Addressing lgbtq+ prior to coming out

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, Chum said:

We love [disparaged group]s" followed by whatever they have in mind to minimize them and degrade their humanity.

It requires actual loving in action, not just nice sounding words to make it work...from all involved. Not easy especially if you are the one have to adapt the most. At the very least understanding the depth of sacrifices being made is important.
 

For example, too often I see members thinking it no big deal to leave a former faith since someone who converts is doing so most likely because they see this faith now as the true Gospel, but that doesn’t mean there are not wonderful things, even better than what is in our faith community at times, they are leaving behind and there is good reason to grieve for many.  We don’t need to just support converts as they get used to new ways, but also as they process loss. 

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

Interesting take. But, let me ask you this: do you believe that being LGBTQ+ violates the Law of Chastity?

No.

6 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

Your argument and that entire long cut and paste job are reliant on this single question.

Happily answered.

6 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

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).

No.  I reject that.  Categorically.  Patently.  Strenuously.

6 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

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.

Piffle.  Nobody has said anything like the falsehood you attribute to us above.  

6 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

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.

Tell you what.  I'll share my opinion and arguments, and invite you to share yours.  

6 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

Support and assurances from their faith community?

Yes.

6 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

What do those look like? Please provide examples.

The Church's website has quite a bit of stuff.  

6 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

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?

I assume you are referencing Rongo's comments here:

Quote

I'm applying differing levels of judgment because of belief in the doctrines and principles in the Proclamation. I think Elder Johnson's logic aptly applies outside of the BYU honor code, to this discussion. Gay dating and expressions of affection are not compatible with the plan of salvation, because one would have to abandon them in favor of straight dating and expressions of affection to attain eternal marriage. They are a complete dead-end that one must backtrack out of for purposes of gospel compliance, so it is incorrect (from the orthodox LDS perspective) that they are harmless or have no effect on one's eternal status. 

It has nothing to do with judging people "solely because their life isn't exactly like yours," and everything to do with institutionally encouraging/forbidding behaviors that lead to or away from eternal life.  

That seems pretty . . . accurate.  

Look at it from another scenario: I am married to a wonderful woman.  If I were to step out on her and date other women, if I were to engage in "hand-holding and the like" with other women, wouldn't it be pretty accurate to say that this is "not compatible with the plan of salvation?"  That such behavior cannot be said to be "harmless?"

To be sure, I could repent of my infidelity, seek forgiveness and make raparation, and be restored to the Gospel Path.  But then, the same can be said for anyone who violates the Law of Chastity, right?

The issue, then, is what do we make of the Restored Gospel.  Do we accept it?  Do we strive to live by it?  Or do we disregard it when it becomes emotionally or socially difficult, inconvenient, unpopular, etc.?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[AtlanticMike]

17 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

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.

Let me use your logic, ready?

    It is not for anyone from an outside perspective, to judge if Mormonism is true or not, it's entirely irrelevant. Splitting hairs about history because of a few instances where Spectators argue over isolated incidents doesn't change the truth about Mormon history.       

Now, anyone who isn't Mormon, stop judging us, that's how life works now in 2021. 

 

 

[Meadowchik]

52 minutes ago, Jamie said:

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.

First, I think it's probably best to not try to speak for all or most church members. It's not a contest of popularity anyways. Furthermore, good intentions can still produce cruel treatment. 

Personally, I think it's more principled to not rely on intention alone. A moral and principled life requires more thought and compassion for others than that.

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

Splitting hairs about generalization because of a few instances

If by few instances you mean moving from relationships exclusively with same or opposite sex to fluid or to exclusively the reverse, it is more common than a few. It is a small minority that is exclusively same sex their entire lives.

https://psych.utah.edu/_resources/documents/people/diamond/Sexual Fluidity in Males and Females.pdf

Sexual fluidity is not the same thing as bisexuality as the latter is seen as a stable orientation while the former allows for changes.  Sexual fluidity fits imo better cross culturally including historical cultures before the concept of homosexuality and heterosexuality (orientations) came into being.  Imo, the LGBT+ activists did themselves a disservice by going with “born that way” rather than “freedom of choice for all” as the sexual revolution was first promoted (or do my youth in San Francisco area suggested).
 

Quote

The existing body of international research assessing sexual attractions, behaviors, and identities among representative samples of adolescents and adults shows that sexual orientation is not a static and categorical trait. Rather, same-sex sexuality shows substantial fluidity in both men and women, and this fluidity takes a number of forms. It can be observed in the high rates of nonexclusive (i.e., bisexual) patterns of attraction among men and women; it can be observed in the fact that historical changes in social acceptance of same-sex sexuality have led to increases in the population prevalence of same-sex sexuality; it can be observed in the high numbers of sexual- minority men and women who show changes in their pattern of attractions over time, well into adulthood; it can be ob- served in the high numbers of men and women who flexibly engage in patterns of sexual behavior that do not concord with their self-described identity or attractions.

 

Edited May 13, 2021 by Calm

[Jamie]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

First, I think it's probably best to not try to speak for all or most church members. It's not a contest of popularity anyways. Furthermore, good intentions can still produce cruel treatment. 

Personally, I think it's more principled to not rely on intention alone. A moral and principled life requires more thought and compassion for others than that.

Good points.  My point was that I have never heard any member of the Church say God is cruel by expecting both men and women to not have any sexual relations unless or until finding someone of the opposite sex to marry.  With no exceptions.

[lightparticle]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Quote

What do those look like? Please provide examples.

The Church's website has quite a bit of stuff.  

I didn't ask for the church website. Already been through that. I'm asking you what support and assurances you provide to LGBTQ+ youth.

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Look at it from another scenario: I am married to a wonderful woman.  If I were to step out on her and date other women, if I were to engage in "hand-holding and the like" with other women, wouldn't it be pretty accurate to say that this is "not compatible with the plan of salvation?"  That such behavior cannot be said to be "harmless?"

You are correct. Such actions would not be compatible with the plan of salvation (as written today -- won't get started with polygamy). If you were to engage in such actions, I would predict a divorce attorney in your future. But, the scenarios are not remotely close to being the same. If you were to start doing that with other women, that would be your choice, and your sin would also be harming your wife along with others involved. If a gay couple was married, in a loving relationship, and one of them decided to cheat on the other, then sure, this would apply. But your scenario is not applicable to justifying telling people that their lives are a "dead-end", that they're holding hands is a grievous sin. I don't recall Jesus ever saying that, or implying it through conduct.

Let's simplify this -- what are LGBTQ+ people to you? Not looking for a definition. Don't want a church standard line. I want your personal take. What are LGBTQ+ people to smac97? Stop hiding behind cut and paste. No church doctrine involved. No scriptures quoted. Let's hear a real human answer from YOU.

 

 

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, Jamie said:

Good points.  My point was that I have never heard any member of the Church say God is cruel by expecting both men and women to not have any sexual relations unless or until finding someone of the opposite sex to marry.  With no exceptions.

What about members believing it is cruel for people (like the church) to make such claims? I've heard as much. 

[lightparticle]

26 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Let me use your logic, ready?

    It is not for anyone from an outside perspective, to judge if Mormonism is true or not, it's entirely irrelevant. Splitting hairs about history because of a few instances where Spectators argue over isolated incidents doesn't change the truth about Mormon history.       

Now, anyone who isn't Mormon, stop judging us, that's how life works now in 2021. 

False equivalence.

I'll see your logic, and raise you one scripture passage: Moroni 10:3-5. The entire basis of the religion rests upon this very concept of non-members finding out if it is true or not.

And for the record, I'm not an outside perspective or a spectator.

I'm a member of the church.

[lightparticle]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

If by few instances you mean moving from relationships exclusively with same or opposite sex to fluid or to exclusively the reverse, it is more common than a few. It is a small minority that is exclusively same sex their entire lives.

https://psych.utah.edu/_resources/documents/people/diamond/Sexual Fluidity in Males and Females.pdf

Sexual fluidity is not the same thing as bisexuality as the latter is seen as a stable orientation while the former allows for changes.  Sexual fluidity fits imo better cross culturally including historical cultures before the concept of homosexuality and heterosexuality (orientations) came into being.

Rate of occurrence is not a central theme to the point, but I appreciate the reference. I was making a statement more in line with self-identity as opposed to rates as proof.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

It's really not complicated.

That's right. Both sets of beliefs begin with exercising a particle of faith. 

[AtlanticMike]

8 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

Let's hear a real human answer from YOU.

Wow!!! I thought I was over the top! For you to preach equality and fairness for everyone and then to insinuate that a board member doesn't give "human" answers is worst than some of my dumbest post. Smac post like smac post, why are you trying to change him? Isn't that what you despise, people trying to make other people be something they're not???

 

[Jamie]

12 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

What about members believing it is cruel for people (like the church) to make such claims? I've heard as much. 

Are you a member?  If not I have still never heard that from a member.  At least not to be taken seriously.  Some members saying it is hard for them to wait that long, and that they wished they could do it sooner, but none saying God is cruel for his standards.

[lightparticle]

19 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Wow!!! I thought I was over the top! For you to preach equality and fairness for everyone and then to insinuate that a board member doesn't give "human" answers is worst than some of my dumbest post. Smac post like smac post, why are you trying to change him? Isn't that what you despise, people trying to make other people be something they're not???

Wait -- who said anything about changing anyone? What authority said that your interpretation of the context behind the statement is correct? By that same logic, I could infer that you are calling me dumb. I want to hear a personal, vulnerable, real answer from smac, devoid of proofs, references, quotes, etc. Feel free to answer the same question. What are LGBTQ+ people to you?

Edited May 13, 2021 by lightparticle

[AtlanticMike]

5 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

I want to hear a personal, vulnerable, real answer from smac, devoid of proofs, references, quotes, etc

What you want from smac is irrelevant, it's what he wants to share with you that matters. 

[Jamie]

6 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

What you want from smac is irrelevant, it's what he wants to share with you that matters. 

I like it when people communicate with words to say what they want.  It doesn't mean they will get what they want but at least they are expressing what it is that they want.  

[lightparticle]

4 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

What you want from smac is irrelevant, it's what he wants to share with you that matters. 

I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to say here. I asked the question under the assumption that he is willing to answer such a question. I want him to answer, just as I want you to answer. But, I'm not an interrogator. Nobody here is tied to a chair under a bright light. I'm trying to gain some insight. Presupposing ulterior motives to my question doesn't assist understanding at all, which I figured was the goal of this whole discussion.

[AtlanticMike]

7 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

Feel free to answer the same question. What are LGBTQ+ people to you?

Theyre just like everyone else. Example.. my daughter spends time on a app for lesbians, (I don't know the name of the app), because well there's no one in the church for her to date. The last time she brought a woman over they walked in my garage so I could meet her and by the look on her face you would of thought she walked into her worst nightmare. You see, I have a 16' american flag hanging from the ceiling, guns all over the wall, 20 or so deer racks, 8 deer mounts, a couple foxes and numerous fish along with the dreaded AR15 hanging on the wall. They walk out and the first thing she asked my daughter is if I'm a conservative. Then she asked my daughter who she voted for, that was the last time my daughter talked to the woman. You see, my daughter is very conservative and she is having a terrible time fitting in with people she's meeting in the LGBT community, actually they've been really cruel to her, not all, but most once they find out what her political beliefs are. So to me LGBT people are just like everyone else, some are open minded and some are not. Some are nice while some can be down right mean. I hope one day my daughter can find someone she is compatible with, but right now it doesn't look promising? 

 

[CV75]

53 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

Let's simplify this -- what are LGBTQ+ people to you?

Most simplistically, to me they are regular people just like me, both before and after I hear the prefix. Once they share this prefix, to me they are people who want me to have their sexuality in mind for those instances where it might affect our conversation, shared experience, other aspects of our relationship, others in our overlapping circles of interaction, etc.

[AtlanticMike]

19 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to say here. I asked the question under the assumption that he is willing to answer such a question. I want him to answer, just as I want you to answer. But, I'm not an interrogator. Nobody here is tied to a chair under a bright light. I'm trying to gain some insight. Presupposing ulterior motives to my question doesn't assist understanding at all, which I figured was the goal of this whole discussion.

Look, I don't know smac, but one thing I do know is everytime he answers, no matter the subject, it's usually by breaking down what someone said and turning it into the longest post I've ever seen. What upset me was you saying that you wanted a real human answer from him, as if what he's probably been doing for the past 14 or so years on here isn't human, is that what you meant? Because that's how I understood it. 

[lightparticle]

49 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Look, I don't know smac, but one thing I do know is everytime he answers, no matter the subject, it's usually by breaking down what someone said and turning it into the longest post I've ever seen. What upset me was you saying that you wanted a real human answer from him, as if what he's probably been doing for the past 14 or so years on here isn't human, is that what you meant? Because that's how I understood it.

No, it isn't what I meant. But, I also can't entirely fault you for the misconception because the English language is a pain when attempting to express context via words on a screen. I'm trying to open this discussion beyond the "he said, she said" rhetoric and debate, and open the discussion on a more personal level. Anyone can throw quotes and countless rumors from the internet. I could provide a whole history and stack of references for all of the things the church has said and done since the beginning that one is left to interpret. On the flip side, I'm sure others could provide plenty of quotes, scriptures, anecdotes and such that could also be misinterpreted. But, what would that accomplish? That doesn't encourage mutual understanding. Jesus wanted to know what his disciples said that he is, not what the leading rumors of the day were. The gospel is not a rumor led doctrine. It's deeply personal. Invoking loads of extraneous data is impersonal -- machine-like. It fails personal consideration. I don't know smac. I'm not trying to single him out. Most of the responses today all felt loaded at the ready with prepared references, quotes and such -- like there was no actual consideration of the words being said. Just immediate reaction. I interpret some of them as loaded with snark and sardonic subtext. It feels like there's no vulnerability -- no willingness to open up and consider the possibility that LGBTQ+ people are really telling the truth about who they are -- all tell, no listen. My personal experiences with other church members were excruciatingly painful. I'm still deeply hurt. It bothers me when others discount my experiences by saying that my experiences never happened or were not nearly as bad as they were. You see, it's easy to zoom out and make generalizations of a group as a whole. Both sides are guilty of just such a thing. I likely did it today. I don't immediately ascribe ill intentions to such ways of thinking. We're human. If I did, I apologize. It was not my intent. I know not all church members are grabbing their pitchforks when someone mentions anything LGBTQ+. I also know that not all LGBTQ+ people are aiming to take down the church.

Edited May 14, 2021 by lightparticle

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Who's to say a transitioned person isn't resolving towards their pre-existent gender? Who's to say there aren't some exceptions to the norms we have been taught about the pre-existance? 

It's not as if the information we have been taught about the pre-existance is abundant and very detailed.

It is ironic that a person born into mortality may be in conflict with the true nature of his per-existence gender may try to correct that gender to match the ore-existence.
 

They get kicked out of the church for doing so. Then when they die, they become the gender they got kicked out of the church for.  Their eternal nature 

[lightparticle]

43 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Theyre just like everyone else. Example.. my daughter spends time on a app for lesbians, (I don't know the name of the app), because well there's no one in the church for her to date. The last time she brought a woman over they walked in my garage so I could meet her and by the look on her face you would of thought she walked into her worst nightmare. You see, I have a 16' american flag hanging from the ceiling, guns all over the wall, 20 or so deer racks, 8 deer mounts, a couple foxes and numerous fish along with the dreaded AR15 hanging on the wall. They walk out and the first thing she asked my daughter is if I'm a conservative. Then she asked my daughter who she voted for, that was the last time my daughter talked to the woman. You see, my daughter is very conservative and she is having a terrible time fitting in with people she's meeting in the LGBT community, actually they've been really cruel to her, not all, but most once they find out what her political beliefs are. So to me LGBT people are just like everyone else, some are open minded and some are not. Some are nice while some can be down right mean. I hope one day my daughter can find someone she is compatible with, but right now it doesn't look promising?

This -- right here. This is what builds the discussion. Now, I feel like I can understand where you are coming from. I feel like I know you a little bit. There are many in every group that refuse to get to know someone. A label is precisely what makes others feel as if they know everything about you. Your daughter is not alone, even if it may feel like it. If it means anything, I don't see you as an enemy. Returning to God is not a competition. I'm not trying to change you. I just want you to consider my experiences before discounting me. In the same way, I will keep your experiences in mind as well. Thank you for taking the time to share that.

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

There are many in every group that refuse to get to know someone.

You should take into account that many on the board have been here for over a decade and have over time shared much of themselves, so they may not see a need to be explicit about personal beliefs, feelings, etc. in any particular post and yet they aren’t refusing  to allow others to get to know them. 

Also to expect people to put the effort into being vulnerable to strangers without waiting to establish some trust is unrealistic in my experience...and this is from someone who us often overly transparent on first meeting. 

Edited May 14, 2021 by Calm

[AtlanticMike]

14 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

No, it isn't what I meant. But, I also can't entirely fault you for the misconception because the English language is a pain when attempting to express context via words on a screen. I'm trying to open this discussion beyond the "he said, she said" rhetoric and debate, and open the discussion on a more personal level. Anyone can throw quotes and countless rumors from the internet. I could provide a whole history and stack of references for all of the things the church has said and done since the beginning that one is left to interpret. On the flip side, I'm sure others could provide plenty of quotes, scriptures, anecdotes and such that could also be misinterpreted. But, what would that accomplish? That doesn't encourage mutual understanding. Jesus wanted to know what his disciples said that he is, not what the leading rumors of the day were. The gospel is not a rumor led doctrine. It's deeply personal. Invoking loads of extraneous data is impersonal -- machine-like. It fails personal consideration. I don't know smac. I'm not trying to single him out. Most of the responses today all felt loaded at the ready with prepared references, quotes and such -- like there was no actual consideration of the words being said. Just immediate reaction. I interpret some of them as loaded with snark and sardonic subtext. It feels like there's no vulnerability -- no willingness to open up and consider the possibility that LGBTQ+ people are really telling the truth about who they are -- all tell, no listen. My personal experiences with other church members were excruciatingly painful. I'm still deeply hurt. It bothers me when others discount my experiences by saying that my experiences never happened or were not nearly as bad as they were. You see, it's easy to zoom out and make generalizations of a group as a whole. Both sides are guilty of just such a thing. I likely did it today. I apologize if I did. I don't immediately ascribe ill intentions to such ways of thinking. We're human. If I did, I apologize. It was not my intent. I know not all church members are grabbing their pitchforks when someone mentions anything LGBTQ+. I also know that not all LGBTQ+ people are aiming to take down the church.

Thank you for the post. I don't want to talk about smac anymore, I would just say, go back and read his post from years and years ago, that's just how he communicates. I learn a lot from his post just like I do from some of the more Progressive people on the board. 

   I'm sorry your experiences with the church were excruciatingly painful with the church. It hurts my heart to know you had a tuff time with the church. I want to share with you what I have told my daughter to help her but let me first say I understand that I don't begin to know your pain or what your experiences were, I'm just sharing what I've told my daughter incase just a small part of what I say might help you or bring you some comfort. First, your relationship with Christ is the only thing that matters if you're looking for true happiness. A bishop, stake president, or even a dad can't get in between you and Christ. That is the gospel! Also, everything you need to be happy is already inside you, your complete just like you are, your not broken. Also, you control your thoughts, they DO NOT control you. 

   Alright, I'm speculating now but I'm guessing your bad experiences have been because of people judging you. Here's what I tell my daughter, when you think about the people who have hurt you in the past, feel sorry for them! Realize they're scared of the life God has given them and they judge others to ease there own internal pain. Walk around everyday understanding your the master of your own destiny. 

    Anyways, you can probably tell I'm an open book I don't hold back. I apologise if I came across as an A -hole, it's one of my specialties 😁. But, on the flip side, if you ever need an I love you from a stranger, I'm your man, just ask, I'll say it, no problem. I'm weird that way. Peace out!!