Addressing lgbtq+ prior to coming out

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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

Yup, it does. And also, where are those rules coming from? They don't sound charitable 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Meadowchik said:

Yup, it does. And also, where are those rules coming from? They don't sound charitable 

They assume an adversarial relationship with anyone questioning the church's teachings. 

[CV75]

40 minutes ago, Jamie said:

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

I agree, though I'm probably a bit more careful than most think I need to be about using the term "biological" with reference to spirits, whose life processes are not physical like ours. I do envision a spirit's gender to be morphologically expressed.

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

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

You see the issue now?

Yes: the issue is that one set of principles say, "such and such", and the other set says, "not such and such, but this and that." It doesn't matter who's to say what, only what one accepts as real. I am explaining the set within which I operate and have found to be successful for myself and others when chosen to be applied.

[Jamie]

5 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

 

 

 

<SIGH>

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

 

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

1)  all people are different, regardless of whether some are heterosexual or LGBTQ+ or black or white or short or tall or fat or slender.  All people are different.  It does no good to think all people should be eactly the same

2) God our Father and Jesus Christ have set the same standards of behavior for all of us to live by, regardless of our multiple differences.  The standard for sexual relations is none unless or until we marry someone of the opposite gender.  No exceptions.

3) I like the stance Morgan Freeman and others take on discrimination and I think it can be applied well on all the things people find to discriminate against.  Just don't talk about it, don't talk about "black" people as if they are somehow intrinsically different from or inferior or superior to all other people with another particular color of their skin.  Just talk about them as people, and realize all people are different.  And that God's standards for all of us regarding our behavior are the same.

[Meadowchik]

14 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

They assume an adversarial relationship with anyone questioning the church's teachings. 

And when those questions are asked in good faith, such treatment is a tragedy.

[CV75]

24 minutes ago, rongo said:

 

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

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

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

This is why I think it important to tie or walk everything back to the Atonement of Christ.

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes: the issue is that one set of principles say, "such and such", and the other set says, "not such and such, but this and that." It doesn't matter who's to say what, only what one accepts as real. I am explaining the set within which I operate and have found to be successful for myself and others when chosen to be applied.

Not quite.

Either way still results in sometimes getting genders wrong in mortality.

If some genders can be misidentified now in mortality, what is the most important thing?

I think that's already clear, as explicitly taught by Christ Himself.

Teach Christlike love above all and in all relationships. Allow people to access those intimacies in consenting, committed contexts. Make love the standard and have faith that it will be enough.

[lightparticle]

3 minutes ago, Jamie said:

God our Father and Jesus Christ have set the same standards of behavior for all of us to live by, regardless of our multiple differences.

Being LGBTQ+ is not a behavior. It's not a lifestyle. It's not like changing your shoes for something that matches your outfit. LGBTQ+ people did not choose to be LGBTQ+. Even the church agrees with this statement. They don't know why this is the situation. Yes, the same standards should apply. But, you are holding up a statement as fact when it is based on a fallacy (building a house upon the sand if that helps the imaging). I would not expect that God would first create LGBTQ+ people and then punish them for being so. That's not free agency. That's setting them up for failure by knee-capping their mortal existence, then holding them responsible for the life that mortal creation pre-disposed them to.

[Jamie]

28 minutes ago, rongo said:

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

As I think you understand those terms, I agree, but I think we may be able to fully embrace homosexuality without embracing it in the way you may be thinking.  By a clarification of those terms with a better understanding of what we should embrace.

For example, by clarifying or redefining the term homosexuality to refer to men who love other men we could probably see some way that we could embrace that concept without including anything that is a sin.  Men should love other men, as well as women.

As has already been taught in other time periods and cultures, to love people is not the same thing as to have sexual relations with them.  We commonly love a lot of people we do not have sexual relations with.  And we don't want to have "sex" with them.

Sometimes we just need to think a little bit outside of our self-constructed boxes to find the principles and attitudes our Father wants us to embrace. 

[CV75]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

Not quite.

Either way still results in sometimes getting genders wrong in mortality.

If some genders can be misidentified now in mortality, what is the most important thing?

I think that's already clear, as explicitly taught by Christ Himself.

Teach Christlike love above all and in all relationships. Allow people to access those intimacies in consenting, committed contexts. Make love the standard and have faith that it will be enough.

According to your set of principles and your understanding of what Christ explicitly taught. My set is that the Atonement of Christ, an expression of His perfect love and grace, is presented to the world and assisted in its application through various practical appendages (the ordinances and covenants as I've described previously, if you've seen or want to review those posts).

[Meadowchik]

3 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

Being LGBTQ+ is not a behavior. It's not a lifestyle. It's not like changing your shoes for something that matches your outfit. LGBTQ+ people did not choose to be LGBTQ+. Even the church agrees with this statement. They don't know why this is the situation. Yes, the same standards should apply. But, you are holding up a statement as fact when it is based on a fallacy (building a house upon the sand if that helps the imaging). I would not expect that God would first create LGBTQ+ people and then punish them for being so. That's not free agency. That's setting them up for failure by knee-capping their mortal existence, then holding them responsible for the life that mortal creation pre-disposed them to.

Yes. Furthermore it seems to be that gay couples can practice love together, they can feel the Spirit together. They can serve God together. They can grow together. In short, they can advance in this life in same-sex relationships. 

Even if--supposing for a moment that in the afterlife their orientation will be heterosexual--they can still get from point A to B now: living a faithful, devoted lifestyle committed to God.

That's progress. Why would anyone object to that?

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Quote

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

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

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

Poisoning the Well:

Quote

Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864).  The origin of the term lies in well poisoning, an ancient wartime practice of pouring poison into sources of fresh water before an invading army, to diminish the attacked army's strength.

I don't think this applied to what I said.  The OP asks for input on a salient issue:

Quote

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

We have all had ample experience, on this very board, even, of being slammed and slandered for believing in, teaching and following the Law of Chastity.  Terrible things are said about us on a regular basis.  Addressing and rebutting those calumnies is a necessary component of teaching our children.

I have lost count of the number of times the Church and its members have been publicly accused of causing GLBT suicides.  An example:

Quote

Quote

Some of these poor kids are struggling with suicide and acceptance and this church treats them like garbage.  

And you are making things worse by saying stuff like this.  When people like you step up and spew vitriol like this, you foment anger and alienation in the very moment these kids need support and assurances from their faith community.

Please stop it.

Quote

There is no excuse for this kind of mismanagement that directly harms such our marginalized brothers and sisters.

The ongoing campaign against the Church by people like you is, I think, harmful to the very teens about which the campaigners claim to be concerned.

This campaign is similar in design and tactics to those used to train Palestinian children to fear and loathe Jews.  That is, a Latter-day Saint teen or young adult who is struggling to address his religious beliefs and his same-sex attraction is all at once inundated with endless messages and declarations that the religion to which he belongs "hates" him.  That the General Authorities he has looked up to and admired "hate" him.  That some of his fellow Latter-day Saints "hate" him.  

His worldview is upended.  All that he thought he knew was wrong.  Everyone, it seems, is telling him that his friends, his family, his church, "hate" him.  And let's keep in mind that these messages are not coming from his LDS friends and family and leaders, but from their enemies, people who are putting the vilest of words into the mouths of the Latter-day Saints.  "Your church, your leaders, and your fellow Mormons hate you" is the message being purveyed.  By enemies of the Latter-day Saints.  By people like you.  To the minds of impressionable and stressed-out LDS teenagers and young adults.

That is what you are doing.  It is toxic.  It is harmful to the very people about whom you profess concern.  Please stop it. 

Quote

Shame on you to the church, shame on you to the CES office, shame on you to the BYU honor code department.  I'm done with the thread and done with this conversation for now, too upset about this and the people I love who've yet again been thrown under the bus.

There is no excuse for the hateful rhetoric you are posting.

See?  And our kids are reading this stuff online.  About us.  We can't pretend these pervasive and ugly falsehoods are not out there.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

According to your set of principles and your understanding of what Christ explicitly taught. My set is that the Atonement of Christ, an expression of His perfect love and grace, is presented to the world and assisted in its application through various practical appendages (the ordinances and covenants as I've described previously, if you've seen or want to review those posts).

It's really not complicated.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, lightparticle said:

Are you advocating that LGBTQ+ people should leave the church?

Since you include me, no, I am not. I hope there are ways for anyone struggling in the church to figure out how to live within the community and for the community to learn to be more welcoming and especially supportive of those who do not fit the ideal and do not intend to. 
 

I am merely pointing out there is another option for those who desire to take it. It is not an easy path and should be only undertaken with both of the couple having realistic expectations and very open communication. I have no idea the percentages of success as it makes sense that most of those who choose this path and are successful with it are intelligently not putting themselves under unnecessary stress by publicizing their choices or struggles except perhaps privately (which is how I am aware of a few such couples), though we hear often of failures. 
 

Quote

Forceyourself into a love-less marriage to comply with norms.

Locking someone out of willingly and realistically choosing to marry someone of the opposite sex who they love on the basis that they have strong attraction to the same sex seems to be as rigid as insisting one can only be happy in a heterosexual relationship. 
 

If someone feels forced into any relationship, my opinion is they should step back until a time they are eager for that relationship.  But as long as someone is completely honest and open with the one they want to be their spouse and that person is with them, I don’t think I should be making the rules for what choices competent adults make. 

Edited May 13, 2021 by Calm

[Jamie]

8 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

Being LGBTQ+ is not a behavior. It's not a lifestyle. It's not like changing your shoes for something that matches your outfit. LGBTQ+ people did not choose to be LGBTQ+. Even the church agrees with this statement. They don't know why this is the situation. Yes, the same standards should apply. But, you are holding up a statement as fact when it is based on a fallacy (building a house upon the sand if that helps the imaging). I would not expect that God would first create LGBTQ+ people and then punish them for being so. That's not free agency. That's setting them up for failure by knee-capping their mortal existence, then holding them responsible for the life that mortal creation pre-disposed them to.

Each of us is either a son or a daughter of God.  Not one of us is both a son and a daughter.  Your use of the term heterosexual or LGBTQ+ is superfluous and unnecessary when referring to one of us who is either a son or daughter of God.

And what our Father expects from each of us regarding our behavior is the same whether we are a son or daughter of God.  Including his standards regarding our sexual relations with other people.  None unless or until we marry someone of the opposite sex.

I know that not all of us accept our Father's standards, doing only what he wants us to do and not doing anything he doesn't want us to do.  But some of us do accept those standards, and want to, because some of us want to be as he wants us to be.

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Poisoning the Well:

I don't think this applied to what I said.  The OP asks for input on a salient issue:

We have all had ample experience, on this very board, even, of being slammed and slandered for believing in, teaching and following the Law of Chastity.  Terrible things are said about us on a regular basis.  Addressing and rebutting those calumnies is a necessary component of teaching our children.

I have lost count of the number of times the Church and its members have been publicly accused of causing GLBT suicides.  An example:

See?  And our kids are reading this stuff online.  About us.  We can't pretend these pervasive and ugly falsehoods are not out there.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Oh surely ugliness on the topic has come from the church too. Also, cruel ideas couched in nice-sounding words--like the opposition to gay marriage--are still cruel. 

 

[AtlanticMike]

18 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

LGBTQ+ people did not choose to be LGBTQ+

The vast majority of people who are attracted to the same sex didn't choose their feelings. But to say that no one in the LGBT community didn't choose their lifestyle is incorrect. I have a friend who was brutally raped when she was 23 and for 12 years after she didn't date and only trusted 3 men to be around. Around 35 she started dating women because she wanted a relationship desperately. 

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Oh surely ugliness on the topic has come from the church too.

There is nothing approaching parity or symmetry.  Nothing.

And the Church has been improving on this issue for decades.  I have not seen any corollary improvement from the critics.  If anything, their caustic rhetoric is getting worse.

10 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Also, cruel ideas couched in nice-sounding words--like the opposition to gay marriage--are still cruel. 

You are only proving my point.  "Cruel" means "willfully causing pain or suffering to others, or feeling no concern about it."  The Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity have no such motivation.  None.  Not even close.  And yet here you are, saying . . . 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jamie]

12 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Oh surely ugliness on the topic has come from the church too. Also, cruel ideas couched in nice-sounding words--like the opposition to gay marriage--are still cruel. 

 

i and as far as I know most other members of the church of Jesus Christ accept it as God's will that we are not to have any sexual relations with any other people unless or until we marry someone of the opposite sex/gender.  Which means that if we never marry someone of the opposite sex/gender, then we are never to have any sexual relations with any other person. None at all.  Ever.  And as far as I know, none of us believe God is cruel for having this be our standard of expected behavior.  Instead we usually just try to find someone of the opposite sex/gender who will marry us, preferably someone who will love us despite all of our own imperfections.

[Chum]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

I hope there are ways for anyone struggling in the church to figure out how to live within the community and for the community to learn to be more welcoming and especially supportive of those who do not fit the ideal and do not intend to. 

Something that complicates this is the super-common practice of members saying "We love [disparaged group]s" followed by whatever they have in mind to minimize them and degrade their humanity.

I saw this method in Evangelical circles long before I was a Church member but we seemed to have adopted it well enough.

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

Quote

God our Father and Jesus Christ have set the same standards of behavior for all of us to live by, regardless of our multiple differences.

Being LGBTQ+ is not a behavior.

Nor is "being LGBTQ+" a sin.  

Jamie was speaking of homosexual behavior.

34 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

It's not a lifestyle. It's not like changing your shoes for something that matches your outfit. 

I don't think anyone has suggested this.

34 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

LGBTQ+ people did not choose to be LGBTQ+.

I don't think that can be said categorically or definitively.  But broadly, I think you are correct.

34 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

Even the church agrees with this statement. They don't know why this is the situation.

"We don't know" seems somewhat incompatible with conclusory and absolute statements like "LGBTQ+ people did not choose to be LGBTQ+."

34 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

Yes, the same standards should apply.  But, you are holding up a statement as fact when it is based on a fallacy (building a house upon the sand if that helps the imaging).

Actually, I think Jamie's statement is an expression of faith.

34 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

I would not expect that God would first create LGBTQ+ people and then punish them for being so. That's not free agency.

Speaking of fallacies...

False dilemma.  Equivocation.  Strawman.  A few more come to mind.  

34 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

That's setting them up for failure by knee-capping their mortal existence, then holding them responsible for the life that mortal creation pre-disposed them to.

Well, no.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[lightparticle]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We have all had ample experience, on this very board, even, of being slammed and slandered for believing in, teaching and following the Law of Chastity.  Terrible things are said about us on a regular basis.  Addressing and rebutting those calumnies is a necessary component of teaching our children.

Interesting take. But, let me ask you this: do you believe that being LGBTQ+ violates the Law of Chastity? Your argument and that entire long cut and paste job are reliant on this single question. If so, then logic leads us to the only conclusion possible -- that you believe that LGBTQ+ people are inherently sinful, just for being who they are (not referring to any actions at all -- just being). Considering the words I have read on this topic today, I think I can reasonably conclude that there is a whole lot of truth to how members of the church have historically treated LGBTQ+ people. Claiming victimhood does not, in any way, diminish responsibility for what LGBTQ+ people have experienced at the hands of members of the church, or the doctrine. So, let's leave behind the whole "I'm wearing the armor of God" theatrics behind.

 

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

these kids need support and assurances from their faith community.

Support and assurances from their faith community? What do those look like? Please provide examples. You see, today I have been told that LGBTQ+ people showing any sort of affection (such as hand-holding and the like) should be considered guilty of grievous sin because it can't lead to eternal marriage. I've been told that their lives are essentially a "dead-end" unless they capitulate who they know they are in exchange to being told who they are. That kind of support and assurance?

 

 

 

 

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Yes. Furthermore it seems to be that gay couples can practice love together, they can feel the Spirit together.

So can a cohabitating couple.  So can an adulterer.  And on and on.

36 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

They can serve God together. They can grow together.  In short, they can advance in this life in same-sex relationships. 

Yes, they can.  As Paul put it, they are "{e}ver learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."  (1 Tim. 3:7.)

Joseph Smith also said somethign poignant:

Quote

In January 1843, Joseph Smith had a conversation with some people who were not members of the Church: “I stated that the most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter-day Saints and sectarians was, that the latter were all circumscribed by some peculiar creed, which deprived its members the privilege of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter-day Saints … are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time.”

“I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations, because they all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth. I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes [limits], and say, ‘Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further’ {Job 38:11}; which I cannot subscribe to.”

“I say to all those who are disposed to set up stakes for the Almighty, You will come short of the glory of God. To become a joint heir of the heirship of the Son, one must put away all his false traditions.”

Today's creed is what you are saying. 

Today's creed is that we are at liberty to pick and choose the commandments we obey and the ones we do not, or when we obey and when we do not.  

Today's creed is to ignore and disobey the scriptures in favor of what is socially popular and trendy.

Today's creed is to subordinate obedience to God in favor of one's personal preferences.

The Rich Young Man did many things right, and yet prized his wealth above obedience to God:

Quote

16 ¶ And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

(Matthew 19.)

The young man here was good in many ways, and yet he "went away sorrowful."

36 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Even if--supposing for a moment that in the afterlife their orientation will be heterosexual--they can still get from point A to B now: living a faithful, devoted lifestyle committed to God.

That's progress. Why would anyone object to that?

I have a dear friend who came out of a noxious, violent marital relationship.  After some years, she stabilized and is now stronger because of her experiences.  By your reckoning, then, the abuse she suffered facilitated "progress," so "why would anyone object to it?"  Well, because the abuse was wrong.  It was a gross violation of the commandments of God.  That some good eventually came of her ex-husband's misconduct does not retroactively legitimize the misconduct.

Thanks,

-Smac

[lightparticle]

 

28 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

The vast majority of people who are attracted to the same sex didn't choose their feelings. But to say that no one in the LGBT community didn't choose their lifestyle is incorrect. I have a friend who was brutally raped when she was 23 and for 12 years after she didn't date and only trusted 3 men to be around. Around 35 she started dating women because she wanted a relationship desperately. 

It is not for anyone, from an outside perspective, to judge who is or is not LGBTQ+. Whether she was, or is now, LGBTQ+ is entirely irrelevant. Splitting hairs about generalization because of a few instances where spectators argue over isolated incidents doesn't change the truth behind my statement.