Addressing lgbtq+ prior to coming out

[CV75]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

SMAC said this:

I am only pointing out that both lack any known revelatory provenance. What SMAC said is simply not true.  At some future date, Church leaders could make the same exact claim about not allowing same sex marriage as just being the opinion of Church leaders at the time because it is currently based on their interpretation of the Law of Chastity and not upon a revelation from God.  You and others may agree on how they currently interpret the Law of Chastity, but since there is no revelation on this issue,  it is at this time,  just their opinion. 

You might also remember that for over a century, the Church did insist that the Priesthood Ban was based on revelation.  It is only recently that position has changed.

I might also point out that just like the Priesthood Ban, a gay married couple can not hold the priesthood.  

I also might add that I am not advocating for a change in policy, I am only advocating being truthful about it.

And I agree with him. The revelations on priesthood neither prohibited nor established the ban, but lifting the ban – whatever its origin (it was generally believed, accurately or not, to have been revealed) -- was consistent with them: the revelations always authorized the ordination of worthy males (of any skin color, of any sexual orientation). Engagement in unauthorized practices would render men unworthy of ordination.

There is no ban on same-sex marriage, only the revelations that have always only authorized marriage between a man and a woman. We do not perform them because they are not defined in the revelations as an application, not because there is a ban placed on receiving a defined ordinance.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

20 hours ago, california boy said:

Oh really?  Can you show me where the revelation is that says sex within a same sex marriage is against the Law of Chastity?  Cause where I am sitting, the lack of revelatory provenance is EXACTLY the same as assumptions about revelation on the Priesthood Ban.  

If anything there is more scriptural support (at least in a latter-day-saints version) for the priesthood ban than against homosexuality. 

[CV75]

28 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

If you like we can word it that way, though I will do so under protest because LDS teachings certainly frame covenants in terms of relationships. 

Anyway, the temple covenant of sealing involves one spouse making promises specific to the other spouse who is named. Neither spouse, however, can control whether the other keeps their covenants. One may fail to do so and reject repentance and thus not remain married for the eternities. However, such a failure of one spouse does not negate the promised blessings to the spouse who kept their covenants. 

Therefore, the covenant one spouse makes involving the other is subject to change. The spouse who has kept their covenants will not be married to the same person in the eternities, but they will be married.

 

I understand and normally would see them as synonymous, but in discussions like these, I put a much finer point on the terms we use. Marriage is primarily an ordinance, a covenant whose terms are defined by God. Interpersonal relationships of various kinds can exist with or without, within and outside of, that covenant.

The sealing exists between couples and their adoptive or natural ancestors and descendants. The structure of the marriage covenant does not change; it remains between a man and a woman.

[kllindley]

@Hamba Tuhan I know it really shouldn't surprise me at this point, but I still find it fascinating how critics of the church's position seem so utterly intent on ignoring the facts you brought up earlier in this thread.  It is also unfortunate when those who seem to want to support the Doctrine get unintentionally sucked into an incompatible worldview through the dominant discourse around sexuality.  It almost makes me wish I could raise my children away from Western Culture. 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, kllindley said:

@Hamba Tuhan I know it really shouldn't surprise me at this point, but I still find it fascinating how critics of the church's position seem so utterly intent on ignoring the facts you brought up earlier in this thread.  It is also unfortunate when those who seem to want to support the Doctrine get unintentionally sucked into an incompatible worldview through the dominant discourse around sexuality.  It almost makes me wish I could raise my children away from Western Culture. 

I assume you are referencing these points?

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.

Similarly, Jordan Peterson has done a good job of examining the illogic we are seeing in current gender theory:

Thanks,

-Smac

[kllindley]

Yep. Having an accurate understanding of the reality about sexual orientation and identity really renders the majority of the gipes and complaints about the Church and the Law of Chastity irrelevant.  I'd go so far as to say that 90% of my pain and struggle were resolved by letting go of the popular caricatures or sexual orientation and identity so prevalent in today's popular culture. 

(I'm really not in a place to address the issues of gender identity right now, so I don't have any comment on the video you posted.)

[Calm]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

One way “opposition in all things” is expressed is with gender

Meaning what please?

[CV75]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Meaning what please?

According to the model, a man and a woman, side by side before God.

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, CV75 said:

According to the model, a man and a woman, side by side before God.

I think that takes the quote out of context unless for eternity male and female are forever presenting different choices, arguing...

Oaks on the verse:

Quote

To be tested, we must have the agency to choose between alternatives. To provide alternatives on which to exercise our agency, we must have opposition....

Opposition in the form of difficult circumstances we face in mortality is also part of the plan that furthers our growth in mortality.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2016/04/opposition-in-all-things?lang=eng

Quote

1 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility

So is male in the category of holiness or misery?  And female being the opposition would be misery or holiness?

I don’t have an issue with using the complementary principle as one explanation for why it must be male and female in eternal marriage, but using this scripture to support it is taking it too far out of context. 

Edited May 19, 2021 by Calm

[CV75]

46 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think that takes the quote out of context unless for eternity male and female are forever presenting different choices, arguing...

Oaks on the verse:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2016/04/opposition-in-all-things?lang=eng

So is male in the category of holiness or misery?  And female being the opposition would be misery or holiness?

I don’t have an issue with using the complementary principle as one explanation for why it must be male and female in eternal marriage, but using this scripture to support it is taking it too far out of context. 

This talk speaks to the role of “opposition in all things” as it pertains to moral agency. The Book of Mormon quote you provided speaks directly to this. I believe the law has many other applications that permit us to think, evaluate and act in time and space. The Atonement of Jesus Christ reconciles other forms of opposition (mercy and grace, charity and law, physical and spiritual, etc.). The "truth" reconciles faith and knowledge in terms of reconciling past, present and future, each in opposition to each other. Once reconciled, faith and knowledge are functionally the same thing, in my opinion.

Even then, the moral enticement of gender can apply when a person is in a position to decide to marry a man or a woman, given that a person of either sex is equally enticing to them or someone of the same sex is more enticing to them.

Male and female alone, by themselves, would be “not good.” The opposition here is together/apart, and sometimes this represents a moral choice on our part.

I see complementarianism as a subset or expression of opposition, not as a stand-alone principle. The idea of complementary sexes is set forth in many other scriptures, but not the term itself.

Edited May 19, 2021 by CV75

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 hours ago, kllindley said:

I'd go so far as to say that 90% of my pain and struggle were resolved by letting go of the popular caricatures o[f] sexual orientation and identity so prevalent in today's popular culture. 

'And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free'.

Sadly, far too many people are content to allow others -- even their own children! -- to struggle and, too often, perish inside man-made boxes as long as it furthers their personal agendas or satisfies their need to feel progressive, or heroic, or something. Such seem to be immune to facts.

Others out of blindness make the same mistakes:

8 hours ago, kllindley said:

It is also unfortunate when those who seem to want to support the Doctrine get unintentionally sucked into an incompatible worldview through the dominant discourse around sexuality.

The Restored Gospel is the best implement I know for enabling people to actually see beyond/outside and then deconstruct the prison-houses of discourse. Until we can see our bondage, however, we don't often pick up the tools we've been gifted:

'They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?'

The Book of Mormon in particular invites readers to critically consider the traditions of their fathers, as did the Lord in this same discourse with the Jews:

'I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father'.

Quote

It almost makes me wish I could raise my children away from Western Culture.

Keep fighting the good fight, my brother in Christ! I know from personal experience that young people want to hear the truth and are quite capable of grasping it regardless of where we raise them.

One of my good mates here is a refugee from South Sudan who just finished up nearly 20 years working for the UNHCR. One of his deepest concerns is the ability to raise his three children in a place like this without losing them to a dominant culture that so skilfully masks its artificiality and novelty with claims to both universality and timelessness. In this regard, he covets what we Saints have.

 

[Meadowchik]

19 hours ago, CV75 said:

I understand and normally would see them as synonymous, but in discussions like these, I put a much finer point on the terms we use. Marriage is primarily an ordinance, a covenant whose terms are defined by God. Interpersonal relationships of various kinds can exist with or without, within and outside of, that covenant.

The sealing exists between couples and their adoptive or natural ancestors and descendants. The structure of the marriage covenant does not change; it remains between a man and a woman.

So you do agree that the covenant changes? But you seem to be saying that, while an actual spouse may be replaced, only men can be replaced by men and only women can be replaced by women.

[CV75]

7 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

So you do agree that the covenant changes? But you seem to be saying that, while an actual spouse may be replaced, only men can be replaced by men and only women can be replaced by women.

I do not mean to convey that the covenant changes. (I stated, "The structure of the marriage covenant does not change; it remains between a man and a woman."). The couple can be sealed and unsealed in the covenant, but the covenant retains its structure and definition. God is always party to the covenant, and authorizes its administration and unsealing. This is how divorced persons can retain their sealing blessings with God even though the marriage covenant has been unsealed.

[Meadowchik]

Just now, CV75 said:

I do not mean to convey that the covenant changes. (I stated, "The structure of the marriage covenant does not change; it remains between a man and a woman."). The couple can be sealed and unsealed in the covenant, but the covenant retains its structure and definition. God is always party to the covenant, and authorizes its administration and unsealing. This is how divorced persons can retain their sealing blessings with God even though the marriage covenant has been unsealed.

And yet the covenant still changes. Its nature is one involving the husband and wife at the time of the sealing, making promises by name regarding their interactions with each other.

[Meadowchik]

10 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

'And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free'.

Sadly, far too many people are content to allow others -- even their own children! -- to struggle and, too often, perish inside man-made boxes as long as it furthers their personal agendas or satisfies their need to feel progressive, or heroic, or something. Such seem to be immune to facts.

 

These are presumptions about parents and their motives.

I don't see that you have presented any data that contradicts the realness of homosexual bonds and relationships. And, unless I'm mistaken, you've also neglected to present data you claim to have when I asked for it.

10 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

The Restored Gospel is the best implement I know for enabling people to actually see beyond/outside and then deconstruct the prison-houses of discourse. Until we can see our bondage, however, we don't often pick up the tools we've been gifted:

There are many who also believe that the Restored Gospel makes room for expansive understandings of human relationships which would allow the church to accept the validity of same-sex unions. 

People can create "prison-houses of discourse" in their personal and shared ideologies, and none are immune. 

[CV75]

49 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And yet the covenant still changes. Its nature is one involving the husband and wife at the time of the sealing, making promises by name regarding their interactions with each other.

In this case, it is the same covenant made by different parties. The baptism covenant doesn't change just because different people enter into it; it doesn't change because an excommunicated person is re-baptized.  An individual marriage can be dissolved, but this does not change the institution / covenant of marriage.

[mfbukowski]

On 5/15/2021 at 8:35 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

Exactly, and much of what might currently be perceived as shared core values is really just a veneer in response to ongoing Western dominance. It results in part from the cultural and intellectual assimilation of non-Western political elites, precisely as was the case under colonial rule, but a very large part results from sheer coercion. (Just ask non-Western delegates to international conferences!) 

Beneath this veneer swirl strong currents of resentment and stubborn subaltern defences of competing values.

The naive appeal to some mythical universal humanity turns a blind eye to — and, essentially, enables — the reality, scope, and violence of the West’s current cultural dominance. 

No Politics.  I knew Angela Davis personally and rejected that.

We really should refrain from that here.

[Tacenda]

David Archuleta has come out either gay or bi-sexual, he's not really sure. I hope he does well with this. I'm sure it's quite difficult for him to reconcile the church and this.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm sure it's quite difficult for him to reconcile the church and this.

I think you should let him speak for himself rather than making assumptions.  Who knows, it may be harder reconciling what he hears from the world and what he feels in his heart.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CQB0FNtlLrs/
 

Quote

. I just invite you to please consider making room to be more understanding and compassionate to those who are LGBTQIA+, and those who are a part of that community and trying to find that balance with their faith which also is a huge part of their identity like myself. I think we can do better as people of faith and Christians, including Latter-day Saints, to listen more to the wrestle between being LGBTQIA+ and a person of faith. There are more than you may realize going through that wrestle after all the misunderstandings that come with it. I don’t think it should come down to feeling you have to accept one or the other. 

For me to find peace the reality has been to accept both are real things I experience and make who I am. I’ve yet to figure out what that means but I appreciate you listening to this personal matter. Again I don’t feel comfortable sharing it, but felt I needed to to bring more awareness to people in my same situation and let you know you’re not alone. You can be part of the LGBTQIA+ community and still believe in God and His gospel plan... 

 

Edited June 13, 2021 by Calm

[Tacenda]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think you should let him speak for himself rather than making assumptions.  Who knows, it may be harder reconciling what he hears from the world and what he feels in his heart.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CQB0FNtlLrs/
 

 

True, thanks. Didn't think of that.

[Peacefully]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I think you should let him speak for himself rather than making assumptions.  Who knows, it may be harder reconciling what he hears from the world and what he feels in his heart.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CQB0FNtlLrs/
 

 

David A. Facebook post:

I like to keep to myself but also thought this was important to share because I know so many other people from religious upbringings feel the same way. I’ve been open to myself and my close family for some years now that I am not sure about my own sexuality. I came out in 2014 as gay to my family. But then I learned I somewhat have similar feelings for both men and women so identify as being bisexual. I’m still trying to figure things out as  I also have learned I don’t have as many sexual desires and urges as most people 💀 which works i guess because I have a commitment to save myself for marriage 🤣. Which people call asexual when they don’t experience sexual urges. There are people experiencing the same feelings of being LGBTQIA+, (i know that’s a lot of letters that a lot of people don’t understand, but there are a lot of unique experiences people feel and live that make them feel isolated and alone that are represented) a lot of them wrestling to follow their beliefs that are so important to them as I have. Idk what to make of it and I don’t have all the answers. I just invite you to please consider making room to be more understanding and compassionate to those who are LGBTQIA+, and those who are a part of that community and trying to find that balance with their faith which also is a huge part of their identity like myself. I think we can do better as people of faith and Christians, including Latter-day Saints, to listen more to the wrestle between being LGBTQIA+ and a person of faith. There are more than you may realize going through that wrestle after all the misunderstandings that come with it. I don’t think it should come down to feeling you have to accept one or the other. For me to find peace the reality has been to accept both are real things I experience and make who I am. I’ve yet to figure out what that means but I appreciate you listening to this personal matter. Again I don’t feel comfortable sharing it, but felt I needed to to bring more awareness to people in my same situation and let you know you’re not alone. You can be part of the LGBTQIA+ community and still believe in God and His gospel plan. And people who don’t experience what’s outside of the norm being just heterosexual I just plead that you be more understanding to people who experience and struggle with things that you may not experience and understand yourself. I’ve tried for almost 20 years to try and change myself until I realized God made me how I am for a purpose. And instead of hating what I have considered wrong I need to see why God loved me for who I am and that it’s not just sexuality. So many other traits of who I am come from how I’ve been created. If other people choose to live differently than what you’ve been raised to believe is right, please have compassion because it’s most likely been an exhausting journey for them to be ok with the feelings they have and never have been able to change. Perhaps they weren’t supposed to try and change the way they were created to be. Even if you’re left with so many more questions with faith and sexuality like me I believe being open to both questions and to faith is how we receive answers. God blesses those who ask. So let’s keep asking and seeking, and having compassion and patience. Thank you for listening.  🙏

[Calm]

More complete than what was available on Instagram. Thank you. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

It’s to our shame that we have created discourses that cause people to feel conflicted because they are perfectly normal instead of ‘heterosexual’. 

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It’s to our shame that we have created discourses that cause people to feel conflicted because they are perfectly normal instead of ‘heterosexual’. 

Well stated. 

[Calm]

Thought experiment (what can I say, my mind is wandering in strange ways tonight) for those who believe people are born with their sexual orientation and it does not and cannot change.  Not trying to persuade anyone to change their POV. Not trying to argue that homosexuality is abnormal (I don’t believe that, my belief is at least mortal humans are naturally sexually fluid over a range and sexual expression—which includes targets of that behaviour—is dependent on multiple factors including environment and experience as well as biological influences).  I am trying to understand the inborn sexual orientation position better.

Storyline:  Back in the early days of human oceangoing travel, a group of mostly men and a few women set out across the seas.  A big storm occurs, damages their ship and they end up stranded on a (well vegetated with lots of birds and other meat) island.  It lacks anything capable of being made into ocean capability, so they can survive but are stuck.  In the storm, all but one of the women die.  Once stranded, the woman gets pregnant and has a boy, but dies in childbirth.  The father chooses another man to help him be the primary caregivers.  The rest form their own families for companionship. The older men raise him up healthy and strong, but since they are stranded with no women and they figure they all will grow old and die on the island without rescue, why have him long for the impossible and the community decides not to tell him about women.  They think up a story to explain children without women and if he sees make and female animals, they tell him that is just for animals and not humans.  Their culture prior to the wreck was one based primarily on family, man and woman marrying and having kids, sexual behaviour varied as is not unusual in many cultures, so assume their own orientations have a normal range.
 

Part 1:  Assume this boy was born with an heterosexual orientation...what would that mean under the conditions he grew up?  Would he therefore have no sexual attraction to anyone around him since there were no females and he wasn’t even aware they existed?  

Part 2 (please ignore until done discussing your ideas about part 1):

One day when he is in his early 30s, a ship comes by and rescues him and the remaining men and take them to a society much like the one his parents were from.  He encounters women and sees families composed of a mother and father.  What happens now in regard to who he is sexually attracted to?

PS: since this is in an ongoing thread, not going to set up limits of conversation, but if my story setup turns to arguing about morality of homosexual behaviour or something else and overwhelms the sharing of ideas about how sexual expression comes to be, I may start a thread devoted to it.  Or if Fether or others ask me to as too far off topic.

Edited June 13, 2021 by Calm