Addressing lgbtq+ prior to coming out

[Calm]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

Homosexuality is defective from the standpoint of basic biology, form and function, perpetuation of the species, etc. 

I disagree. We wouldn’t see it so often in the animal kingdom if it was so detrimental to the survival of a species imo. If homosexual acts were the only sexual activity in a culture, sure, that culture would be toast in one generation, but that has never happened in recorded history and there have been plenty of cultures where homosexual relationships were considered part of the norm.

[Peacefully]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

see above post

 

YES this is highly offensive. Just because you are straight doesn’t mean everyone else is defective and need fixing.  

Your life experience comes from only one perspective so of course you need to build a religious construct around that perspective.  But it doesn’t make it right.  I think if you were gay you would have a completely different understanding of God and how you would view yourself 

I do believe this is true. If you are bi then you could choose to be married to the opposite sex and live a very happy life.  It is probably why there isn’t such conflicts with doctrine around bi people 

When I was the Young Women’s President, one of my counselors was bisexual and very open about it. However, she was married to a man so no issue as far as having callings, going to the temple, etc. I don’t think we can compare the bi experience to the gay experience in our church. 

[poptart]

48 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

When I was the Young Women’s President, one of my counselors was bisexual and very open about it. However, she was married to a man so no issue as far as having callings, going to the temple, etc. I don’t think we can compare the bi experience to the gay experience in our church. 

I'm bi myself and have had my own experiences.  Most people don't go around advertising that, people who are bi can have a bad rep.  Also, having a relationship can be tricky, your partner is afraid you'll cheat, people assume you sleep with anything that moves, that you probably have a lot of VD etc.  If I did settle down with a woman i'd keep my sexuality to myself and just blend into the woodwork.  Then again, I've never cheated and take things like marriage seriously.

[longview]

On 5/16/2021 at 11:03 AM, Duncan said:

I wouldn't say that the Telestial Kingdom is "destruction" Joseph Smith said that the Telestial Kingdom "surpasses all understanding" (DC 76:81, 89, 98). it's still a Kingdom of Glory, for some it's the only glory they have ever had.

Actually "destruction" is another word for "hell" - - -

D&C 76:
81 And again, we saw the glory of the telestial, which glory is that of the lesser, even as the glory of the stars differs from that of the glory of the moon in the firmament.
82 These are they who received not the gospel of Christ, neither the testimony of Jesus.
83 These are they who deny not the Holy Spirit.
84 These are they who are thrust down to hell.
85 These are they who shall not be redeemed from the devil until the last resurrection, until the Lord, even Christ the Lamb, shall have finished his work.

As Jesus indicated:  "many there be who go in thereat" is confirmed in verse 109: But behold, and lo, we saw the glory and the inhabitants of the telestial world, that they were as innumerable as the stars in the firmament of heaven, or as the sand upon the seashore;

On 5/16/2021 at 11:03 AM, Duncan said:

Plus, God, not you nor me, decides what is best for his children, he and he alone knows the conditions of mankind that he placed them in, societal attitudes, the options and choices available,  he alone knows how we deal with situations, he and he alone knows our genetic makeup and how we interact with society.

You are essentially correct.  Only God will judge our Eternal disposition.  But the fact remains we can exert ourselves to meet God's deepest desire.  Which is to BECOME like Him and to be willing to embrace all the covenants that are required of the TOP degree.

On 5/16/2021 at 11:03 AM, Duncan said:

Do you think with homophobic and xenophobic attitudes that exist in the Church that someone , gay or straight, should find the gate? Why spend eternity with those folks? no thanks. I read the scriptures as saying that you should love your brothers and sisters, gay or straight, american or not.

We have never met but based on what I have seen of your posts over the years, I think you are a very gracious person with a great deal of sensitivity.  I feel to say that I love you!  I have had a few homosexual acquaintances who I was not afraid to defend from harrassment and ridicule.

Do NOT imply a marginalized group is going to hell when posting on this board. 

[california boy]

16 hours ago, longview said:

Actually "destruction" is another word for "hell" - - -

D&C 76:
81 And again, we saw the glory of the telestial, which glory is that of the lesser, even as the glory of the stars differs from that of the glory of the moon in the firmament.
82 These are they who received not the gospel of Christ, neither the testimony of Jesus.
83 These are they who deny not the Holy Spirit.
84 These are they who are thrust down to hell.
85 These are they who shall not be redeemed from the devil until the last resurrection, until the Lord, even Christ the Lamb, shall have finished his work.

As Jesus indicated:  "many there be who go in thereat" is confirmed in verse 109: But behold, and lo, we saw the glory and the inhabitants of the telestial world, that they were as innumerable as the stars in the firmament of heaven, or as the sand upon the seashore;

You are essentially correct.  Only God will judge our Eternal disposition.  But the fact remains we can exert ourselves to meet God's deepest desire.  Which is to BECOME like Him and to be willing to embrace all the covenants that are required of the TOP degree.

We have never met but based on what I have seen of your posts over the years, I think you are a very gracious person with a great deal of sensitivity.  I feel to say that I love you!  I have had a few homosexual acquaintances who I was not afraid to defend from harrassment and ridicule.

I trust God more than you.  I think I will be just fine where God puts me.  And if the most evil thing about me, worthy of only the Telestial Kingdom is that I am gay and love my partner and want to be with him for eternity, then I guess that is where I belong.  And honestly if everyone in the Celestial Kingdom thinks of me and my love for my partner like you do, well then, why would I ever want to be there.  

[longview]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

I trust God more than you.  I think I will be just fine where God puts me.  And if the most evil thing about me, worthy of only the Telestial Kingdom is that I am gay and love my partner and want to be with him for eternity, then I guess that is where I belong.  And honestly if everyone in the Celestial Kingdom thinks of me and my love for my partner like you do, well then, why would I ever want to be there.  

I am not giving an unique interpretation of the Plan of Happiness but I feel a great conviction for the Restored Church and tremendous gratitude for God's Purposes.  I think it is wonderful you still believe in God.  However, it was my impression you no longer believe in the teachings of the LDS Church?  I am assuming you also disbelieve the revelation about the Three Degrees of Glory?  Whatever convictions you have, you are free to live by it.

Does the Proclamation on the Family make you angry?  Which parts of it do you really detest?

[california boy]

11 hours ago, longview said:

I am not giving an unique interpretation of the Plan of Happiness but I feel a great conviction for the Restored Church and tremendous gratitude for God's Purposes.  I think it is wonderful you still believe in God.  However, it was my impression you no longer believe in the teachings of the LDS Church?  I am assuming you also disbelieve the revelation about the Three Degrees of Glory?  Whatever convictions you have, you are free to live by it.

I no longer believe that Church leaders have some special revelation connection with God.  They have been wrong too many times about what God thinks, especially a about LGBT issues.  First it was an abomination to even be gay, and if you masturbate, you will become gay.  Then it was if you just get married, you will magically become straight.  Then it was marriage is not therapy.  Then it was you are an apostate if you have a gay marriage and your underaged children will not be baptized or receive the priesthood.  Then it was, ok, maybe they can be baptized.   I think Church leaders are men, like the rest of us, trying their best to guide an organization that they head.  But there is no evidence that what they say comes from God.  When you or any Church leader tells me I am going to hell, that only tells me where THEY would like me to go because I am gay and love my partner and want to be with him for eternity.  I am sure if I told you that you were going to hell for loving your wife, you wouldn't care one bit what I said either.

There is a lot I like about the Church.  It works for many people,  Not because it is the only true Church on earth because it isn't.  But because many of what it teaches are good moral principles to live by.  Some of my children are still active in the Church and I fully support their involvement in the Church.  But the Church doesn't work for everyone, and certainly not if you are LGBT.  Most figure that out on their own.

I don't have any idea what happens after I die, and either does anyone else including Church leaders.  God only knows.  God makes his plans.  The information's unavailable to the mortal man.  Truer words were never written.  

11 hours ago, longview said:

Does the Proclamation on the Family make you angry?  Which parts of it do you really detest?

Why would I ever be angry about the Proclamation on the Family?  I don't think it comes from God.  And I no longer care what the Church teaches.  It doesn't affect my life one bit.  Have I ever said anything that gave you the impression that I detested anything it says?  My question to you is "Why do you think I might detest the Proclamation on the Family?

In some ways, I like that the Church is so clear upfront that if you are LGBT, this is probably not the place you will connect with God.

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, california boy said:

, I like that the Church is so clear upfront that if you are LGBT, this is probably not the place you will connect with God.

This is not at all like what the Church presents or is. I know LGBT who are active members and express a sense of belonging in our faith communities and who see themselves as having a strong connection to God.  It is true that many, LGBT or not, lack that sense of connection with others and with God, but to claim the Church is “clear” that LGBT probably won’t...I just don’t see that as accurate.
 

That some may interpret the implications of what the Church says as that would not surprise me, but I think they are inserting their own bias into the interpretation. 

Edited May 18, 2021 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

17 hours ago, longview said:

I am not giving an unique interpretation of the Plan of Happiness but I feel a great conviction for the Restored Church and tremendous gratitude for God's Purposes.  I think it is wonderful you still believe in God.  However, it was my impression you no longer believe in the teachings of the LDS Church?  I am assuming you also disbelieve the revelation about the Three Degrees of Glory?  Whatever convictions you have, you are free to live by it.

Does the Proclamation on the Family make you angry?  Which parts of it do you really detest?

The font enrages me.

[Ragerunner]

On 5/14/2021 at 2:40 PM, rongo said:

This is somewhat similar to my views on race (and many, many other things). I think we entered mortality on different levels and with different levels of pre-existence achievement/progress. It is indisputable that we leave earth life with different levels of progress/achievement, and it is probably/approaching certainty that the next life's progression will similarly be at different rates and levels. It may be (this is my belief) that the "degrees of difficulty" we encounter in life (of which sexual orientation is only one) might be either what is most needed for our refinement --- or to "make up ground" or "close the gap" based on the pre-existence. Some would say this is an awful thought, but if true, we all would have been willing in the pre-existence to go through whatever degree of difficulty is necessary to get where we want to be. 

While I agree that we obtained different degrees of attainment in our pre-existence. I don’t think you can then say if you are a certain color or have different challenges (depression, starvation, gay, etc) that these are because you achieved less in the pre-existence and you need to ‘make up ground’ in this life vs a white, wealthy, heterosexual individual.

Grade example:

Maybe it’s the other way around. Those that are wealthy, or born into certain comfortable social environments and do not successfully work to help the starving, the depressed, eliminate racism etc. will find they get a C for how they used their ‘comfort/easier’ test. While those that faced severe challenges/harder tests and only got a C grade maybe receive great glory when Heavenly Father takes into account all the variables.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Ragerunner said:

While I agree that we obtained different degrees of attainment in our pre-existence. I don’t think you can then say if you are a certain color or have different challenges (depression, starvation, gay, etc) that these are because you achieved less in the pre-existence and you need to ‘make up ground’ in this life vs a white, wealthy, heterosexual individual.

Grade example:

Maybe it’s the other way around. Those that are wealthy, or born into certain comfortable social environments and do not successfully work to help the starving, the depressed, eliminate racism etc. will find they get a C for how they used their ‘comfort/easier’ test. While those that faced severe challenges/harder tests and only got a C grade maybe receive great glory when Heavenly Father takes into account all the variables.

Absolutely! It may be that those with "easier" challenges have more to prove, and those with "harder" challenges less. It might be like "degree of difficulty" in diving or skating routines, too. That is, if you don't do smashingly amazing with a really hard "hand" dealt, the degree of difficulty is also factored in. If you just "tread water" with a "great hand" dealt, that would be to one's condemnation. 

All I'm saying is that I think the pre-existence affects a great deal on earth. It's the only way to make sense of the inequities. As you point out, and as I also believe, it isn't simply a matter of "hard" challenges = "bad" pre-existence. 

It may also be that those with especially tough challenges chose them to make up for lost ground, as it were. Not set in stone, but it's possible that people choose their challenges to an extent. 

[Ragerunner]

As a practicing active member of the LDS Church I had a friend that is a member of the church that deals with homosexual feelings. He helped me see the discussion on the idea that heterosexuals and homosexuals all have the same challenge to live the law of chastity as NOT true.

Moderators - I only use the following comments to make his point.

Image if every heterosexual male (he is male) in the church lived in a society where he not only needed to bridle his passions but in living a normal daily life he would go to the gym and had to change and shower with women, live with women in dorm situations, go to the bathroom with women, etc. He said you would probably not have a hand full of brethren that would be worthy priesthood holders and not in violation of the law of chastity multiple times.

Add in that you were told that their where no options to deal with that ‘pent up’ sexual ‘tension’ for your entire life. This doesn’t even include the discussion of the human need to be in a loving relationship etc.

I am first to say I don’t have the answers. 

I do pray and hope that the Lord will provide greater light and knowledge on this subject to help all of us better understand how this all fits. For all of us. I believe there are still to many unknowns to clearly see the big picture here. 
 

No different than when greater light and knowledge was provide in 1978 on blacks holding the priesthood and receiving their eternal covenants.

[Ragerunner]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

Absolutely! It may be that those with "easier" challenges have more to prove, and those with "harder" challenges less. It might be like "degree of difficulty" in diving or skating routines, too. That is, if you don't do smashingly amazing with a really hard "hand" dealt, the degree of difficulty is also factored in. If you just "tread water" with a "great hand" dealt, that would be to one's condemnation. 

All I'm saying is that I think the pre-existence affects a great deal on earth. It's the only way to make sense of the inequities. As you point out, and as I also believe, it isn't simply a matter of "hard" challenges = "bad" pre-existence. 

It may also be that those with especially tough challenges chose them to make up for lost ground, as it were. Not set in stone, but it's possible that people choose their challenges to an extent. 

Thanks for the response. You had me until the last paragraph. I still have not read any where in church doctrine that tough challenges are provided to make up for ‘lost ground’. 

If this was the case than Adam and Eve and their children must have needed to make up a LOT of lost ground since they had to endure this mortal exists for almost a 1,000 years.

The good news is in the end Heavenly Father will take into account everything, from our environment, upbringing, teaching, state of mind, how we did with the degree of the challenge or test and what we ultimately become after this life.

 

[ttribe]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

This is not at all like what the Church presents or is. I know LGBT who are active members and express a sense of belonging in our faith communities and who see themselves as having a strong connection to God.  It is true that many, LGBT or not, lack that sense of connection with others and with God, but to claim the Church is “clear” that LGBT probably won’t...I just don’t see that as accurate.
 

That some may interpret the implications of what the Church says as that would not surprise me, but I think they are inserting their own bias into the interpretation. 

I'm not sure that's entirely true.  The fact is, in order to participate in all of the ordinances of the Temple, a homosexual individual would be required to enter into a heterosexual relationship.  I speak specifically of sealing to a spouse, of course, which is a required element in order to reach the highest levels of the Celestial Kingdom (a doctrine which, I believe, is not in dispute).  In short, they would have to pretend to be something and someone they are not in order to be a fully participating member of the Church.  By definition, that makes them a second class citizen within the organization and participation in the Church and the attendant ordinances.

[Tacenda]

9 minutes ago, Ragerunner said:

As a practicing active member of the LDS Church I had a friend that is a member of the church that deals with homosexual feelings. He helped me see the discussion on the idea that heterosexuals and homosexuals all have the same challenge to live the law of chastity as NOT true.

Moderators - I only use the following comments to make his point.

Image if every heterosexual male (he is male) in the church lived in a society where he not only needed to bridle his passions but in living a normal daily life he would go to the gym and had to change and shower with women, live with women in dorm situations, go to the bathroom with women, etc. He said you would probably not have a hand full of brethren that would be worthy priesthood holders and not in violation of the law of chastity multiple times.

Add in that you were told that their where no options to deal with that ‘pent up’ sexual ‘tension’ for your entire life. This doesn’t even include the discussion of the human need to be in a loving relationship etc.

I am first to say I don’t have the answers. 

I do pray and hope that the Lord will provide greater light and knowledge on this subject to help all of us better understand how this all fits. For all of us. I believe there are still to many unknowns to clearly see the big picture here. 
 

No different than when greater light and knowledge was provide in 1978 on blacks holding the priesthood and receiving their eternal covenants.

So much agree with you. I like your analogy to help us see also. 

I've long held the analogy to imagine if someone is heterosexual and told they must only have sexual relations with those of the same sex. How would that feel? Sort of puts us in a gay person's shoes on what that feels like. Because if you are gay they are told to only have sexual relations with the opposite sex. And they only have those feelings for the same sex. It helps to empathize with gays.

[california boy]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

This is not at all like what the Church presents or is. I know LGBT who are active members and express a sense of belonging in our faith communities and who see themselves as having a strong connection to God.  It is true that many, LGBT or not, lack that sense of connection with others and with God, but to claim the Church is “clear” that LGBT probably won’t...I just don’t see that as accurate.
 

That some may interpret the implications of what the Church says as that would not surprise me, but I think they are inserting their own bias into the interpretation. 

We all know the intent of the Proclamation.  You would be hard pressed to pretend it is a statement welcoming LGBT members.  We also all know the church position on what is required if you are LGBT.  I know some are willing to make the choice to never have a partner in this life.  But for most, it is a stance that does not bring about a happy, healthy, and fulfilling life.  I think for most people that have found someone to share this life with, they understand how defestating their life would be without their spouse.  

[Ragerunner]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

So much agree with you. I like your analogy to help us see also. 

I've long held the analogy to imagine if someone is heterosexual and told they must only have sexual relations with those of the same sex. How would that feel? Sort of puts us in a gay person's shoes on what that feels like. Because if you are gay they are told to only have sexual relations with the opposite sex. And they only have those feelings for the same sex. It helps to empathize with gays.

Thanks for the response and comments. When you start breaking it all down into real life examples the level of empathy starts to grow. It also makes you realize the need for even more love and less judgement. 
 

I also agree with his statement. “Their would not be very many worth priesthood holders around to serve in the church if heterosexuals had to live the life homosexuals live.”

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, ttribe said:

they are not in order to be a fully participating member of the Church. 

You would seriously call all those active singles in the church who are attending meetings, being teachers and leaders, attending the temple and even working there as not fully participating?  I don’t see it that way at all. I do know many have a problem feeling they are valued by the Church because the structure supports family so well and other members may not give singles the appropriate type and level of attention, but I find it condescending to insist many who see themselves as all in as second class citizens. That is the kind of attitude Imo that too often perpetuates the idea singles are less. 

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, california boy said:

We also all know the church position on what is required if you are LGBT.  I know some are willing to make the choice to never have a partner in this life.  But for most, it is a stance that does not bring about a happy, healthy, and fulfilling life.

My problem is presenting life in the Church as a one size fits all. I think it as bad to insist that all LGBT or singles feel like second citizens as it is to insist that all must feel totally at home and welcomed. 

Edited May 18, 2021 by Calm

[ttribe]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

You would seriously call all those active singles in the church who are attending meetings, being teachers and leaders, attending the temple and even working there as not fully participating?  I don’t see it that way at all. I do know many have a problem feeling they are valued by the Church because the structure supports family so well and other members may not give singles the appropriate type and level of attention, but I find it condescending to insist many who see themselves as all in as second class citizens. That is the kind of attitude Imo that too often perpetuates the idea singles are less. 

It's not my attitude; but it is one that I have heard expressed by singles, as well, that they feel isolated and not able to fully participate.

Am I wrong in my assessment in the doctrinal importance of the sealing ordinance?  If so, I welcome correction.  If not, then how do you interpret statements by Church leadership on the importance of the sealing ordinance?

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Ragerunner said:

As a practicing active member of the LDS Church I had a friend that is a member of the church that deals with homosexual feelings. He helped me see the discussion on the idea that heterosexuals and homosexuals all have the same challenge to live the law of chastity as NOT true.

Same standard, disparate impact.

1 hour ago, Ragerunner said:

Image if every heterosexual male (he is male) in the church lived in a society where he not only needed to bridle his passions but in living a normal daily life he would go to the gym and had to change and shower with women, live with women in dorm situations, go to the bathroom with women, etc. He said you would probably not have a hand full of brethren that would be worthy priesthood holders and not in violation of the law of chastity multiple times.

How so?  

1 hour ago, Ragerunner said:

Add in that you were told that their where no options to deal with that ‘pent up’ sexual ‘tension’ for your entire life. This doesn’t even include the discussion of the human need to be in a loving relationship etc.

I am first to say I don’t have the answers. 

The Gospel does, though.

There are plenty of never-married, divorced and widowed members of the Church.  More than half of the adult members of the Church are unmarried, and hence are unable to engage in sexual behavior.  And yet all of us are held to the same standard, despite the disparate impact that standard has on each individual.

1 hour ago, Ragerunner said:

I do pray and hope that the Lord will provide greater light and knowledge on this subject to help all of us better understand how this all fits. For all of us. I believe there are still to many unknowns to clearly see the big picture here.

Very well said.  

For my part, I think the Law of Chastity will never change to accommodate same-sex behavior.  I just don't see it as part of the Plan.  I think those that hold out some sort of hope for this are setting themselves up for disappointment.  Neverthess, because "{w}e believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God" (AoF 1:9), I maintain a de minimis opening in my worldview for a change to the Law of Chastity.  

If I am wrong in my expectation, then I will happily alter my perspective and embrace further light and knowledge from God.  Meanwhile, however, we obey the commandments and listen to the Brethren.  Consider Alma 25 (speaking of the Anti-Nephi-Lehis) :

Quote

15 Yea, and they did keep the law of Moses; for it was expedient that they should keep the law of Moses as yet, for it was not all fulfilled. But notwithstanding the law of Moses, they did look forward to the coming of Christ, considering that the law of Moses was a type of his coming, and believing that they must keep those outward performances until the time that he should be revealed unto them.

16 Now they did not suppose that salvation came by the law of Moses; but the law of Moses did serve to strengthen their faith in Christ; and thus they did retain a hope through faith, unto eternal salvation, relying upon the spirit of prophecy, which spake of those things to come.

Those who are determined to hold out some sort of hope that the Law of Chastity will change would do well to emulate what is described here.  You keep the commandments you have received "until the time that {new commandments} should be revealed unto them."

1 hour ago, Ragerunner said:

No different than when greater light and knowledge was provide in 1978 on blacks holding the priesthood and receiving their eternal covenants.

I think there's quite a significant difference.  The Priesthood Ban lacked any known revelatory provenance.  We can't say the same about the Law of Chastity.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

"never-married, divorced and widowed" isn't an orientation. Someone who is divorced, or widowed (has had sex and wasn't exed) or who in the plan of Salvation could choose to get married in the next life (and presumable can have sex there) can do so, the plan of salvation offers no such opportunity to homosexual members. 

[Meadowchik]

On 5/16/2021 at 1:14 PM, Meadowchik said:

I certainly don't disagree that Western encroachment should be kept in mind. We certainly need to be aware of how power differentials impact how people communicate and thus how that impacts our perception. However you do seem to be rash in your apparent critique of my assertion that generally humans everywhere share some core values. Across time and space, we can reasonably say that human beings generally value 1) human life, 2)caring for children and the elderly, 3)honesty, 4)properly caring for their environment, to name a few ideals.

Surely your not saying that generally human beings do not share some normative ideals in common?

 

On 5/16/2021 at 2:56 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

What you are doing is not harmless. You are piggybacking on the very structures that enabled Euro-American colonialism (and which continue to protect Western political, economic and cultural dominance) to advance your personal agenda of 'enlightened' secularism against the desires of most of the world's people.

 I know specific examples from my own PhD research that belie all four of those assertions.

Yes, that is precisely what I am saying. Two hundred years ago, colonial elites positively knew that human beings shared a core of 'normative' values that conveniently aligned with Western Christianity. Now that the West has largely secularised, magically the universal values imagined by today's postcolonial elites conveniently align with Western secularism -- including radically new and culturally disruptive categories of sex and sexuality.

Exact same band, exact same tune ... only the lyrics have changed.

 

On 5/16/2021 at 5:37 PM, Meadowchik said:

What is exactly?

What about what I have said constitutes that? (the bolded)

Alright, let's see them then.

To be clear, what categories of sex and sexuality are radically new and disruptive?

 

@Hamba TuhanI am still looking forward to your answers to the above questions.

Also, it seems to me that you've projected your own views onto my own. I don't know where you think I derive my perspective about non-religious values, but I'll tell you that it starts with the universal human condition, which applies to everyone. Human beings are social, communal beings. We need each other to survive and thrive. Our young are born helpless and will not be fully developed for many years. Our elderly will have inevitably outlived generations, often carrying with them information vital to our communities, and will become more dependent upon others as they weaken with age. 

These human-specific facts mean that human beings will be more likely to advance and thrive when they support each other by valuing 1) human life, 2)caring for children and the elderly, 3)honesty, 4)properly caring for their environment.

More specifically to the thread topic, human beings are adaptive. They also tend to divide types of labor, where many become specialists in their work and therefore advance in skills that benefit the whole community. People in many different life situations can be of great benefit to the whole, and they can derive great benefit from communities that welcome their existence and accept their contributions. Young, elderly, married, unmarried, widowed, mothers, fathers, caretakers, husbands, and wives can all participate, and healthy communities will include husbands of husbands and wives of wives. These last two categories have existed in history, even if it was a limited extent and even if their status was not considered equal to heterosexual married couples, But same-sex companions have existed without their communities falling apart, and they have contributed to each others' well-being and well-being of their whole communities.

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by Meadowchik

[CV75]

22 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

 

@Hamba TuhanI am still looking forward to your answers to the above questions.

Also, it seems to me that you've projected your own views onto my own. I don't know where you think I derive my perspective about non-religious values, but I'll tell you that it starts with the universal human condition, which applies to everyone. Human beings are social, communal beings. We need each other to survive and thrive. Our young are born helpless and will not be fully developed for many years. Our elderly will have inevitably outlived generations, often carrying with them vital to our communities, and will become more dependent upon others as they weaken with age. 

These human-specific facts mean that human beings will be more likely to advance and thrive when they support each other by valuing 1) human life, 2)caring for children and the elderly, 3)honesty, 4)properly caring for their environment.

More specifically to the thread topic, human beings are adaptive. They also tend to divide types of labor, where many become specialists in their work and therefore advance in skills that benefit the whole community. People in many different life situations can be of great benefit to the whole, and they can derive great benefit from communities that welcome their existence and accept their contributions. Young, elderly, married, unmarried, widowed, mothers, fathers, caretakers, husbands, and wives can all participate, and healthy communities will include husbands of husbands and wives of wives. These last two categories have existed in history, even if it was a limited extent and even if their status was not considered equal to a heterosexual married couple. But same-sex companions have existed without their communities falling apart, and they have contributed to each others' well-being and well-being of the whole communities.

...and while I wasn't asking a question, I thought you might respond to my last reply to you, unless that was quite enough  ! : Posted Saturday at 08:09 PM

 

[smac97]

49 minutes ago, Duncan said:

"never-married, divorced and widowed" isn't an orientation.

Yet they face the same no-sex-outside-of-marriage constraints.

Quote

Someone who is divorced, or widowed (has had sex and wasn't exed) or who in the plan of Salvation could choose to get married

Well, no.  Plenty of people have limited "choice" in these matters.  A person who wants to never get married but never finds the right person.  A person whose spouse initiates a divorce (or whose spouse refuses to have relations while married).  A person whose spouse dies.  These are not simply matters of choice.  They are matters of circumstance and opportunity.

That said, what they can "choose" is to obey the commandments, including the Law of Chastity, knowing that "adversity and thine afflictions shall be but a small moment," and that if they "thou endure it well, God shall exalt {them} on high."  (D&C 121:7-8.)

Quote

in the next life (and presumable can have sex there) can do so, the plan of salvation offers no such opportunity to homosexual members. 

I think this is a shortsighted, blinkered and fundamentally incorrect view of the Plan of Salvation.

Every person who has ever lived on the earth will have a full and fair opportunity to attain salvation, including the highest kingdom of the Celestial Kingdom.  We don't know all the particulars of the journey, but we know what the destination is.  The choice to go there is up to the individual.

I think Hamba's observations bear repetition:

Quote

I have a PhD in history, so my approach is certainly shaped by that. I don't have children of my own, but I have long worked with young men and young missionaries and have taught them the following facts that are fully supported by historical and anthropological research:

• the concept of fixed, gendered sexual identities (both hetero- and homo-) is a late 19th-century social construct that has no historical precedence and, despite 150 years of Western colonisation of the imagination, these still haven't become natural categories across all cultures
• same-sex sexual behaviour has been ubiquitous since the beginning of recorded history (along with opposite-sex and other behaviours too numerous to list), though it has been framed in a dizzying number of ways across both time and space, with some cultures (for example, many Melanesian ones) having once required it as part of normal human development
• it is perfectly normal to experience various kinds of attractions to both males and females
• it is also perfectly normal not to be attracted to an entire class of people; for example, a male does not have to be attracted to females as a class, and to be honest, this can make living the Law of Chastity much easier!
• whilst some cultures offer very narrow gender stereotypes, there are actually an infinite number of ways to be a righteous man or woman
• the one constant is that all these things are fluid because humans are dynamic

To which I add the following:

• God, aware that sexuality is powerful, has provided guidelines to keep us safe and happy and help us to become most like Him
• we are currently in a historically unique time that presents a number of complications for Saints, so don't worry if you feel confused at times
• you are going to screw up in one or more areas of the Law of Chastity; I know because I have done the same
• don't panic when you find yourself in a headspace that doesn't fully match your eternal desires; this is a perfectly normal part of discipleship, which is why we have so many scriptures about it
• NEVER listen to someone who wants to place you in a box and keep you there; the whole point of the gospel is to free us from such limitations
• wherever you are in this process, I love you, and you are important to me
• it is essential that we are all nice to each other since we're all works in progress
• remember that perception is reality, so when people believe things about themselves that aren't true, those things are true to them at that point in time; try to be someone people might listen to when they're ready to shift their perceptions

I've had several young men and at least one former missionary thank me for taking this approach with them. They report feeling empowered by knowing the truth.

I think he's quite right.  My perspective on things places vital importance on some of them in the here and now that will, in the eternities, not matter a whit, or else will be clarified when I get there.

Meanwhile, our lot is to exercise faith in Jesus Christ, repent, partake of saving ordinances, serve our fellow man, live virtuous lives, and endure to the end.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 18, 2021 by smac97