Addressing lgbtq+ prior to coming out

[teddyaware]

7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

For the obvious reason of anachronism, I don't think the Saviour has ever directed any of his warnings in scripture specifically to the historically bound category of 'heterosexual' men.

To be blunt, your 'fact' is not a fact for the majority of adult men in the Church.

You don’t believe the Savior is speaking specifically to the unrighteous sexual desires of heterosexual men toward women in the following two verses from Matthew 5? If so, what am I missing that trained historians are able to see that render the Savior’s warning to be anachronistic (quaintly old fashioned) and therefore not specifically applicable to the heterosexual male members of the Church in the year 2021?

27 ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (Matt 5)

As to your second point, are you saying the majority of heterosexual men in the Church, who are able to performing sexually, don’t have sexual relations with their wives?

I have to admit I find your rather arcane responses to my perfectly obvious, reasonable and realistic questions to be rather mystifying.

 

Edited May 13, 2021 by teddyaware

[Hamba Tuhan]

37 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

You don’t believe the Savior is speaking specifically to the unrighteous sexual desires of heterosexual men toward women in the following two verses from Matthew 5?

Heterosexuality is a late 19th-century social construct -- in my opinion, equally as damaging to Saints in its own way as its homo-prefaced companion. So no, Jesus wasn't talking to heterosexual men at any point in the Bible.

(An anachronism occurs when we place something in the wrong time period.)

Quote

As to your second point, are you saying the majority of heterosexual men in the Church, who are able to performing sexually, don’t have sexual relations with their wives?

I have no way of knowing how many men in the Church would class themselves as heterosexual. I certainly don't. My father certainly didn't. But my point is simply that, as we've been told, men who have wives form a minority in the Church.

Edited May 13, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I might as well.  Though probably for different reasons.

Interesting. What reasons would you offer?

[lightparticle]

There's a lot to unload here, and I fear that a lot of the answers already given are addressing this from an angle that includes a barge-load of misperceptions. For the record, no you can't turn your kid gay. That's not how this works. If one is born gay, and then force-fed information telling them how sinful it is, they will hide it, suppress the feelings, and essentially destroy themselves over it in an effort to please God and family. Coming out later in life isn't the result of choosing to adopt a lifestyle. It's what happens when someone decides to accept themselves for who they are and live in accordance with it. Is the simple status of being LGBTQ+ a violation of any commandment, explicitly stated or implied?

I don't believe there is a concise definition of "active homosexuality" within doctrine, high level revelation, or declared stance. Because of this, the general membership tends to fill in the blanks with their own interpretations and how they treat the subject. As a result, the lived experiences of LGBTQ+ members will vary wildly depending on how their local leadership responds (often called "leadership roulette").

I get the impression that the focus on teaching the atonement and such in answer to anything LGBTQ+ continues to drive the "pray the gay away" method. In my experience, I have not encountered a single LGBTQ+ person who succeeded in this endeavour because it doesn't work that way. When the church continues to push the current stance (so eloquently described as "being gay is ok, doing gay is bad"), there is an intense focus on the latter portion of that statement. What does it mean to be "doing gay"? It's not considered immoral for a man and a woman to hold hands. How about if two men hold hands? Two women? Extrapolate that for additional comparisons.

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

active homosexuality is still the Rubicon one cannot cross and still have access to the temple and priesthood ordination. It is admittedly hard to be both welcoming and inclusive and at the same time firm and restrictive on those points.

 

23 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think when people truly internalize the Atonement of Christ and come across these frustrations and barriers, they possess a confidence in repentance and forgiveness when they or a loved one/acquaintance/ward member breaks a moral commandment.

 

13 hours ago, rpn said:

I hope today that no one is teaching that homosexuality is a sin ---- our leaders have unequivocably said that is NOT our doctrine.

I think we teach that gender is eternal, and that everyone is invited to live the commandments.  That different people have different struggles with different commandments and that all of His children retain the capacity to follow the commandments whatever our personal difficulties with doing so.

When reading these statements, take a step back and see something from my perspective. Do you see the dichotomy? Saying that church doctrine doesn't teach that homosexuality is a sin, then immediately following it up with a statement that everyone has different struggles with different commandments, and that everyone is invited to live them. In other words, it isn't specifically taught, but is most definitely strongly implied. You see, if your answers to the question of how to treat someone LGBTQ+ in the church is to emphasize the atonement, repentance, and forgiveness, then you do believe being gay is a sin. If it wasn't a sin, why would application of the atonement, repentance, and forgiveness to the topic be necessary? You may not see it from your point of view, but trust me when I say that those who are LGBTQ+ hear it loud and clear, which is precisely why:

 

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

the end result ends up being people separating themselves from the Church, despite genuine welcoming and inclusiveness.

 

[jkwilliams]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Interesting. What reasons would you offer?

I'm trying to think of how I would have handled it as a believing church member if it were my child. I think it would have been pretty stressful for both me and the child in question. Despite the messages of "genuine welcoming and inclusion," there really isn't a place in the church, practically or doctrinally, for same-sex relationships. I really don't know how you're supposed to simultaneously teach your child that God loves you for who you are, but the church rejects any expression of that major part of you. 

A few years ago, my son came out to us, and I remember being so grateful that the church wasn't an issue for either of us. He told me he was dating guys, and it was no more stressful for either of us than it would have been if he had told me he was left-handed. 

[Maestrophil]

As many have pointed out - this is a tough issue.  As someone who has queer children myself, and is an active believing member, I struggle too.

The real challenge for me (and I imagine for most) is that at the end of the day - there is no room in the gospel as currently taught and understood in the church, for a gay member to have a sexually active relationship with someone they are naturally attracted to.  Not ever in this life or the next.  Not if they want to obtain the blessings of the temple and membership in good standing - thus exaltation.  So the only options are, to accept it somehow as God's will and submit to it by being completely abstinent forever in hopes that things will somehow be made right in the eternities, try and live as if you could change by making 'correct' choices (ie, getting married to a person of the opposite sex and faking it with lots of prayer, faith and struggle), stay closeted, leave the church and live the way you feel inclined to live and love - and lastly, and most sadly, to choose to leave this existence.  

I don't even pretend to know how I would have dealt with these things if I had faced that challenge for myself, and it breaks my heart and is a burden and test of my faith that my children have to.  I know I can love and support them no matter what.  My Heavenly Father lets me choose, even if my choices are not His preference, and He just is there always with open arms when I need Him.  If I want to be like Him, that's what I think I need to learn to do every day with every child - and even each of my Earthly brothers and sisters.  But that still doesn't help comfort me in knowing how the church can address this issue - on the one hand, if marriage was ever widened in a church/gospel context to include same-sex marriage it would make things a lot easier and more hopeful for many, but on the other, it would also bring into question my whole understanding of the plan of salvation, the nature of God, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ - to the point where it would be honestly difficult for me to reframe it in a way that I could maintain the same strength of faith and testimony due to the immense shift I would have to make mentally - if that makes any sense.

I just know my heart is sad for those who struggle with this, and for the many great members I have seen leave fellowship in the church due to their struggles with this.

[Maestrophil]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

I'm trying to think of how I would have handled it as a believing church member if it were my child. I think it would have been pretty stressful for both me and the child in question. Despite the messages of "genuine welcoming and inclusion," there really isn't a place in the church, practically or doctrinally, for same-sex relationships. I really don't know how you're supposed to simultaneously teach your child that God loves you for who you are, but the church rejects any expression of that major part of you. 

A few years ago, my son came out to us, and I remember being so grateful that the church wasn't an issue for either of us. He told me he was dating guys, and it was no more stressful for either of us than it would have been if he had told me he was left-handed. 

I wrote my post right as you were writing yours it seems, and you are illustrative of what I was saying.  I am glad you were able to handle the situation with your son as you were.  I truly understand the reason/need people have to leave the church behind in order to reduce that pain and dissonance. 

Another reason why, as an active member, I could see someone encouraging their child to leave the church, is that, if you know they will likely eventually choose to engage in sexual activity to be authentic to their desires, they will be breaking covenants, whereas if they resign their membership, they will not be held to the same level of judgment for their choices?  Just a thought.

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

it would also bring into question my whole understanding of the plan of salvation, the nature of God, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ - to the point where it would be honestly difficult for me to reframe it in a way that I could maintain the same strength of faith and testimony due to the immense shift I would have to make mentally - if that makes any sense.

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

[rongo]

1 hour ago, lightparticle said:

Is the simple status of being LGBTQ+ a violation of any commandment, explicitly stated or implied?

Not the simple status, if by status is meant feeling gay attraction --- but not acting on it. 

1 hour ago, lightparticle said:

I don't believe there is a concise definition of "active homosexuality" within doctrine, high level revelation, or declared stance. Because of this, the general membership tends to fill in the blanks with their own interpretations and how they treat the subject. As a result, the lived experiences of LGBTQ+ members will vary wildly depending on how their local leadership responds (often called "leadership roulette").

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

You are correct that roulette leads to some leaders choosing to enforce this, and others choosing not to. But it's that way with everything else, too. I've shared this before, but a member of my ward left his wife for his 19 year-old 1st cousin. His stake president had a blanket policy of absolutely no excommunications or disfellowshipment, no matter what. This was opposed to almost any other stake in the world. 

1 hour ago, lightparticle said:

When the church continues to push the current stance (so eloquently described as "being gay is ok, doing gay is bad"), there is an intense focus on the latter portion of that statement. What does it mean to be "doing gay"?

Gay physical manifestations of affection. 

1 hour ago, lightparticle said:

It's not considered immoral for a man and a woman to hold hands. How about if two men hold hands? Two women? Extrapolate that for additional comparisons.

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

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

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

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

1 hour ago, lightparticle said:

When reading these statements, take a step back and see something from my perspective. Do you see the dichotomy? Saying that church doctrine doesn't teach that homosexuality is a sin, then immediately following it up with . . . [emphasis on] the atonement, repentance, and forgiveness, then you do believe being gay is a sin. If it wasn't a sin, why would application of the atonement, repentance, and forgiveness to the topic be necessary?

That was also my thought when @rpn posted that homosexuality isn't a sin. I didn't respond, because I assumed that he meant tendencies and attraction only, sans action. If he meant homosexual behavior, then that is incorrect, as you point out. There is no getting around that, and that is why those who don't want to continue to fight their inclinations ultimately end up leaving the Church (if they want to keep on fighting, then obviously they stay). 

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

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

I believe it really is untenable with the plan of salvation, because I believe everything that the Restoration teaches about the pre-existence, purpose of mortality, and the hereafter (encapsulated in the Proclamation on the Family). **If** that is all actually true, then that truly is the way things are, and the progressive stance of the last fifty years or so is simply wrong (as far as the way things really are). 

ETA: And, if the Mormons are wrong about the pre-existence, purpose of life, hereafter, etc., then the progressive point of view is the way things really are. They can't both be right. 

I've shared this before, but a man screamed at us when we knocked on his door that we hated gay people, and he hated us. I shouted back, asking if we could come in and defend ourselves. Surprisingly, he let us in. He apologized, and explained that he was a gay actor, and all of his friends were gay. I told him we don't hate gay people. He said that he believed in God, but didn't believe homosexuality is a sin to God. I told him that we can't both be right, and asked him if it is possible to find out what God actually does think about it. He didn't know (hadn't really thought about it it seemed like). The Proclamation had just been issued the week before, and we had copies of it and we gave him one. We read the second to last paragraph together (We solemnly proclaim that the calamities proclaimed by ancient and modern prophets will fall upon individuals, communities, and nations who violate covenants of chastity . . .). While he didn't agree with us on the issue, he did acknowledge that if we were right, he could understand that it would be important to let people know and try to convince them to repent.

I think of this experience whenever there are discussions like this. I don't know that people really believe or care what God really thinks about this --- they more care about what they think about it. Would people be willing to change if they were wrong? The sword cuts both ways --- would I be willing to change if I learned that I and the Church have been wrong all this time? 

Edited May 13, 2021 by rongo

[CV75]

1 hour ago, lightparticle said:

There's a lot to unload here, and I fear that a lot of the answers already given are addressing this from an angle that includes a barge-load of misperceptions. For the record, no you can't turn your kid gay. That's not how this works. If one is born gay, and then force-fed information telling them how sinful it is, they will hide it, suppress the feelings, and essentially destroy themselves over it in an effort to please God and family. Coming out later in life isn't the result of choosing to adopt a lifestyle. It's what happens when someone decides to accept themselves for who they are and live in accordance with it. Is the simple status of being LGBTQ+ a violation of any commandment, explicitly stated or implied?

I don't believe there is a concise definition of "active homosexuality" within doctrine, high level revelation, or declared stance. Because of this, the general membership tends to fill in the blanks with their own interpretations and how they treat the subject. As a result, the lived experiences of LGBTQ+ members will vary wildly depending on how their local leadership responds (often called "leadership roulette").

I get the impression that the focus on teaching the atonement and such in answer to anything LGBTQ+ continues to drive the "pray the gay away" method. In my experience, I have not encountered a single LGBTQ+ person who succeeded in this endeavour because it doesn't work that way. When the church continues to push the current stance (so eloquently described as "being gay is ok, doing gay is bad"), there is an intense focus on the latter portion of that statement. What does it mean to be "doing gay"? It's not considered immoral for a man and a woman to hold hands. How about if two men hold hands? Two women? Extrapolate that for additional comparisons.

When reading these statements, take a step back and see something from my perspective. Do you see the dichotomy? Saying that church doctrine doesn't teach that homosexuality is a sin, then immediately following it up with a statement that everyone has different struggles with different commandments, and that everyone is invited to live them. In other words, it isn't specifically taught, but is most definitely strongly implied. You see, if your answers to the question of how to treat someone LGBTQ+ in the church is to emphasize the atonement, repentance, and forgiveness, then you do believe being gay is a sin. If it wasn't a sin, why would application of the atonement, repentance, and forgiveness to the topic be necessary? You may not see it from your point of view, but trust me when I say that those who are LGBTQ+ hear it loud and clear, which is precisely why:

Thank you for bringing this up, because it is a key issue.

I hold that “the simple status of being LGBTQ+” is not “a violation of any commandment, explicitly stated or implied.” I think misunderstanding this leads to the false dichotomy you describe in your last paragraph, but I understand how people misunderstand or misperceive it. It is largely semantic, which needs to be talked through and prayed about for individual application. The Atonement of Christ covers far more than just sin, it offers grace. Repentance is far more than leaving sin but becoming more Christlike with that grace. Forgiveness is for doing, not being, and with charity is the highest expression of grace I can aspire to.

Rather than focus on "active homosexuality" (what is “active heterosexuality” by the way?), consider the tie-in the ordinances and covenants have with specific commandments and standards. This might also address the tendency to draw the false dichotomy and why people leave.

Using faith in Christ and His Atonement as the basis for dealing with any and all challenge is not at all “pray the gay away.” It doesn’t work that way. 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 way the blessings of the Atonement of Christ work are in receiving His ordinances and keeping His covenants.

Holding hands? That is a norm (or a “not-constant standard”) that differs with culture and changes over time. We all belong to a culture and time where we negotiate with the norms in various ways for various ends.

So, a vehement NO to emphasizing the Atonement of Christ (and repentance and forgiveness) in dealing with our moral actions is because being gay is a sin.

[rongo]

Just now, CV75 said:

Rather than focus on "active homosexuality" (what is “active heterosexuality” by the way?)

I would say (since "active homosexuality" is my phrase) that "active heterosexuality" involves things like sex, hand-holding, kissing, fantasizing, and hetero- porn/masturbation. A straight person who doesn't engage in this, either through self-control or lack of opportunity, would be similar to a gay person who doesn't engage in any of this, either through self-control or lack of opportunity. 

The "active" part means that one is living in some way and in some sense a lifestyle, while the opposite of this would involve tendency or attraction only. The latter isn't a sin (for both gay or straight people). The "active" part would be, to varying degrees on a continuum. 

[Meadowchik]

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

I believe it really is untenable with the plan of salvation, because I believe everything that the Restoration teaches about the pre-existence, purpose of mortality, and the hereafter (encapsulated in the Proclamation on the Family). **If** that is all actually true, then that truly is the way things are, and the progressive stance of the last fifty years or so is simply wrong (as far as the way things really are). 

What precisely makes it untenable?

[jkwilliams]

13 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

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

I was out in Utah a couple of months ago, and a family member in his forties who is active in the church came out to me. I'm not even sure why he told me. Anyway, he was telling me how he has lived his entire life keeping his covenants, knowing he's always going to be alone. He looked brokenhearted and, really, broken to me. I wanted to tell him that it was OK to walk away, that the church isn't actually true, but I felt like it wasn't my place. It still kind of haunts me to think of that conversation. He gets teased for being a "confirmed bachelor" or a "forty-year-old virgin," but I don't think many people know the pain and loneliness he lives with. It breaks my heart. 

[CV75]

I see a tendency to focus on and emphasize the social role of Church (staying or leaving), but it is "only" an appendage to the Atonement of Christ. I think if we appreciated the role this appendage has, the primary question to answer is, "Do I stay or leave Him?" Otherwise I think the whole point of the Gospel has been missed. This is how, ultimately, dealing with sexuality and its social ramifications is primarily a spiritual matter, and requires God's grace.

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

I would say (since "active homosexuality" is my phrase) that "active heterosexuality" involves things like sex, hand-holding, kissing, fantasizing, and hetero- porn/masturbation. A straight person who doesn't engage in this, either through self-control or lack of opportunity, would be similar to a gay person who doesn't engage in any of this, either through self-control or lack of opportunity. 

The "active" part means that one is living in some way and in some sense a lifestyle, while the opposite of this would involve tendency or attraction only. The latter isn't a sin (for both gay or straight people). The "active" part would be, to varying degrees on a continuum. 

Except the church doesn't ask single heterosexuals to refrain from hand-holding or kissing. And I don't think you can be disciplined by the church for fantasizing. The rules are different for gay members.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

I see a tendency to focus on and emphasize the social role of Church (staying or leaving), but it is "only" an appendage to the Atonement of Christ. I think if we appreciated the role this appendage has, the primary question to answer is, "Do I stay or leave Him?" Otherwise I think the whole point of the Gospel has been missed. This is how, ultimately, dealing with sexuality and its social ramifications is primarily a spiritual matter, and requires God's grace.

I try not to conflate leaving a church with leaving Christ. 

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

What precisely makes it untenable?

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

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

[CV75]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

I would say (since "active homosexuality" is my phrase) that "active heterosexuality" involves things like sex, hand-holding, kissing, fantasizing, and hetero- porn/masturbation. A straight person who doesn't engage in this, either through self-control or lack of opportunity, would be similar to a gay person who doesn't engage in any of this, either through self-control or lack of opportunity. 

The "active" part means that one is living in some way and in some sense a lifestyle, while the opposite of this would involve tendency or attraction only. The latter isn't a sin (for both gay or straight people). The "active" part would be, to varying degrees on a continuum. 

Thank you for explaining that -- I think it illustrates the importance of the ordinances, covenants, commandments and standards as a reflection of the Atonement of Christ as our go-to.

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Except the church doesn't ask single heterosexuals to refrain from hand-holding or kissing. And I don't think you can be disciplined by the church for fantasizing. The rules are different for gay members.

I think they are different in these "lower tier" areas (not fantasizing --- that's in all of the Standard Works as "committing adultery already in one's heart") because heterosexuality can lead to eternal marriage. If homosexuality can't, then behavior should not be encouraged by the Church. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, rongo said:

I think they are different in these "lower tier" areas (not fantasizing --- that's in all of the Standard Works as "committing adultery already in one's heart") because heterosexuality can lead to eternal marriage. If homosexuality can't, then behavior should not be encouraged by the Church. 

That's fine, but you can't say it's the same requirement for heterosexual members. 

[rongo]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

That's fine, but you can't say it's the same requirement for heterosexual members. 

I agree. The requirements are harder for gay people. 

[Maestrophil]

33 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

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

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

[CV75]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Except the church doesn't ask single heterosexuals to refrain from hand-holding or kissing. And I don't think you can be disciplined by the church for fantasizing. The rules are different for gay members.

Please provide a Church Handbook reference that establishes a double standard for hand-holding, kissing and fantasizing. I'd like to evaluate and address those sections. Thank you.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Please provide a Church Handbook reference that establishes a double standard for hand-holding, kissing and fantasizing. I'd like to evaluate and address those sections. Thank you.

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