Addressing lgbtq+ prior to coming out

[Duncan]

Just now, Calm said:

So the rationale that because sex can get you excommunication and what language you speak won’t means they are not analogous enough to have similar development patterns is an inaccurate claim, correct?

yes, I don't think language is analogous to human sexuality. Gay sex , if you are a member of the Church would get you exed, straight sex is iffy-bishop roulette besides of which adultery and/or fornication isn't an orientation like homosexuality is-which is why I don't these arguments that heterosexuality in the church is the same as homosexuality in the church, they aren't whatsoever, theologically or culturally.  Years ago my brother was the Stake Clerk and a ward here was getting a new Bishop. The Bishop accidentally sent me, thinking it was him, a list of potential candidates for the Stake Presidency to consider. There is a gay man with kids in the ward and that was what was listed as to why he couldn't serve, because of his homosexuality-even though he'd been a member forever, married, kids great job he was excluded because of that from consideration.

[Duncan]

Just now, Calm said:

Changing sexuality is not an informative  interpretation of the data imo.   I need to go refresh my memory of how Diamond phrases what fluidity is, but there is significant evidence that for many people who they are attracted to may change over a lifetime. I am not claiming here that means the attraction is a choice. I don’t believe the data addresses that sufficiently unless something recently. 

That's what I wonder about certain men in the church past and present, they are or were actually attracted to men and it scares them so they act out in various kinds of ways. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Conversely, the "freedom of choice" characterization allows individuals to enter and exit a classification through their choices,

Just to be clear, when I speak of “freedom of choice” in regards to sexual behavior, I am not assuming choice of attraction in the sense that individuals can consciously choose who they are sexually attracted to.  “Freedom of choice” in this context to me is no longer needing to justify choices to others.  I am also not saying this is morally sound.  I just think people are going to end up more confused and twisted in the long run if “born that way”, (which btw feeds into the same old social constructs as it meant as a justification for freedom of choice but is still basically about making sure others are okay with one’s sexual expression instead of being independent of others’ approval or disapproval) continues to dominate how our culture unrealistically teaches about sexuality. 

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, Duncan said:

That's what I wonder about certain men in the church past and present, they are or were actually attracted to men and it scares them so they act out in various kinds of ways. 

If by acting out you mean having sex with women without being attracted to them, that is not what sexual fluidity studies are showing.  Diamond for example addresses fantasy and attraction as well as actual physical behaviour.
 

From a previous post, 

Quote

because of his homosexuality-even though he'd been a member forever, married, kids great job he was excluded because of that from consideration

This is wrong Imo if the only reason was the label “homosexual” and not because he had engaged in same sex sexual behaviour. 
 

Btw, this is imo a bigger problem for “born that way” than for “homosexuality is a choice” (an also less than accurate interpretation Imo), because being labeled “homosexual” in the “born that way” paradigm means they will always be homosexual and having experiences that prevent them from holding callings rather than focusing on what is an appropriate standard Imo, which is the choice to remain faithful to his wife, choosing to live the Law of Chastity.  If he has demonstrated he is able and willing to live that covenant, who he is attracted to other than his wife shouldn’t matter any more than someone who labels themselves heterosexual. I mean, do they go to candidates in general and ask them if they are ever attracted to anyone besides their wife?

Edited May 15, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

We had a girl, a student of mine, who came out and had a girlfriend. Then, she started the discussions and decided to be baptized. She confessed in her baptismal interview that she was pregnant. She now has several kids and still lives here, and considers herself to be 100% straight (which is what I always thought she was, even when she was holding hands with and kissing girls in the hall to show she had "come out.").

It's easy and cavalier to just say, "Well, all of these kids are clearly bi," but that's just moving the goalposts. They are confused, and society, the media, their parents, and their culture are not helping them as they are tossed to and fro in a sea of confusion. 

Sexual fluidity addresses situations like the above much better than “born that way”, imo.

[Calm]

Quote

I think that would be the deciding factor if someone is actually gay if they go all the way so to speak.

So they get hooked with a label for the rest of their lives?  What is the benefit in that?

[Duncan]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

If by acting out you mean having sex with women without being attracted to them, that is not what sexual fluidity studies are showing.  Diamond for example addresses fantasy and attraction as well as actual physical behaviour.
 

From a previous post, 

This is wrong Imo if the only reason was the label “homosexual” and not because he had engaged in same sex sexual behaviour. 
 

Btw, this is imo a bigger problem for “born that way” than for “homosexuality is a choice” (an also less than accurate interpretation Imo), because being labeled “homosexual” in the “born that way” paradigm means they will always be homosexual and having experiences that prevent them from holding callings rather than focusing on what is an appropriate standard Imo, which is the choice to remain faithful to his wife, choosing to live the Law of Chastity.  If he has demonstrated he is able and willing to live that covenant, who he is attracted to other than his wife shouldn’t matter any more than someone who labels themselves heterosexual. I mean, do they go to candidates in general and ask them if they are ever attracted to anyone besides their wife?

I was thinking of straight men who through sexual fluidity or suppress it but could be gay, but are married/kids or identify as straight but deep down they know they are gay . I know a few member men who are vociferous against gay people but I wonder if they themselves are actually gay or were gay and they are jealous that these other gay men could actually act out on their sexuality but they can't due to work or church or whatever reason. One I know for sure is gay but isn't public about it

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I was thinking of straight men who through sexual fluidity or suppress it but could be gay, but are married/kids or identify as straight but deep down they know they are gay . I know a few member men who are vociferous against gay people but I wonder if they themselves are actually gay or were gay and they are jealous that these other gay men could actually act out on their sexuality but they can't due to work or church or whatever reason. One I know for sure is gay but isn't public about it

I find it hard to discuss this kind of stuff in the sense of making sense in my remarks with you because of what to me is a fundamentally inaccurate assumptions of fixed sexual identity.  Unfortunately these men may understand their situation in the same fashion if they also understand “born that way” as a sufficient description of sexuality instead of a very limited concept. 
 

“Born that way” implies there will always be dissatisfaction when there may very well be none because they don’t make the same sort of assumptions about themselves. 

Edited May 15, 2021 by Calm

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Are you saying that the only way to establish what is right is by a supernatural claim to authority on what is right?

I'm saying that one of the arguments that can be made when discussing the philosophy of morality is that without a universal standard--above and outside of humanity--no human has the authority to dictate morality for any other human. 

Under this philosophical argument, right and wrong (morality) are completely subjective--they are based on the opinion/beliefs/perspectives of the person (or group of people) espousing them and nothing else.

Therefore, without a standard that exists outside of humanity, actual right and wrong don't exist.

Here's a good article that touches on the topic.

 

[Meadowchik]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm saying that one of the arguments that can be made when discussing the philosophy of morality is that without a universal standard--above and outside of humanity--no human has the authority to dictate morality for any other human. 

Under this philosophical argument, right and wrong (morality) are completely subjective--they are based on the opinion/beliefs/perspectives of the person (or group of people) espousing them and nothing else.

Therefore, without a standard that exists outside of humanity, actual right and wrong don't exist.

Here's a good article that touches on the topic.

 

But is that quite sound? Start with the notion of humanity itself. I would say that the implication of "humanity" lends itself to an accessible morality that is internally consistent, and furthermore that is largely consistent with basic moral tenets across the space and time of history.

Consider: identify yourself as an individual. Now apply that to all other human beings. If you decide to treat others as just as much a person as you, this results in a system which values human life and welfare.  And this isn't novel or unique, it's a relatively ubiquitous algorithm.

Of course there will be deviancy and some differences, but core values are already achieved with this around the world.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

That's what I wonder about certain men in the church past and present, they are or were actually attracted to men and it scares them so they act out in various kinds of ways. 

I remember reading that some of the church leaders would hold hands and even sleep together, but I don't believe it would go any farther. It was actually acceptable for men to hold hands, not sure about the sleep together thing. I read an article on it but will have to research it again. Found this: 

Homosexuals themselves had “code words” to let each other know their preferences. If someone evoked anything associated with Walt Whitman—the name, image or writings of the famous American poet—it signaled they shared Whitman’s preference for men.

One of the most controversial aspects of this question is how the Mormon Church dealt with homosexuality in its early years. Historian D. Michael Quinn who exposed the history has been excommunicated. He found the same ideas within American religion as in cowboy bunkhouses: men and women were allowed to express intimacy in the 1800s, and this was not only accepted but encouraged.

Quinn quotes Mormon Founder Joseph Smith as writing that male friends “should lie down on the same bed at night locked in each other’s embrace talking of their love.” Smith said he did so himself.

Arguing that homosexual behavior was not considered as grave a sin as heterosexual adultery, Quinn claims Mormon leaders and judges “were more tolerant of homoerotic behavior than they were of every other non-marital sexual activity.”

Edited May 15, 2021 by Tacenda

[poptart]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Sexual fluidity addresses situations like the above much better than “born that way”, imo.

So true.  Not many people are just gay, it can change.  Another thing, sometimes people chose partners when it's practical and a good fit.  I've known gay men who worked for various arch dioceses who hid it well.  Also seen guys who people thought were flaming settle into hetero relationships. 

Relationships are hard and let's face it in general people are pretty awful.  There's always a lot more going on in people's lives than most of us know.  Sexual attraction is still one of those areas, like life you really can't peg down easily.

Edited May 15, 2021 by poptart

[Duncan]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I remember reading that some of the church leaders would hold hands and even sleep together, but I don't believe it would go any farther. It was actually acceptable for men to hold hands, not sure about the sleep together thing. I read an article on it but will have to research it again.

oh, that stuff was common in and out of the church

[bluebell]

55 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

But is that quite sound? Start with the notion of humanity itself. I would say that the implication of "humanity" lends itself to an accessible morality that is internally consistent, and furthermore that is largely consistent with basic moral tenets across the space and time of history.

I would disagree.

There are all sorts of things that were considered moral that aren't anymore, and all sorts of things that are moral in some cultures and that are immoral in others.  I think the article I linked to made a good point on that part of the issue.

Throughout history, morality has been extremely subjective, on pretty much every topic that can be connected to it.

Quote

Consider: identify yourself as an individual. Now apply that to all other human beings. If you decide to treat others as just as much a person as you, this results in a system which values human life and welfare.  And this isn't novel or unique, it's a relatively ubiquitous algorithm.

It's certainly one way to go.  There are quite a few different philosophies connected to the idea of morality and that's one of them.  But that's just it.  It's one way (among many) to view morality.  There is no way to argue that it is objectively the best way, and that's the crux. 

You or I may believe it is the best way but many others will disagree with us on that, and lacking a universal standard that exists outside of ourselves, there is no way to say that they are wrong and we are right..

Quote

Of course there will be deviancy and some differences, but core values are already achieved with this around the world.

Right now our core values are largely similar, because we are very connected and share cultures across boundaries so we influence each other.   But 200 years ago, these core values didn't exist around the world.  And in 200 more years, the core values will look different than they do today.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

It was actually acceptable for men to hold hands, not sure about the sleep together thing.

Sharing beds was a necessity in the past given smaller homes, shared rooms, etc., basically much more limited resources. Even in my youth (late 50s, 60s) typically the only kids that had their own rooms were only children in our neighborhoods, which were middle to upper class, new homes. 
 

https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/sleep-habits-history
 

Quote

In fact, throughout most of human history, beds and sleeping areas had multiple occupants, says Brian Fagan, an anthropology professor at the University of California Santa Barbara, in an article for The Conversation. Not only was it common for family members to squeeze into the same bed, but it was also an accepted part of traveling—even if you weren’t traveling with your family. Thanks to Samuel Pepys, a 17th-century politician and noted diarist, we know that sharing a bed with a fellow weary traveler who happens to be a stranger was normal in Britain in the 1600s. There’s also evidence of travelers sharing a bed on the other side of the pond, perhaps most famously when John Adams and Benjamin Franklin spent a night as bedfellows in a New Jersey inn in September 1776.

 

[MrShorty]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

However, would you agree that personal revelation comes directly from the Holy Spirit to the individual, rather than "through a human intermediary?"

"Prophets and apostles have said that God says it is a sin, something I have confirmed for myself through personal revelation, and God is the ultimate arbiter of morality."

No, I would not agree. Even personal revelation must pass through my own filters and interpretations -- complete with the possibilities that I am not understanding my spiritual experiences correctly. When the prophet says "homosexual behavior is a sin" and the Spirit confirms to you that it is true and the Spirit tells me it is false, what do we do with the contradiction?

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Could you provide a citation?

This is how Pres. Oaks described his experience with the reasons given for the priesthood and temple ban in his remarks at the Be One celebration in June of 2018. He did not receive a testimony of those reasons but determined to be loyal to the brethren.

As for his other talk, I notice that he opens by stating that he is not addressing questions of discerning truth from error, but focusing on "personal criticisms" of the Church and its leadership. After all is said and done, Pres. Oaks seems to prefer loyalty to the Church over eternal truth. I'm not comfortable nor satisfied with that conclusion.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I would be interested in hearing you propose alternative courses of aciton that comport with the doctrines of the Restored Gospel.

One of our hymns says, "Do what is right, let the consequence follow." If homosexual behavior really is contrary to God's will, then we need to continue in our current course. If homosexual behavior can be accommodated within God's will, then we ought to break from our traditions and figure out how to accommodate it. As it currently stands, it seems to me that we are currently divided over the issue and cannot come to a "unity of faith" on the issue, and so we endlessly debate the issue.

 

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

But in terms of basic truths, I don't think Spirit would speak X to one person and Not X to another person.  

I used to think that, too, but it seems it isn't true. From the woman on my mission who was told by the Spirit that she should not continue reading the Book of Mormon and studying with the missionaries to issues like those we are discussing here, it seems that the Spirit is telling lots of people ideas that run contrary to what the Spirit is telling our prophets and apostles and many of you. Sometimes it feels like Pres. Oaks "teaching general principles and individuals can receive revelation that they are exceptions to those principles" sometimes feels like the best explanation, but then I wonder why we don't readily apply it to those same-sex couples who believe the Spirit told them they could marry.

I like Michael Ash's four legged stool idea, but it seems that those four legs still lead individuals to different conclusions. I remain unconvinced that we really know how to deal with those differences.

I also always find it interesting to use Joseph Fielding Smith in these debates, because he used these same ideas to argue for young-earth creationism and against evolution. Outside of that context, I agree with the sentiment, but it also seems that we have used the sentiment to argue against truth in the past.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Quote

and so we go endlessly back and forth for internet pages on end debating them, but never coming to a satisfying conclusion.

I think we can. 

I'm glad you are optimistic. I find myself less optimistic that we will come to a "unity of faith" on the issue. My first recollections of discussion around homosexuality were late '80s, early '90s. It's not hard to find pamphlets and such from the Church going back a couple of decades before that. Since then, we have seen the Proclamation on the Family issued (1995), various western nations legalizing same-sex marriage (SCOTUS decision was 2015, but there were several before that), and so on. Much like the issues around racism and segregation, this seems to be an issue that is taking decades to resolve. Maybe we eventually get there, I don't know.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

One of the most controversial aspects of this question is how the Mormon Church dealt with homosexuality in its early years. Historian D. Michael Quinn who exposed the history has been excommunicated.

One should be very cautious about accepting Quinn’s conclusions given his misuse of quotes (not providing sufficient context).  His bias is very much in evidence in this particular book.  Not his best work. 

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/Same-Sex_Dynamics_Among_Nineteenth-Century_Americans:_A_Mormon_Example

Edited May 15, 2021 by Calm

[Tacenda]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

One should be very cautious about accepting Quinn’s conclusions given his misuse of quotes. His bias is very much in evidence in this particular book.  Not his best work. 

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/Same-Sex_Dynamics_Among_Nineteenth-Century_Americans:_A_Mormon_Example

When I clicked on links on Fair it didn't let me see the articles.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

When I clicked on links on Fair it didn't let me see the articles.

Thanks...I will get the current ones.  I assuming you saw this one that dealt with the various quotes, providing more context.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/Same-Sex_Dynamics_Among_Nineteenth-Century_Americans:_A_Mormon_Example/Index
 

Hansen:  

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr/vol10/iss1/6/

Mitton and James:

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr/vol10/iss1/7/

Edited May 15, 2021 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

One should CBD very cautious about accepting Quinn’s conclusions given his misuse of quotes. His bias is very much in evidence in this particular book.  

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/Same-Sex_Dynamics_Among_Nineteenth-Century_Americans:_A_Mormon_Example

I’ve tried CBD on the arthritis in my thumbs. The inflammation makes playing the fiddle difficult. Haven’t  noticed much benefit. 😉

In my dad’s Polish family the men commonly kissed one another on the lips. My mom always held hands with women friends and her daughters and granddaughters, especially when walking. Taken out of context, I suppose these things could lead to incorrect conclusions.

 

 

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I’ve tried CBD on the arthritis in my thumbs. The inflammation makes playing the fiddle difficult. Haven’t  noticed much benefit. 😉

I really dislike autocorrect sometimes. It even changes correct words sometimes, in this case “be”.  Guess I have been typing CBD too often lately (doing research to help figure out dosing on medical cannabis or the devil’s lettuce, whatever term you prefer).  
 

I just tried a topical on my lower back and it doesn’t help the pain anymore than taking it in a tincture or gummie unfortunately. And it did make me loopy too, which supposedly it doesn’t...probably applied too much since it wasn’t working.  It may help with neuropathy, but hard to tell for sure. 

Edited May 15, 2021 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I would disagree.

There are all sorts of things that were considered moral that aren't anymore, and all sorts of things that are moral in some cultures and that are immoral in others.  I think the article I linked to made a good point on that part of the issue.

Throughout history, morality has been extremely subjective, on pretty much every topic that can be connected to it.

It's certainly one way to go.  There are quite a few different philosophies connected to the idea of morality and that's one of them.  But that's just it.  It's one way (among many) to view morality.  There is no way to argue that it is objectively the best way, and that's the crux. 

You or I may believe it is the best way but many others will disagree with us on that, and lacking a universal standard that exists outside of ourselves, there is no way to say that they are wrong and we are right..

Right now our core values are largely similar, because we are very connected and share cultures across boundaries so we influence each other.   But 200 years ago, these core values didn't exist around the world.  And in 200 more years, the core values will look different than they do today.

I don't think spiritual reasoning solves this problem though, it suffers from perhaps even worse divergences. But reasoning that is accessible to anyone regardless of ideological affiliation comes close to bridging the divide.

[bluebell]

55 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I don't think spiritual reasoning solves this problem though, it suffers from perhaps even worse divergences. But reasoning that is accessible to anyone regardless of ideological affiliation comes close to bridging the divide.

There are so many competing and contradictory philosophical theories on the issues of morality that I'm not sure how you believe that you can solve this problem using reason. It hasn't been able to bridge the divide yet.

[CV75]

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

That's a broad topic. But I would say that my LDS understanding of it is to ponder in the mind and the heart with the companionship of the Holy Ghost, seeking an understanding from the Spirit.

Btw, I was definitely not asking questions in the form of infinite regress. All I did was ask for a reason--justifying opposition to homosexual relationships--beyond authority or exclusively spiritual reasoning.

I see spiritual reasoning as one of the ways one spiritual idea becomes linked to another related idea. In some circles, the idea of a man having the wherewithal to come back to life three days after dying on the cross is unreasonable. But within the scope of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it is quite reasonable to its disciples, as are their ideas that are linked to it.

As Joseph Smith said, “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it. But in connection with these, we believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost, the power of faith, the enjoyment of the spiritual gifts according to the will of God, the restoration of the house of Israel, and the final triumph of truth.”

The Atonement of Jesus Christ, foreordained before the foundation of the world (1 Pere 1:19-20), is absolutely central to all that follows (Creation, Eden, the Fall, and so on through the Final Judgement and Exaltation; the delegation of priesthood keys and the institution of ordinances, covenants, commandments, doctrine, etc. in connection with these keys, and so on). All we need to do is trace the case for same-sex marriage to its basis in the Atonement of Christ and the parenthetical appendages I listed above. I haven’t seen anyone accomplish that yet. Tracing the case for coping with same-sex orientation and finding exaltation, yes, but for same-sex marriage, no.

Eden seems to be the go-to reference (whether one takes the account figuratively or literally) for establishing that a couple of the same sex cannot do what Adam and Eve did. Things could not have played out as they did; conceptually, the man would remain alone (not good for many reasons), no matter how many men lived together.

But one could go further back than Eden, which begins to touch upon the “eternal round” of the “plan of salvation/redemption/happiness”. The spiritual reasoning of the eternal round is no less circular (for illustrative purposes only and not debate, as there may be more acceptable examples to some) than the scientific reasoning of how genetic material copies itself from generation to generation.

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Thanks...I will get the current ones.  I assuming you saw this one that dealt with the various quotes, providing more context.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/Same-Sex_Dynamics_Among_Nineteenth-Century_Americans:_A_Mormon_Example/Index
 

Hansen:  

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr/vol10/iss1/6/

Mitton and James:

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr/vol10/iss1/7/

Thanks Calm, I got through most of it, but my eyes are really strained for some reason. I do think things got taken out of context, and that is frustrating with all things in life that are done like that. Recently my son sent a tik tok of Pres. Biden and I said I needed to see it all in context to really be a judge of it. And the same goes for how Quinn didn't include the whole funeral talk which showed a different story.

Edited May 16, 2021 by Tacenda