosexuality has always existed, but the massive shift in acceptance and exploration with it has only been recently. 

[rpn]

3 hours ago, lightparticle said:

When reading these statements, take a step back and see something from my perspective. Do you see the dichotomy? Saying that church doctrine doesn't teach that homosexuality is a sin, then immediately following it up with a statement that everyone has different struggles with different commandments, and that everyone is invited to live them. In other words, it isn't specifically taught, but is most definitely strongly implied. You see, if your answers to the question of how to treat someone LGBTQ+ in the church is to emphasize the atonement, repentance, and forgiveness, then you do believe being gay is a sin.

The atonement doesn't just resolve sin, it also resolves, pain and struggles and fear and every other negative of mortal life's experience.   (I used struggle generally because living the commandments isn't very often the exact way someone in the lgbtq+ group would naturally choose to live --- NOT that being gay is a sin. 

[CV75]

9 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

That's the thing. If orientation and gender are eternal that still leaves room for current genders and orientations to be eternal. You're the one who is changing the principle, right? You're implying that sometimes gender and/or orientation is not eternal. 

"Eternal" does not mean contiguously expressed in each of the spirit, mortal and resurrected forms. It means that that which is confounded in mortality is restored to the spirit (original) and resurrected (final) designs, which are the same because they are eternal. By design, mortality is as disruptive as the Atonement of Christ is edifying. In this case, "gender" means "biological sex at birth" -- where determinate (in general, given the occasional mortal disruption).

[rpn]

13 hours ago, teddyaware said:

If the Savior warns us that it’s sinful for a heterosexual man to lust after a woman, even if it’s only in his imagination, does the same also hold true for homosexual men? The apparent inequity of these two similar challenges of physical desire lies in the fact that while a heterosexual man has access to a divinely approved outlet for his sexual desires in the person of his willing wife, a gay man has no such divinely approved outlet for his sexual desires

Heterosexuals still have to curb their sexual desires consistent with the Lord's plan.   And that means full agreement with partner.   And the equality is getting full spiritual control of our mortal bodies --- NOT how often or that we engage in sex.

[Jamie]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

"Eternal" does not mean contiguously expressed in each of the spirit, mortal and resurrected forms. It means that that which is confounded in mortality is restored to the spirit (original) and resurrected (final) designs, which are the same because they are eternal. By design, mortality is as disruptive as the Atonement of Christ is edifying. In this case, "gender" means "biological sex at birth" -- where determinate (in general, given the occasional mortal disruption).

I like this but to be consistent I think "biological sex at birth" is what the biological sex was before birth when living as a spirit without a mortal body, which may or may not be determinate in mortal form at mortal birth, although I would say most often it is.

[Meadowchik]

13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

"Eternal" does not mean contiguously expressed in each of the spirit, mortal and resurrected forms. It means that that which is confounded in mortality is restored to the spirit (original) and resurrected (final) designs, which are the same because they are eternal. By design, mortality is as disruptive as the Atonement of Christ is edifying. In this case, "gender" means "biological sex at birth" -- where determinate (in general, given the occasional mortal disruption).

In that case, who's to say lots of genders in mortality aren't the eternal gender of the person? 

You see the issue now?

[Meadowchik]

10 minutes ago, Jamie said:

I like this but to be consistent I think "biological sex at birth" is what the biological sex was before birth when living as a spirit without a mortal body, which may or may not be determinate in mortal form at mortal birth, although I would say most often it is.

Yet biological sex at birth is non-binary at non-neglible rates.

[Meadowchik]

24 minutes ago, rongo said:

This seems to be wresting on your part. It's not the current, in-mortality setting that is eternal, it's whatever we were in the pre-existence. Barring a change, LDS theology does not allow for gay or dysphoric settings in the pre-existence. 

I'm not implying any sometimes about the pre-existence --- the confusion is in mortality. Most of it within the last 10 years (the huge shift with disproportionately out-of-whack numbers of people switching genders or identifying along the LGBT spectrum). Homosexuality has always existed, but the massive shift in acceptance and exploration with it has only been recently. 

Who's to say a transitioned person isn't resolving towards their pre-existent gender? Who's to say there aren't some exceptions to the norms we have been taught about the pre-existance? 

It's not as if the information we have been taught about the pre-existance is abundant and very detailed.

Edited May 13, 2021 by Meadowchik

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Who's to say a transitioned person isn't resolving towards their pre-existent gender? Who's to say there aren't some exceptions to the norms we have been taught about the pre-existance? 

It's not as if the information we have been taught about the pre-existance is abundant and very detailed.

Yep. The words of Bruce R. McConkie about the priesthood restrictions seem particularly applicable. 

"We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.... We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more "

It seems odd for church members to insist that the church's current understanding of gender and sexuality is set in stone and not subject to further light and knowledge.

[smac97]

On 5/12/2021 at 8:40 AM, Fether said:

I want to preface this with my beliefs. I believe whole heartedly that the Church is all it claims to be. I am a very orthodox member in the doctrine, and I recognize the many failings failings in the orthodox culture. Any response that includes suggestions that conflict with this will likely fall on deaf ears.

Some time around 2017, shortly after I got off my mission, my sister left the church, my brother came out as gay, and my other brother began to socially transition to be a girl. Though our quaint little stereotypical Utah Mormon family was rocked by all this coming all at once, we all quickly and effectively worked through it. Today, despite our difference in belief, we are a very tight knit family. I play video games with my siblings every weekend, we have very positive interactions and we speak about our difference in opinion openly and productively (except, of course,  for politics... politics is a hot topic we often avoid).

My question today is not how to deal with family and friends who come out as gay, there are ample resources for that. My concern is how do we teach our children gospel truths, urge them in that direction, but not teach it in such a way that if they do identify on the LGBTQ+ spectrum, they feel ostracized and like they can’t share.

I have listened to many podcasts on people sharing their experience growing up gay in the church and a lot of them share how traumatizing it was to be told homosexuality was a terrible sin. They even share how frustrating it is to hear “being gay is ok, doing gay is bad”.

I want to be able to raise my kids in the gospel, but do it in such a way that if they are gay, they don’t feel like they have to leave the church. I feel this is how my siblings and many others were taught. You can believe in God or you can be gay. I want to avoid that.

If I am honest with myself, I fear that if I introduce homosexuality to my kids too young, it may confuse them and even open up the option and then turn my kid gay.

Are there any resources for this? Books, articles, etc.?

A few thoughts:

1. Define the Issue in Gospel terms.  

The issues you are addressing here center on the Church's teachings about marriage and the Law of Chastity.  I think it helps to clarify that, several times over if necessary.  The scriptures include commandments that constrain our behaviors.  In business and commercial matters, we should gain skills, work hard, and be honest in our dealings with our fellow man.  In interpersonal relationships, we should be kind and respectful, and we should also avoid any form of abusive conduct (verbal, physical, sexual, etc.).  In relation to governments, we should participate in electoral and other important processes, obey the law, and work within its confines to change or improve it when appropriate.  All of these principles and more are found in the scriptures and in counsel from living prophets and apostles.  They comprise a moral framework that, if followed, will improve us as individuals, families, communities and nations.  And these principles have been revealed to us from God.  Some of are prescriptive ("Thou shalt..."), some are proscriptive ("Thou shalt not..."), some are advisory and relative.  But all of them are intended to help us, even when (particularly when) they impose constraints and parameters on our behaviors.

As to matters of sexual behavior, the counsel we have from the scriptures and from prophets and apostles is that sex is limited to between a husband and wife, and in all other instances is prohibited.  Thus adultery, fornication, homosexual behavior, "lasciviousness," and so on are prohibited.  

2. Address the Purposes of Sexuality.  Heavenly Father, being perfectly just and wise, is not arbitrary.  He gives us commandments for our benefit and the benefit of others, even if we do not immediately see that.  As to sexual behavior, we have been taught that its purpose is two-fold: for procreation, and for the strengthening of the relationship between husband and wife (see, e.g., here).  Within these parameters, sex is a wonderful part of life.  

Once severed from these purposes, sex can become distorted and improper.  It can be a weapon (in cases of sexual violence and/or exploitation).  It can become cheapened into a mere commodity, to be used transactionally in exchange for money, goods, opportunities, etc.  Or it can even become a base biological expression, with no more meaning or significance that a burp or a bowel movement.  Or it can become an unhealthy obsession.  Or it can become a means of selfish gratification.

Consider this wise counsel from the Church:

Quote

Intimacy does not occur in a vacuum, isolated from other human relationships, from values, or from our perceptions of ourselves and others. It is only one part—although a very important part—of our relationships with others. To understand intimacy properly, we must understand the proper nature of the family and of our relationships with others and the values that influence those relationships. We must understand our true roles with regard to each other.
...
Our Heavenly Father’s work and glory are “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life” of his children (see Moses 1:39). When explaining the glorious potential of each of his children, he said that if they do all things he requires of them, “they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever” (D&C 132:19). In other words, if we are true and faithful in all things, we will be able to become like God our Father and live forever in the family unit, working as he does to bless and exalt our children.
...
We reach these goals by following the models set for us by our Heavenly Father and our Savior. How do they fulfill these roles? How do they act in relationship to us? Many passages of scripture describe their actions and attitudes toward us, but few are as expressive as these: “For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39); and “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).
...
How different that is from the attitude of Satan, who said to the Father, “give me thine honor” (Moses 4:1), and who rebelled against God and sought to destroy the agency of man—all for his own gain.
...
The philosophy of the world follows Satan: “Do your own thing.” “What’s in it for me?” “If you think it’s right, it’s right.” “If it feels good, do it.” As a result of such thinking, people turn away from God and focus on themselves, doing just what Satan himself wanted to do—setting themselves up as the judges of what is right and wrong and taking to themselves all honor and glory. They treat other people largely as a means to their own gain, their own pleasure.
...
{I}ntimacy between husband and wife must be guided by righteous attitudes toward each other. The most sacred intimacy must be shared in a relationship characterized by genuine love. If we truly love others and desire their eternal joy—if we are our brother’s keeper—our intimate relations as husband and wife will uplift rather than degrade. ... Virtuous behavior, however, does not reject the feeling and joy of the physical senses but provides a full and satisfying enjoyment of them. Genuine love—love unfeigned—leads us to lawful and righteous relationships, to compassionate but chaste relationships outside of marriage, and to righteous intimacy within marriage—within the bounds the Lord has set.

Consider how many problems arise in society because of sexual misconduct and licentiousness, and conversely how many such problems are avoided by obeying these precepts.

3. We are All Held to the Same Standard.  Elder Oaks has spoken of the ongoing debate about "evidence or theories suggesting that 'there is substantial evidence for genetic influence on sexual orientation,'" about sexual behavior being "profoundly influenced by psychosocial factors such as parental and sibling relationships (especially during the formative years) and the culture in which we live," and how all of this is part of a "highly complex subject on which scientific knowledge is still in its infancy" and that "most scientists concede that the current evidence is insufficient and that firm conclusions must await many additional scientific studies."  The Church, having taken this into account, holds all members of the Church to the same standard of sexual conduct.

4. Feelings are Not Determinative (Where God Has Spoken).  A prevailing undercurrent pertaining to sexual behavior is that a person is at liberty to do whatever they want, with essentially no constraints (consent being the usual sole exception).  Put another way, this sentiment seems to be adopting Korihor's philsophy that "every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime."  (Alma 30:17.)  There are all sorts of ways that this attitude, if adopted, can go sideways. 

All the more reason, then, to look for and accept an external standard of behavior.  Our desires are not determinative of the standards imposed by the Law of Chastity. God has prohibited adultery amongst His children.  And fornication. God has also prohibited same-sex behavior amongst His children.  And other forms of exual behavior.  It is true that some of His children want to (and do) engage in adultery or fornication. This is wrong.  That they "want" or "desire" to engage in this point is not determinative.  It is also true that some of His children want to (and do) engage in same-sex behavior. This is wrong. That they "want" or "desire" to engage in this point is not determinative.  

These same standard applies to all church members.  Nobody is privileged.  Nobody is exempt.  If we take desires out of the equation, and simply look at the standard of behavior imposed on church members, we see that the same standard is applied across the board. Once we see that, all the various arguments presented all the time based as they are on homosexuals being downtrodden because of their unfulfilled desires, fall apart.

5. Don't Acquiesce to the Terms set by Critics and Opponents.

The teachings of the Church are beautiful.  They deserve to be viewed in a clear light, rather than through the skewed lens of critics and opponents of the Restored Gospel.  They characterize the Law of Chastity has an expression of hate and bigotry and discrimination.  It's obviously none of that.  Don't let the critics define the terms of the discussion about what we believe.  And don't let them bully you into silence by making false accusations against you and the Church.  And if and when hateful rhetoric arises, defend the Gospel with reasoning, patience and kindness, but don't respond in kind.

Thanks,

-Smac

[lightparticle]

42 minutes ago, rongo said:

For purposes of church/membership status, it is **all** about sext acts --- not attraction or orientation alone (the switch that remains always on). Gay or straight.

 

44 minutes ago, rongo said:

No, I'm applying differing levels of judgment because of belief in the doctrines and principles in the Proclamation. I think Elder Johnson's logic aptly applies outside of the BYU honor code, to this discussion. Gay dating and expressions of affection are not compatible with the plan of salvation, because one would have to abandon them in favor of straight dating and expressions of affection to attain eternal marriage. They are a complete dead-end that one must backtrack out of for purposes of gospel compliance, so it is incorrect (from the orthodox LDS perspective) that they are harmless or have no effect on one's eternal status.

 

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

There is another option for some as there are gay members who have married a woman they love and who have been able to maintain the romantic relationship long term. While many may eventually divorce and decide they were fooling themselves, there are those who are successful and who anticipate being successful the rest of their life.

 

31 minutes ago, rongo said:

Because the whole point is to become like our Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. In LDS theology, only straight gender/orientation settings are eternal.

<SIGH>

Are you advocating that LGBTQ+ people should leave the church? I find some of these comments to be excessively cruel. Different rules. Different definitions. Don't pursue happiness because it's a "dead-end". Force yourself into a love-less marriage to comply with norms. Sure, the building says "Visitors Welcome". But, it doesn't sound very welcoming. There seems to be a lot of cold-hearted perspectives that view LGBTQ+ people as broken -- someone in need of fixing. When you see LGBTQ+ people from that perspective, you can't possibly objectively see them as anything other than lesser than yourself. Essentially, what it seems you are saying is that LGBTQ+ people can attend, but why bother since they will always be broken. This interpretation of how the gospel operates is full of scriptural and technical interpretation, but completely devoid of hope and love. 

 

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm not implying any sometimes about the pre-existence --- the confusion is in mortality. Most of it within the last 10 years (the huge shift with disproportionately out-of-whack numbers of people switching genders or identifying along the LGBT spectrum). Homosexuality has always existed, but the massive shift in acceptance and exploration with it has only been recently.

The idea that "the confusion is in mortality ... most of it within the last 10 years" is false. Even you said that LGBTQ+ people have always existed, but the massive shift in acceptance and exploration with it" was a recent phenomena. More people coming out doesn't mean the percentages are rising. It just means more people are comfortable with expressing who they are.

[rongo]

9 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Who's to say a transitioned person isn't resolving towards their pre-existent gender? Who's to say there aren't some exceptions to the norms we have been taught about the pre-existance? 

It's not as if the information we have been taught about the pre-existence is abundant and very detailed.

 

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

Yep. The words of Bruce R. McConkie about the priesthood restrictions seem particularly applicable. 

"We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.... We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more "

It seems odd for church members to insist that the church's current understanding of gender and sexuality is set in stone and not subject to further light and knowledge.

Well, if it's really as pliable as that, constantly subject to updates, but never nailed down at all, and we never know anything for sure about the pre-existence, mortality, and the hereafter, then we may as well turn off the lights and go home. The Restoration has nothing to offer that wasn't already there in Christianity. 

I know I'm preaching to the choir in you two with the above  , but for those of us who do want for the Restoration to really mean something and be true, there has to be some point where it's not just an eternal regress of "forget everything we taught. We have new light now." There have to be some bedrock, unchanging, fundamental things. 

That's why if the Church ever does fully embrace homosexuality, women ordination, etc., I think it's commitment and enthusiasm trajectory will track that of Community of Christ. Or the United Methodist Church. There won't really be a compelling reason to be Mormon. 

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

5. Don't Acquiesce to the Terms set by Critics and Opponents.

The teachings of the Church are beautiful.  They deserve to be viewed in a clear light, rather than through the skewed lens of critics and opponents of the Restored Gospel.  They characterize the Law of Chastity has an expression of hate and bigotry and discrimination.  It's obviously none of that.  Don't let the critics define the terms of the discussion about what we believe.  And don't let them bully you into silence by making false accusations against you and the Church.  And if and when hateful rhetoric arises, defend the Gospel with reasoning, patience and kindness, but don't respond in kind.

Thanks,

-Smac

This seems like well poisoning and more than a little defensive. 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

 

Well, if it's really as pliable as that, constantly subject to updates, but never nailed down at all, and we never know anything for sure about the pre-existence, mortality, and the hereafter, then we may as well turn off the lights and go home. The Restoration has nothing to offer that wasn't already there in Christianity. 

I know I'm preaching to the choir in you two with the above  , but for those of us who do want for the Restoration to really mean something and be true, there has to be some point where it's not just an eternal regress of "forget everything we taught. We have new light now." There have to be some bedrock, unchanging, fundamental things. 

That's why if the Church ever does fully embrace homosexuality, women ordination, etc., I think it's commitment and enthusiasm trajectory will track that of Community of Christ. Or the United Methodist Church. There won't really be a compelling reason to be Mormon. 

Seems like an odd hill to die on to me. Lots of "foundational" doctrines have changed with time, from the nature of the Godhead to plural marriage to the priesthood restrictions. It's in the nature of a religion that is based on continuing revelation. Even as a foul apostate, I recognize that this is a very positive aspect of Mormonism. It's a feature, not a bug, as they say.

[Meadowchik]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

 

Well, if it's really as pliable as that, constantly subject to updates, but never nailed down at all, and we never know anything for sure about the pre-existence, mortality, and the hereafter, then we may as well turn off the lights and go home. The Restoration has nothing to offer that wasn't already there in Christianity. 

I know I'm preaching to the choir in you two with the above  , but for those of us who do want for the Restoration to really mean something and be true, there has to be some point where it's not just an eternal regress of "forget everything we taught. We have new light now." There have to be some bedrock, unchanging, fundamental things. 

That's why if the Church ever does fully embrace homosexuality, women ordination, etc., I think it's commitment and enthusiasm trajectory will track that of Community of Christ. Or the United Methodist Church. There won't really be a compelling reason to be Mormon. 

Sorry but that's a bit hyperbolic. There is still a foundation possible outside the modern notions of essential gender. Think about what all the law and the prophets hang upon.