Addressing lgbtq+ prior to coming out

[lightparticle]

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

That's disturbing, was hoping things were getting better in the church.

I believe some perceptions are changing, which can go a long way to improve relations. At this point, I don't interact with many members of the church. So, my perception is based solely on few interactions, what I gather from news, various groups that work with the church, and what I know of the experiences of others.

[CV75]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Which one exercises faith in the love of God?? and in the love of others? Faith in God's highest laws?

It's pretty straightforward that allowing people to advance in loving consensual relationships in dignity is an expression of God's love for them. Why prohibit them from loving? 

Both. They simply may not share the same laws expressing that love. And whether one evaluates which/some of God's laws to be higher or lower makes no difference. The respective disciples and adherents may not accept or understand those laws in the same way. Focusing strictly on "what Jesus said" (according to whoever is making the argument) ignores "what Jesus did" for us personally in His Atonement, its effects and applications, and the relationship that grows from practice.

Yes, the gift of agency is an expression of God's love for us; not the only one, thankfully. I'm sure you can see the relationship between God's love, the gift of agency, and the gift of laws and how the Atonement of Christ forms the basis of all these.

 

Edited May 14, 2021 by CV75

[lightparticle]

On 5/12/2021 at 7:40 AM, Fether said:

I want to preface this with my beliefs. I believe whole heartedly that the Church is all it claims to be. I am a very orthodox member in the doctrine, and I recognize the many failings failings in the orthodox culture. Any response that includes suggestions that conflict with this will likely fall on deaf ears.

Some time around 2017, shortly after I got off my mission, my sister left the church, my brother came out as gay, and my other brother began to socially transition to be a girl. Though our quaint little stereotypical Utah Mormon family was rocked by all this coming all at once, we all quickly and effectively worked through it. Today, despite our difference in belief, we are a very tight knit family. I play video games with my siblings every weekend, we have very positive interactions and we speak about our difference in opinion openly and productively (except, of course,  for politics... politics is a hot topic we often avoid).

My question today is not how to deal with family and friends who come out as gay, there are ample resources for that. My concern is how do we teach our children gospel truths, urge them in that direction, but not teach it in such a way that if they do identify on the LGBTQ+ spectrum, they feel ostracized and like they can’t share.

I have listened to many podcasts on people sharing their experience growing up gay in the church and a lot of them share how traumatizing it was to be told homosexuality was a terrible sin. They even share how frustrating it is to hear “being gay is ok, doing gay is bad”.

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.

If I am honest with myself, I fear that if I introduce homosexuality to my kids too young, it may confuse them and even open up the option and then turn my kid gay.

Are there any resources for this? Books, articles, etc.?

I'm sorry if this topic got away from what you originally asked. I don't know about resources for it. I'm not even entirely certain about the parenting part. The topic is full with so much pain. From my perspective, approaching this topic with your siblings (non-confrontationally) would likely be the best method to get answers. They are closer to you and your family situation. They may have experiences that you directly relate to, that they might want you to understand as the family moves forward.

[Meadowchik]

34 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Both. They simply may not share the same laws expressing that love. And whether one evaluates which/some of God's laws to be higher or lower makes no difference. The respective disciples and adherents may not accept or understand those laws in the same way. Focusing strictly on "what Jesus said" (according to whoever is making the argument) ignores "what Jesus did" for us personally in His Atonement, its effects and applications, and the relationship that grows from practice.

Yes, the gift of agency is an expression of God's love for us; not the only one, thankfully. I'm sure you can see the relationship between God's love, the gift of agency, and the gift of laws and how the Atonement of Christ forms the basis of all these.

 

I'm not specifically talking about agency at the moment, I'm talking about being honest about the reality of homosexual love. It can be holy, it can be good. Denying that from people, casting them away for it is not Godly or loving.

[longview]

23 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I'm not specifically talking about agency at the moment, I'm talking about being honest about the reality of homosexual love. It can be holy, it can be good. Denying that from people, casting them away for it is not Godly or loving.

Yes, that kind of love may be possible in the telestial kingdom.  But why call it holy?  Holy is when God's purposes and designs are met.  Men have certain attributes and women have theirs.  When "joined" together, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.  The work in the Celestial Kingdom in the top degree requires the union of the man and the woman.  There is nothing sacrosanct about biological urges.  It is like people worshiping the creation but reviling the Creator.

Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

1 Corinthians 11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

[Maestrophil]

27 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I'm not specifically talking about agency at the moment, I'm talking about being honest about the reality of homosexual love. It can be holy, it can be good. Denying that from people, casting them away for it is not Godly or loving.

And again, there is the bottom line that makes this so hard.  There is no way that the current teachings of the church or the scriptures as they are currently interpreted therein allow for homosexual SEX to be holy, under any circumstance.  

So at the end of the day, as a member of the church, I can love my homosexual brothers and sisters, befriend them, invite them to my home, welcome them at church, serve them, attend their weddings, not speak ill of them or judge them and it will still likely never be enough to bridge the gap or heal the pain unless I can say I believe God is OK with homosexual sexual relations.  And I would need to lose my faith in, and leave the church in order to get there.  It's a tough situation for sure. And I am not wise enough to pretend I could advise others on how they need to choose. 

For now, I choose kindness, and if that can't be accepted by some because of my foundational beliefs about God's commandments regarding sexual relations, I have to be understanding and patient as to why that is.  I get it, but it's hard and can be very sad.  

I would welcome any thoughts from our LBTQA+ people here on the board as to how I can be a better ally given the parameters above?  Can I?  

 

[Tacenda]

16 minutes ago, longview said:

Yes, that kind of love may be possible in the telestial kingdom.  But why call it holy?  Holy is when God's purposes and designs are met.  Men have certain attributes and women have theirs.  When "joined" together, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.  The work in the Celestial Kingdom in the top degree requires the union of the man and the woman.  There is nothing sacrosanct about biological urges.  It is like people worshiping the creation but reviling the Creator.

Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

1 Corinthians 11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

I don't trust a lot of scripture, sorry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible

There is a Christian tradition of criticism of the creation narratives in Genesis dating back to at least St Augustine of Hippo (354–430), and Jewish tradition has also maintained a critical thread in its approach to biblical primeval history. The influential medieval philosopher Maimonides maintained a skeptical ambiguity toward creation ex nihilo and considered the stories about Adam more as "philosophical anthropology, rather than as historical stories whose protagonist is the 'first man'."^[28] Greek philosophers Aristotle,^[29] Critolaus^[30] and Proclus^[31] held that the world was eternal. Such interpretations are inconsistent with what was after the Protestant Reformation to be "commonly perceived in evangelicalism as traditional views of Genesis".^[c]

The publication of James Hutton's Theory of the Earth in 1788 was an important development in the scientific revolution that would dethrone Genesis as the ultimate authority on primeval earth and prehistory. The first casualty was the Creation story itself, and by the early 19th century "no responsible scientist contended for the literal credibility of the Mosaic account of creation."^[33] The battle between uniformitarianism and catastrophism kept the Flood alive in the emerging discipline, until Adam Sedgwick, the president of the Geological Society, publicly recanted his previous support in his 1831 presidential address:

We ought indeed to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic Flood. For of man, and the works of his hands, we have not yet found a single trace among the remnants of the former world entombed in those deposits.^[34]

All of which left the "first man" and his putative descendants in the awkward position of being stripped of all historical context, until Charles Darwin naturalized the Garden of Eden with the publication of On The Origin of Species in 1859. Public acceptance of this scientific revolution was, at the time, uneven, but has since grown significantly. The mainstream scholarly community soon arrived at a consensus, which holds today, that Genesis 1–11 is a highly schematic literary work representing theology/symbolic mythology rather than actual history or science.^[25]

Edited May 14, 2021 by Tacenda

[lightparticle]

32 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I'm not specifically talking about agency at the moment, I'm talking about being honest about the reality of homosexual love. It can be holy, it can be good. Denying that from people, casting them away for it is not Godly or loving.

Current church doctrine doesn't see the possibility that LGBTQ+ people in loving, committed relationships as compatible with exaltation because there is stark disagreement on what is, or should be within the scope of acceptable relationship doctrine (God's prescribed boundaries is what it was described as, I believe). Because of this disconnect, we will go around and around in circles of argument. It doesn't matter that we follow all of the other rules. If our relationships are not seen as legitimate, what hope do we have to be LGBTQ+ and a member of the church?

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

Quote

I'm not specifically talking about agency at the moment, I'm talking about being honest about the reality of homosexual love. It can be holy, it can be good. Denying that from people, casting them away for it is not Godly or loving.

And again, there is the bottom line that makes this so hard.  There is no way that the current teachings of the church or the scriptures as they are currently interpreted therein allow for homosexual SEX to be holy, under any circumstance.  

This is my sentiment as well.  The same goes for other violations of the Law of Chastity.  A man estranged and separated from his wife may well have strong feelings for another woman, but those feelings cannot form a basis for circumventing the constraints of the Law of Chastity.  Similarly, a young man may have strong feelings for his girlfriend, but those feelings cannot justify sex outside of marriage.

Quote

So at the end of the day, as a member of the church, I can love my homosexual brothers and sisters, befriend them, invite them to my home, welcome them at church, serve them, attend their weddings, not speak ill of them or judge them and it will still likely never be enough to bridge the gap or heal the pain unless I can say I believe God is OK with homosexual sexual relations.  

Yes.  

Back in 2018 Dan Reynolds, of Imagine Dragons fame, was quoted as follows:

Quote

Reynolds, 30, said in an interview this week that "platitudes" from church officials about love for LGBT Mormons and telling them "there's a place for them" isn't enough.

He has talked with church leaders about the issue and hopes to continue doing so but said the church's "platitudes are empty words" until and unless it changes its doctrine to accommodate gay marriage and homosexual sex.

This is, as you say, the "bottom line."  And it's unworkable.  

Quote

And I would need to lose my faith in, and leave the church in order to get there.  It's a tough situation for sure. And I am not wise enough to pretend I could advise others on how they need to choose. 

For now, I choose kindness, and if that can't be accepted by some because of my foundational beliefs about God's commandments regarding sexual relations, I have to be understanding and patient as to why that is.  I get it, but it's hard and can be very sad.  

Very well said.

People like Dan Reynolds want the members of the Church to go from believing in and accepting the Law of Chastity as a vital and revelatory truth to accepting, or even going beyond that to celebrating / endorsing / ratifying homosexual behavior ("It can be holy, it can be good"), but it's too far.  And the distance between these two points is vast, and encompasses lifetimes of belief, effort, spiritual experiences, and acceptance of and adherence to sound principles.

It's not workable.  These folks may as well ask (or, in Dan Reynolds' case, publicly demand) that the Church and its members repudiate the Book of Mormon, the saving ordinances, and the atonement of Christ.

Quote

I would welcome any thoughts from our LBTQA+ people here on the board as to how I can be a better ally given the parameters above?  Can I?  

Same here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 14, 2021 by smac97

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I'm not specifically talking about agency at the moment, I'm talking about being honest about the reality of homosexual love. It can be holy, it can be good. Denying that from people, casting them away for it is not Godly or loving.

The reality is that mutual love without agency (mutual consent) or law (mutual terms) is unholy.

[CV75]

14 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

Current church doctrine doesn't see the possibility that LGBTQ+ people in loving, committed relationships as compatible with exaltation because there is stark disagreement on what is, or should be within the scope of acceptable relationship doctrine (God's prescribed boundaries is what it was described as, I believe). Because of this disconnect, we will go around and around in circles of argument. It doesn't matter that we follow all of the other rules. If our relationships are not seen as legitimate, what hope do we have to be LGBTQ+ and a member of the church?

Yes, the sexual aspect of your same-sex relationship could fall so far out of the terms of Church membership that you feel the need to resign or understand excommunication if it comes to that. Similarly with "all of the other rules." It is a matter of priority and choice, given that the Atonement of Christ is central to your faith.

[Meadowchik]

23 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

Current church doctrine doesn't see the possibility that LGBTQ+ people in loving, committed relationships as compatible with exaltation because there is stark disagreement on what is, or should be within the scope of acceptable relationship doctrine (God's prescribed boundaries is what it was described as, I believe). Because of this disconnect, we will go around and around in circles of argument. It doesn't matter that we follow all of the other rules. If our relationships are not seen as legitimate, what hope do we have to be LGBTQ+ and a member of the church?

Yes, and what I have been trying to get answered, is what reason there is for this untenable situation, other than leaders just said it has to be this way? What are the actual reasons?

[Meadowchik]

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The reality is that mutual love without agency (mutual consent) or law (mutual terms) is unholy.

Well since homosexual love can occur within consent and within the law, what's the problem?

[CV75]

41 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

And again, there is the bottom line that makes this so hard.  There is no way that the current teachings of the church or the scriptures as they are currently interpreted therein allow for homosexual SEX to be holy, under any circumstance.  

So at the end of the day, as a member of the church, I can love my homosexual brothers and sisters, befriend them, invite them to my home, welcome them at church, serve them, attend their weddings, not speak ill of them or judge them and it will still likely never be enough to bridge the gap or heal the pain unless I can say I believe God is OK with homosexual sexual relations.  And I would need to lose my faith in, and leave the church in order to get there.  It's a tough situation for sure. And I am not wise enough to pretend I could advise others on how they need to choose. 

For now, I choose kindness, and if that can't be accepted by some because of my foundational beliefs about God's commandments regarding sexual relations, I have to be understanding and patient as to why that is.  I get it, but it's hard and can be very sad.  

I would welcome any thoughts from our LBTQA+ people here on the board as to how I can be a better ally given the parameters above?  Can I?  

 

(Bold part) Take heart; some will find it enough. This is part of Mosiah 18: 7 - 11.

Also, anyone can love their Savior, befriend Him, invite Him to their home, welcome Him at church, serve Him, attend His "wedding" (as in the parable of the bridegroom), not speak ill of Him or judge Him and say He is OK with (as in atoned for) whatever they have done by choosing the terms of repentance and forgiveness.

[Meadowchik]

46 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

And again, there is the bottom line that makes this so hard.  There is no way that the current teachings of the church or the scriptures as they are currently interpreted therein allow for homosexual SEX to be holy, under any circumstance.  

 

Why? Is there a reason why it is not okay other than a person saying it is not okay?

[Meadowchik]

51 minutes ago, longview said:

Yes, that kind of love may be possible in the telestial kingdom.  But why call it holy?  Holy is when God's purposes and designs are met.  Men have certain attributes and women have theirs.  When "joined" together, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.  The work in the Celestial Kingdom in the top degree requires the union of the man and the woman.  There is nothing sacrosanct about biological urges.  It is like people worshiping the creation but reviling the Creator.

Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

1 Corinthians 11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

Men are that they might have joy. Two people loving each other can contribute greatly to their joy. 

I am not talking about mere biological urges, I said love. 

[CV75]

Just now, Meadowchik said:

Well since homosexual love can occur within consent and within the law, what's the problem?

You were basing your argument on separating agency from the dynamic. Which aspect(s) do you want to discuss? This only gets back to the difference between the set of principles underpinning love, agency and law that you abide by (which to me are incomplete), and the set of principles I abide by, which to you are too complicated.

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I don't trust a lot of scripture, sorry.

And I don't trust a lot of the philosophies of men and social trends.

I understand your position about the scriptures, which are open to interpretation and distortion.  Hence the value of having living prophets and apostles, and also personal revelation, and also our reasoning and intellect.  These resources can help us differentiate truth from error, to refine and improve our understanding and perspective.  Without these, we are at risk of - as Paul put it - being "children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine..."  (Ephesians 4:14.)

Thanks,

-Smac

[Maestrophil]

12 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Why? Is there a reason why it is not okay other than a person saying it is not okay?

Other than what I believe to be living and past prophets since the start of recorded history in the Judeo-Christian tradition, including those who penned ancient scripture speaking for God saying it isn't OK?  No. 🙂 

 

[Chum]

14 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Why? Is there a reason why it is not okay other than a person saying it is not okay?

Something occurs to me. Maybe it's helpful.

Most Church guidance seems to fall into 2 categories. One is to prevent harm and tends to come with a bit of a mandate. The other is to nurture positive outcomes and is usually paired with encouragement.

Assuming the above, into which category does guidance on non-binary sexual activity fall?

disclaimer: never considered this so no idea

[Meadowchik]

11 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

Other than what I believe to be living and past prophets since the start of recorded history in the Judeo-Christian tradition, including those who penned ancient scripture speaking for God saying it isn't OK?  No. 🙂 

 

Well that's debatable. But basically because some people said so. No reasons?

[Fether]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

A few thoughts:

1. Define the Issue in Gospel terms.  

The issues you are addressing here center on the Church's teachings about marriage and the Law of Chastity.  I think it helps to clarify that, several times over if necessary.  The scriptures include commandments that constrain our behaviors.  In business and commercial matters, we should gain skills, work hard, and be honest in our dealings with our fellow man.  In interpersonal relationships, we should be kind and respectful, and we should also avoid any form of abusive conduct (verbal, physical, sexual, etc.).  In relation to governments, we should participate in electoral and other important processes, obey the law, and work within its confines to change or improve it when appropriate.  All of these principles and more are found in the scriptures and in counsel from living prophets and apostles.  They comprise a moral framework that, if followed, will improve us as individuals, families, communities and nations.  And these principles have been revealed to us from God.  Some of are prescriptive ("Thou shalt..."), some are proscriptive ("Thou shalt not..."), some are advisory and relative.  But all of them are intended to help us, even when (particularly when) they impose constraints and parameters on our behaviors.

As to matters of sexual behavior, the counsel we have from the scriptures and from prophets and apostles is that sex is limited to between a husband and wife, and in all other instances is prohibited.  Thus adultery, fornication, homosexual behavior, "lasciviousness," and so on are prohibited.  

2. Address the Purposes of Sexuality.  Heavenly Father, being perfectly just and wise, is not arbitrary.  He gives us commandments for our benefit and the benefit of others, even if we do not immediately see that.  As to sexual behavior, we have been taught that its purpose is two-fold: for procreation, and for the strengthening of the relationship between husband and wife (see, e.g., here).  Within these parameters, sex is a wonderful part of life.  

Once severed from these purposes, sex can become distorted and improper.  It can be a weapon (in cases of sexual violence and/or exploitation).  It can become cheapened into a mere commodity, to be used transactionally in exchange for money, goods, opportunities, etc.  Or it can even become a base biological expression, with no more meaning or significance that a burp or a bowel movement.  Or it can become an unhealthy obsession.  Or it can become a means of selfish gratification.

Consider this wise counsel from the Church:

Consider how many problems arise in society because of sexual misconduct and licentiousness, and conversely how many such problems are avoided by obeying these precepts.

3. We are All Held to the Same Standard.  Elder Oaks has spoken of the ongoing debate about "evidence or theories suggesting that 'there is substantial evidence for genetic influence on sexual orientation,'" about sexual behavior being "profoundly influenced by psychosocial factors such as parental and sibling relationships (especially during the formative years) and the culture in which we live," and how all of this is part of a "highly complex subject on which scientific knowledge is still in its infancy" and that "most scientists concede that the current evidence is insufficient and that firm conclusions must await many additional scientific studies."  The Church, having taken this into account, holds all members of the Church to the same standard of sexual conduct.

4. Feelings are Not Determinative (Where God Has Spoken).  A prevailing undercurrent pertaining to sexual behavior is that a person is at liberty to do whatever they want, with essentially no constraints (consent being the usual sole exception).  Put another way, this sentiment seems to be adopting Korihor's philsophy that "every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime."  (Alma 30:17.)  There are all sorts of ways that this attitude, if adopted, can go sideways. 

All the more reason, then, to look for and accept an external standard of behavior.  Our desires are not determinative of the standards imposed by the Law of Chastity. God has prohibited adultery amongst His children.  And fornication. God has also prohibited same-sex behavior amongst His children.  And other forms of exual behavior.  It is true that some of His children want to (and do) engage in adultery or fornication. This is wrong.  That they "want" or "desire" to engage in this point is not determinative.  It is also true that some of His children want to (and do) engage in same-sex behavior. This is wrong. That they "want" or "desire" to engage in this point is not determinative.  

These same standard applies to all church members.  Nobody is privileged.  Nobody is exempt.  If we take desires out of the equation, and simply look at the standard of behavior imposed on church members, we see that the same standard is applied across the board. Once we see that, all the various arguments presented all the time based as they are on homosexuals being downtrodden because of their unfulfilled desires, fall apart.

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.

Thanks,

-Smac

I recognize that these are just thoughts you have concerning my post, but the thoughts do not come close to responding to my concern.

I do not argue with the doctrines of the church, nor do I wish to see them change fed. I do not wish to teach my kids anything but what is true. The law of chastity will be taught in my home in Accordance to the teachings of the church.

my question is “how do I teach Gods law concerning homosexuality in such a way where if my child comes to me and says they are gay, they will know that despite their nature, god loves them?” And an even more important extension, if they choose the homosexual lifestyle, I dont want the way I teach them about Christ force them to feel they have to choose homosexuality or God. I would desire that, even if they choose homosexuality, they will still choose to find God and continue in a belief of them

Listen to the two interviews from children of famous Latter-day Saints in the Human Stories Podcast, Matthew Gong (Elder Gong’s son) and Jeff McLean (Michael McLean’s son), and it may drive home the situations I am trying to portray.

Also, I want to address something you said, and something I hear quite often. The law of chastity is expected of all men, homosexual or heterosexual. This is true, but the implications couldn’t be further apart for both groups. For a heterosexual person, you are being told “wait for the right time, and you can have what you want, and then you will be happy in heaven”. For homosexuals, it’s “You can never have what you want, but you will be happy in heaven.”

Heterosexuals are told their desires are beautiful, God given, and one day they can have it. Homosexuals are told the exact same desire is evil and they can never have it.

Again, I’m not advocating for a change in belief or policy, I just want to point out issues that face the lgbtq community, we can’t keep hiding behind these theoretical approaches to these issues and admit they are more complex, difficult, and painful than how we have been painting them.

 

I would be curious to see a study similar to the kids and the marshmallow one we hear about so often. But with a couple changes.

2 groups of kids.

Group A: Put a delicious looking box of pizza or large freshly baked cake in a room with a hungry kid. The food must be so delicious that it is irresistible and has a smell that fills the room. Tell them “you can have as much of this food as you want, however if you wait 30 minutes before eating we will go get you something good (don’t tell them what that good thing is, it is symbolic of heaven). If you don’t wait the 30 minutes, then that is bad and you won’t get anything that is good after we are done”

Group B: Exact same setup, but tell them “don’t ever eat this food, if you go the whole hour without eating this food, we will get you something good (again, don’t tell them what that good thing is) If at any point you even lick the pizza, then that is bad and you won’t get anything that is good after we are done”

I would want to see the results of how long each kid lasted before eating as well as the emotional responses of the kids that broke the rules. My hypothesis is that the kids who were told to wait 30 minutes would mostly wait. The kids told they shouldn’t have it wouldn't even last 15 minutes.

 

Edited May 14, 2021 by Fether

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, Chum said:

Something occurs to me. Maybe it's helpful.

Most Church guidance seems to fall into 2 categories. One is to prevent harm and tends to come with a bit of a mandate. The other is to nurture positive outcomes and is usually paired with encouragement.

Assuming the above, into which category does guidance on non-binary sexual activity fall?

disclaimer: never considered this so no idea

Well that's kind of what I have been getting at. Homosexual love can reduce harm, generate benefit, and encourage positive outcomes. Win-win-win!

[Maestrophil]

Just now, Meadowchik said:

Well that's debatable. But basically because some people said so. No reasons?

I find it hard to believe you are missing the substance of what I am saying.  

The fact that you are saying it's debatable is negating my reason - I am not saying 'some people' said so - I am saying that I believe those people spoke/speak for God Himself.  And God decides what is holy. not me.  

If all my opinions and feelings about the world were based solely on my own reason and Earthy tangible factors, I would surely not maintain faith in my - or any - church.  I fully understand the choice of agnosticism/atheism - it is just that my spiritual experiences don't allow me to go there.  

[Maestrophil]

7 minutes ago, Fether said:

I recognize that these are just thoughts you have concerning my post, but the thoughts do not come close to responding to my concern.

I do not argue with the doctrines of the church, nor do I wish to see them change fed. I do not wish to teach my kids anything but what is true. The law of chastity will be taught in my home in Accordance to the teachings of the church.

my question is “how do I teach Gods law concerning homosexuality in such a way where if my child comes to me and says they are gay, they will know that despite their nature, god loves them?” And an even more important extension, if they choose the homosexual lifestyle, I dont want the way I teach them about Christ force them to feel they have to choose homosexuality or God. I would desire that, even if they choose homosexuality, they will still choose to find God and continue in a belief of them

Listen to the two interviews from children of famous Latter-day Saints in the Human Stories Podcast, Matthew Gong (Elder Gong’s son) and Jeff McLean (Michael McLean’s son), and it may drive home the situations I am trying to portray.

Also, I want to address something you said, and something I hear quite often. The law of chastity is expected of all men, homosexual or heterosexual. This is true, but the implications couldn’t be further apart for both groups. For a heterosexual person, you are being told “wait for the right time, and you can have what you want, and then you will be happy in heaven”. For homosexuals, it’s “You can never have what you want, but you will be happy in heaven.”

Heterosexuals are told their desires are beautiful, God given, and one day they can have it. Homosexuals are told the exact same desire is evil and they can never have it.

Again, I’m not advocating for a change in belief or policy, I just want to point out issues that face the lgbtq community, we can’t keep hiding behind these theoretical approaches to these issues and admit they are more complex, difficult, and painful than how we have been painting them.

 

I would be curious to see a study similar to the kids and the marshmallow one we hear about so often. But with a couple changes.

2 groups of kids.

Group A: Put a delicious looking box of pizza or large freshly baked cake in a room with a hungry kid. The food must be so delicious that it is irresistible and has a smell that fills the room. Tell them “you can have as much of this food as you want, however if you wait 10 minutes before eating we will go get you something good (don’t tell them what that good thing is, it is symbolic of heaven). If you don’t wait the 10 minutes, then that is bad and you won’t get anything that is good after we are done”

Group B: Exact same setup, but tell them “don’t ever eat this food, if you go the whole hour without eating this food, we will get you something good (again, don’t tell them what that good thing is) If at any point you even lick the pizza, then that is bad and you won’t get anything that is good after we are done”

I would want to see the results as well as the emotional responses

Feather - as I said - I am so empathetic to your position - and I am sure I can never fully appreciate your pain or struggle.  I shared my thoughts exactly to illustrate why I don't have any good answers because it is a challenge for me to know how to approach it as well.

The best thing I can think of for me - that I mentioned already - is to teach them that none of us can fully know how God will judge us, but we do have an assurance that he will always love us, that he knows our hearts and situations/challenges, and that he will be merciful beyond our understanding in judging us fairly and according to our desires.  If you can develop a relationship with Him that allows you to know those things fully - even If you don't know exactly how that will look in the eternities (because none of us truly know what the eternities will be like in whole!) and learn to be taught directly by the Holy Ghost and really truly hear Him, then you will always be able to know your worth and strive to do what the spirit tells you is YOUR path with trust that all will work 'for your good'.