Addressing lgbtq+ prior to coming out

[Meadowchik]

30 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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.

I wasn't basing my argument that way, I just don't see where agency makes a difference in this issue. Heterosexual love and homosexual love and their benefits are both dependent on agency. It was your introduction of agency that does not seem relevant to me.

This is what is sounds like you are saying, to me: Homosexual love is a misuse of agency. I ask how? You say/imply because people said God said it's a sin. I ask why is it a sin? The answer? It's a sin because it's a sin. 

You've also introduced the Atonement as if it has some extra relevance here. In the broad gospel framework, everyone relies upon the Atonement. No mortal satisfies the demands of justice. Again, I think what you're getting at--correct me if I'm wrong--is that in order to access the Atonement to its fullest--to be valiant--one must follow a certain path that excludes homosexual love. Why? Because it's a sin. Why is it a sin? Because it's a sin.

To me, a real path of righteousness is not milestones like marriage. That is something beyond an individual's control. The real path of righteousness is kindness, love, honesty, and hope, among other principles. And homosexual love is not inconsistent with kindness, love, honesty, hope, or many other righteous principles. Furthermore it can advance them, for the couple themselves, for society, for the future. They can stand just as much as Saviors on Mount Zion as a husband and wife who happily bring forth lots of babies raising them up in light and truth. Maybe not in the same way, but still abundantly good.

 

[Meadowchik]

14 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

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.  

It's debatable that scripture prohibits homosexual love. Very much so. 

[Tacenda]

20 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

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.  

I could get on board maybe, if the former prophets in the church didn't get it wrong so much! For @smac97as well. 

Edited May 14, 2021 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

I wonder if I should believe in the God of Spinoza. Just read this, I'd never read or known about this. But kind of like what it had to say.

When Einstein gave lectures at U.S. universities, the recurring question that students asked him most was:

- Do you believe in God?

And he always answered:

- I believe in the God of Spinoza.

Baruch de Spinoza was a Dutch philosopher considered one of the great rationalists of 17th century philosophy, along with Descartes.

(Spinoza) : God would say:

Stop praying.

What I want you to do is go out into the world and enjoy your life. I want you to sing, have fun and enjoy everything I've made for you.

Stop going into those dark, cold temples that you built yourself and saying they are my house. My house is in the mountains, in the woods, rivers, lakes, beaches. That's where I live and there I express my love for you.

Stop blaming me for your miserable life; I never told you there was anything wrong with you or that you were a sinner, or that your sexuality was a bad thing. Sex is a gift I have given you and with which you can express your love, your ecstasy, your joy. So don't blame me for everything they made you believe.

Stop reading alleged sacred scriptures that have nothing to do with me. If you can't read me in a sunrise, in a landscape, in the look of your friends, in your son's eyes... ➤ you will find me in no book!

Stop asking me "will you tell me how to do my job?" Stop being so scared of me. I do not judge you or criticize you, nor get angry, or bothered. I am pure love.

Stop asking for forgiveness, there's nothing to forgive. If I made you... I filled you with passions, limitations, pleasures, feelings, needs, inconsistencies... free will. How can I blame you if you respond to something I put in you? How can I punish you for being the way you are, if I'm the one who made you? Do you think I could create a place to burn all my children who behave badly for the rest of eternity? What kind of god would do that?

Respect your peers and don't do what you don't want for yourself. All I ask is that you pay attention in your life, that alertness is your guide.

My beloved, this life is not a test, not a step on the way, not a rehearsal, nor a prelude to paradise. This life is the only thing here and now and it is all you need.

I have set you absolutely free, no prizes or punishments, no sins or virtues, no one carries a marker, no one keeps a record.

You are absolutely free to create in your life. Heaven or hell.

➤ I can't tell you if there's anything after this life but I can give you a tip. Live as if there is not. As if this is your only chance to enjoy, to love, to exist.

So, if there's nothing after, then you will have enjoyed the opportunity I gave you. And if there is, rest assured that I won't ask if you behaved right or wrong, I'll ask. Did you like it? Did you have fun? What did you enjoy the most? What did you learn?...

Stop believing in me; believing is assuming, guessing, imagining. I don't want you to believe in me, I want you to believe in you. I want you to feel me in you when you kiss your beloved, when you tuck in your little girl, when you caress your dog, when you bathe in the sea.

Stop praising me, what kind of egomaniac God do you think I am?

I'm bored being praised. I'm tired of being thanked. Feeling grateful? Prove it by taking care of yourself, your health, your relationships, the world. Express your joy! That's the way to praise me.

Stop complicating things and repeating as a parakeet what you've been taught about me.

What do you need more miracles for? So many explanations?

The only thing for sure is that you are here, that you are alive, that this world is full of wonders.

- Spinoza

[Maestrophil]

18 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder if I should believe in the God of Spinoza. Just read this, I'd never read or known about this. But kind of like what it had to say.

When Einstein gave lectures at U.S. universities, the recurring question that students asked him most was:

- Do you believe in God?

And he always answered:

- I believe in the God of Spinoza.

Baruch de Spinoza was a Dutch philosopher considered one of the great rationalists of 17th century philosophy, along with Descartes.

(Spinoza) : God would say:

Stop praying.

What I want you to do is go out into the world and enjoy your life. I want you to sing, have fun and enjoy everything I've made for you.

Stop going into those dark, cold temples that you built yourself and saying they are my house. My house is in the mountains, in the woods, rivers, lakes, beaches. That's where I live and there I express my love for you.

Stop blaming me for your miserable life; I never told you there was anything wrong with you or that you were a sinner, or that your sexuality was a bad thing. Sex is a gift I have given you and with which you can express your love, your ecstasy, your joy. So don't blame me for everything they made you believe.

Stop reading alleged sacred scriptures that have nothing to do with me. If you can't read me in a sunrise, in a landscape, in the look of your friends, in your son's eyes... ➤ you will find me in no book!

Stop asking me "will you tell me how to do my job?" Stop being so scared of me. I do not judge you or criticize you, nor get angry, or bothered. I am pure love.

Stop asking for forgiveness, there's nothing to forgive. If I made you... I filled you with passions, limitations, pleasures, feelings, needs, inconsistencies... free will. How can I blame you if you respond to something I put in you? How can I punish you for being the way you are, if I'm the one who made you? Do you think I could create a place to burn all my children who behave badly for the rest of eternity? What kind of god would do that?

Respect your peers and don't do what you don't want for yourself. All I ask is that you pay attention in your life, that alertness is your guide.

My beloved, this life is not a test, not a step on the way, not a rehearsal, nor a prelude to paradise. This life is the only thing here and now and it is all you need.

I have set you absolutely free, no prizes or punishments, no sins or virtues, no one carries a marker, no one keeps a record.

You are absolutely free to create in your life. Heaven or hell.

➤ I can't tell you if there's anything after this life but I can give you a tip. Live as if there is not. As if this is your only chance to enjoy, to love, to exist.

So, if there's nothing after, then you will have enjoyed the opportunity I gave you. And if there is, rest assured that I won't ask if you behaved right or wrong, I'll ask. Did you like it? Did you have fun? What did you enjoy the most? What did you learn?...

Stop believing in me; believing is assuming, guessing, imagining. I don't want you to believe in me, I want you to believe in you. I want you to feel me in you when you kiss your beloved, when you tuck in your little girl, when you caress your dog, when you bathe in the sea.

Stop praising me, what kind of egomaniac God do you think I am?

I'm bored being praised. I'm tired of being thanked. Feeling grateful? Prove it by taking care of yourself, your health, your relationships, the world. Express your joy! That's the way to praise me.

Stop complicating things and repeating as a parakeet what you've been taught about me.

What do you need more miracles for? So many explanations?

The only thing for sure is that you are here, that you are alive, that this world is full of wonders.

- Spinoza

Then I respectfully submit- without a hint of snark (in case some does come across) - what is the point of that kind of a God at all?  I can do all of those things, and come to those conclusions myself.  It just seems like dressed up agnosticism to me - which, as I said, I can respect the choice to be - but I don't have much use for a God who doesn't give me something bigger than I can do as a natural man.

I do believe Descartes used his experience to rebuild (since he destroyed all his beliefs at first) a little more authoritative version of God for himself.  

In the end, I admit it is about my faith for me - as I can in no wise prove anything nor condemn another for their conclusions.

 

Edited May 14, 2021 by Maestrophil

[teddyaware]

32 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder if I should believe in the God of Spinoza. Just read this, I'd never read or known about this. But kind of like what it had to say.

When Einstein gave lectures at U.S. universities, the recurring question that students asked him most was:

- Do you believe in God?

And he always answered:

- I believe in the God of Spinoza.

Baruch de Spinoza was a Dutch philosopher considered one of the great rationalists of 17th century philosophy, along with Descartes.

(Spinoza) : God would say:

Stop praying.

What I want you to do is go out into the world and enjoy your life. I want you to sing, have fun and enjoy everything I've made for you.

Stop going into those dark, cold temples that you built yourself and saying they are my house. My house is in the mountains, in the woods, rivers, lakes, beaches. That's where I live and there I express my love for you.

Stop blaming me for your miserable life; I never told you there was anything wrong with you or that you were a sinner, or that your sexuality was a bad thing. Sex is a gift I have given you and with which you can express your love, your ecstasy, your joy. So don't blame me for everything they made you believe.

Stop reading alleged sacred scriptures that have nothing to do with me. If you can't read me in a sunrise, in a landscape, in the look of your friends, in your son's eyes... ➤ you will find me in no book!

Stop asking me "will you tell me how to do my job?" Stop being so scared of me. I do not judge you or criticize you, nor get angry, or bothered. I am pure love.

Stop asking for forgiveness, there's nothing to forgive. If I made you... I filled you with passions, limitations, pleasures, feelings, needs, inconsistencies... free will. How can I blame you if you respond to something I put in you? How can I punish you for being the way you are, if I'm the one who made you? Do you think I could create a place to burn all my children who behave badly for the rest of eternity? What kind of god would do that?

Respect your peers and don't do what you don't want for yourself. All I ask is that you pay attention in your life, that alertness is your guide.

My beloved, this life is not a test, not a step on the way, not a rehearsal, nor a prelude to paradise. This life is the only thing here and now and it is all you need.

I have set you absolutely free, no prizes or punishments, no sins or virtues, no one carries a marker, no one keeps a record.

You are absolutely free to create in your life. Heaven or hell.

➤ I can't tell you if there's anything after this life but I can give you a tip. Live as if there is not. As if this is your only chance to enjoy, to love, to exist.

So, if there's nothing after, then you will have enjoyed the opportunity I gave you. And if there is, rest assured that I won't ask if you behaved right or wrong, I'll ask. Did you like it? Did you have fun? What did you enjoy the most? What did you learn?...

Stop believing in me; believing is assuming, guessing, imagining. I don't want you to believe in me, I want you to believe in you. I want you to feel me in you when you kiss your beloved, when you tuck in your little girl, when you caress your dog, when you bathe in the sea.

Stop praising me, what kind of egomaniac God do you think I am?

I'm bored being praised. I'm tired of being thanked. Feeling grateful? Prove it by taking care of yourself, your health, your relationships, the world. Express your joy! That's the way to praise me.

Stop complicating things and repeating as a parakeet what you've been taught about me.

What do you need more miracles for? So many explanations?

The only thing for sure is that you are here, that you are alive, that this world is full of wonders.

- Spinoza

This is cool! ! In my semiliterate, undereducated ignorance all I really knew about Spinoza was that he was the philosopher — or social commentator — who famously asserted, “those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” But thanks to the above extended quote from this noted “Dutch Master” (I always presumed he was Spanish), I now realize he was a presumptuous modern-day Korihor with an “eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die” attitude, and that the great Albert Einstein was his spiritually blind, secular humanist disciple.  

Edited May 14, 2021 by teddyaware

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Fether said:

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?”

I would encourage them to think of "their nature" as being, at its core, children of God.  

I would encourage them to study the Plan of Salvation, including the point and purpose of this probationary state.

I would encourage them to think of sexual thoughts as being, in and of themelves, natural and good, but they must be constrained within the parameters set by the Lord.

I would encourage them to study the Restored Gospel and exercise faith.  We are not alone.  We have a loving Father in Heaven.  He has a plan for us.  We are living in tumultuous times, but there are voices we can trust.  There are ways we can discern and follow the will of God.  

I would encourage them to extrapolate.  To deduce.  If the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, then God lives, Jesus Christ is His Son, Joseph Smith was a prophet, and the Restoration happened.  If these foundational truths are accepted, then the commandments cannot be seen as arbitrary because-I-say-so edicts from men, but are instead revelatory counsel given to us for our benefit.

I would encourage them to develop a broader perspective.  "For a small moment have I forsaken thee, but with great mercies will I gather thee."  (3 Nephi 22:7.)

11 minutes ago, Fether said:

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.

Do you think that homosexual behavior and walking the Gospel path are compatible?  I don't see a way for that.

Consider the Rich Young Man.  Consider John 6.  Consider Matthew 10:34 ("Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword") and Matthew 10:37 ("He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me").  And D&C 98:15 ("For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me").  

 

My dad and I were talking about these things a while back, some of which have been described as the "dark sayings of Jesus."  My dad noted that some people focus on the "sweetness and light" sayings of the Savior, which is probably fine - unless that focus is exclusionary.  Christ had warnings for us, after all.  Such as this: "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you."  And this: "The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil."   And this: "Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail."   And this: "For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory."

Today, the Church and its members are heavily criticized for its adherence to the Law of Chastity, the biggest grievance being the prohibition against homosexual behavior.  We are, nevertheless, called upon to accept, and live by, and advocate for, the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  We cannot apologize for it.  To the contrary, as Ammon put it: "Now have we not reason to rejoice? Yea, I say unto you, there never were men that had so great reason to rejoice as we, since the world began; yea, and my joy is carried away, even unto boasting in my God; for he has all power, all wisdom, and all understanding; he comprehendeth all things, and he is a merciful Being, even unto salvation, to those who will repent and believe on his name."  (Alma 26:35.)

We cannot endlessly be on the defensive.  The early Saints were, I think, situated in some ways the way we are now.  The broader world was hostile to and contemptuous of the message of Jesus Christ.  Note the connotations of defensiveness in the Pauline epistles, and his exhortations to, essentially, get over it:

2 Timothy 1:

Quote

1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,
2 To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
3 I thank God, whom I serve from my forefathers with pure conscience, that without ceasing I have remembrance of thee in my prayers night and day;
4 Greatly desiring to see thee, being mindful of thy tears, that I may be filled with joy;
5 When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also.
6 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.
7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
8 Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God;
9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:
11 Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.
12 For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.
13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

Romans 5:

Quote

1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;
4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope:
5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Romans 1:

Quote

13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.
14 I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise.
15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Living the Gospel can be hard.  It can make us unpopular.  And when our own weaknesses are added to the mix, our faith can waiver.  Hence the importance of striving to do as you have said.  We must be kind.  Loving.  Christlike.  Today's climate would have us construe that as entailing the acceptance, even endorsement and celebration of, sinful behavior.  The Savior never did that.  He did not say to the woman taken in adultery "Hey, you be you."  He instead said "Go, and sin no more."  Repentance and obedience are central facets of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

11 minutes ago, Fether said:

I would desire that, even if they choose homosexuality, they will still choose to find God and continue in a belief of them

Sure.  

11 minutes ago, Fether said:

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.

Well, yes and no.  Yes there are disparate impacts.  But the fault line is not between "homosexual or heterosexual."  There are plenty of heterosexual members of the Church who are never married, divorced, or widowed, and who are still required to abstain from sexual behavior outside of marriage.

11 minutes ago, Fether said:

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.”

"What you want" being . . . access to the sexual act?  The majority of adult members of the Church are not married, and hence lack that access.

11 minutes ago, Fether said:

Heterosexuals are told their desires are beautiful, God given, and one day they can have it.

Yes.

11 minutes ago, Fether said:

Homosexuals are told the exact same desire is evil and they can never have it.

This is not so.  The Church has taught, for quite some time now, that "{i}dentifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin."

It is homosexual behavior that is sinful.  But then, there are plenty of forms of heterosexual behavior that are also sinful.

11 minutes ago, Fether said:

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 don't think we are hiding, though.  Far from it, actually.

11 minutes ago, Fether said:

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.

I don't think this works well.  You are literally infantilizing adults.  Unlike "kids," you and I are expected to use reason and self-control.  To be faithful and obedient.

I quite agree that living the Law of Chastity in this increasingly sexualized world is quite a challenge.  But your analogy doesn't hold.  At all.  It doesn't account for repentance.  And it's arbitrary and capricious.  And it's an exercise in special pleading.  Look at it as a rationalization for adultery and you will see what I mean.  

There are all sorts of ways that an individual can lead a meaningful and beautiful life while adhering to the Law of Chastity.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

32 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

This is cool! ! In my semiliterate, undereducated ignorance all I really knew about Spinoza was that he was the philosopher — or social commentator — who famously asserted, “those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” But thanks to the above extended quote from this noted “Dutch Master” (I always presumed he was Spanish), I now realize he was a presumptuous modern-day Korihor with an “eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die” attitude, and that the great Albert Einstein was his spiritually blind, secular humanist disciple.  

Haha, tell me what you really think. 😉

Don't even know if Einstein even said it. But like most of it. Not eat, drink & be merry so much.

 

[Tacenda]

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I would encourage them to think of "their nature" as being, at its core, children of God.  

I would encourage them to study the Plan of Salvation, including the point and purpose of this probationary state.

I would encourage them to think of sexual thoughts as being, in and of themelves, natural and good, but they must be constrained within the parameters set by the Lord.

I would encourage them to study the Restored Gospel and exercise faith.  We are not alone.  We have a loving Father in Heaven.  He has a plan for us.  We are living in tumultuous times, but there are voices we can trust.  There are ways we can discern and follow the will of God.  

I would encourage them to extrapolate.  To deduce.  If the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, then God lives, Jesus Christ is His Son, Joseph Smith was a prophet, and the Restoration happened.  If these foundational truths are accepted, then the commandments cannot be seen as arbitrary because-I-say-so edicts from men, but are instead revelatory counsel given to us for our benefit.

I would encourage them to develop a broader perspective.  "For a small moment have I forsaken thee, but with great mercies will I gather thee."  (3 Nephi 22:7.)

Do you think that homosexual behavior and walking the Gospel path are compatible?  I don't see a way for that.

Consider the Rich Young Man.  Consider John 6.  Consider Matthew 10:34 ("Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword") and Matthew 10:37 ("He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me").  And D&C 98:15 ("For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me").  

 

My dad and I were talking about these things a while back, some of which have been described as the "dark sayings of Jesus."  My dad noted that some people focus on the "sweetness and light" sayings of the Savior, which is probably fine - unless that focus is exclusionary.  Christ had warnings for us, after all.  Such as this: "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you."  And this: "The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil."   And this: "Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail."   And this: "For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory."

Today, the Church and its members are heavily criticized for its adherence to the Law of Chastity, the biggest grievance being the prohibition against homosexual behavior.  We are, nevertheless, called upon to accept, and live by, and advocate for, the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  We cannot apologize for it.  To the contrary, as Ammon put it: "Now have we not reason to rejoice? Yea, I say unto you, there never were men that had so great reason to rejoice as we, since the world began; yea, and my joy is carried away, even unto boasting in my God; for he has all power, all wisdom, and all understanding; he comprehendeth all things, and he is a merciful Being, even unto salvation, to those who will repent and believe on his name."  (Alma 26:35.)

We cannot endlessly be on the defensive.  The early Saints were, I think, situated in some ways the way we are now.  The broader world was hostile to and contemptuous of the message of Jesus Christ.  Note the connotations of defensiveness in the Pauline epistles, and his exhortations to, essentially, get over it:

2 Timothy 1:

Romans 5:

Romans 1:

Living the Gospel can be hard.  It can make us unpopular.  And when our own weaknesses are added to the mix, our faith can waiver.  Hence the importance of striving to do as you have said.  We must be kind.  Loving.  Christlike.  Today's climate would have us construe that as entailing the acceptance, even endorsement and celebration of, sinful behavior.  The Savior never did that.  He did not say to the woman taken in adultery "Hey, you be you."  He instead said "Go, and sin no more."  Repentance and obedience are central facets of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Sure.  

Well, yes and no.  Yes there are disparate impacts.  But the fault line is not between "homosexual or heterosexual."  There are plenty of heterosexual members of the Church who are never married, divorced, or widowed, and who are still required to abstain from sexual behavior outside of marriage.

"What you want" being . . . access to the sexual act?  The majority of adult members of the Church are not married, and hence lack that access.

Yes.

This is not so.  The Church has taught, for quite some time now, that "{i}dentifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin."

It is homosexual behavior that is sinful.  But then, there are plenty of forms of heterosexual behavior that are also sinful.

I don't think we are hiding, though.  Far from it, actually.

I don't think this works well.  You are literally infantilizing adults.  Unlike "kids," you and I are expected to use reason and self-control.  To be faithful and obedient.

I quite agree that living the Law of Chastity in this increasingly sexualized world is quite a challenge.  But your analogy doesn't hold.  At all.  It doesn't account for repentance.  And it's arbitrary and capricious.  And it's an exercise in special pleading.  Look at it as a rationalization for adultery and you will see what I mean.  

There are all sorts of ways that an individual can lead a meaningful and beautiful life while adhering to the Law of Chastity.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I believe in chastity. And think gays would like getting married or would eschew a wild free for all.

[smac97]

55 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Quote

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.  

I could get on board maybe, if the former prophets in the church didn't get it wrong so much! For @smac97as well. 

So . . . infallibility?  That's your metric?

I believe the prophets and apostles have been, cumulatively, overwhelmingly correct in their prophetic counsel.  As for their errors, Mormon 9:31 comes to mind: "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."

I must forgive these folks for their mistakes and errors, because to receive mercy and grace I must mete it out.  And also because I don't think their errors in counsel come anywhere close to outweighing their sound and correct counsel.  And also because I won't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The Lord expects us to listen to prophetic counsel, despite the occasional errors and weaknesses of the prophets.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I believe in chastity.

I'm curious as to how "chastity" is defined here.  Who sets the parameters for what is "chaste" and what is not?

For example, what about "open marriages?"  Is "consensual" adultery (i.e. the wife is okay with the husband stepping out on her) within the parameters of "chastity?"  I remember this story about former Utah Jazz player Andrei Kirilenko and his wife:

Quote

Masha grew up in Moscow, where her father played almost 20 years for the CSKA Moscow basketball team. "A very successful, very handsome man," she says. "And rich." He sent his daughter to an exclusive arts school in London and helped launch her first career. "I think the term is 'it girl,' " Masha says. "I was in all the magazines, like Bazaar and Vogue."
...
It shows when she gets in front of the camera. After a session with her personal stylist, the 32-year-old gives the photographer a pop-star look. It's who she is, at least in the off-season. "How do you call the life actors live? Let's say, glamour life," Andrei says. In Moscow, the Kirilenkos smile through a blur of red carpets and caviar, champagne for her and milk for him. "Lots of friends: actors, musicians, athletes. Let's say celebrities."

For seven months each year, they leave that life behind, like the working-class Soviets who once volunteered for long stints on Siberian farms to increase their income. "I have seven months when I can be patient," Kirilenko says, "and five months when I can go to nightclubs and nobody will say anything to me."

During those seven months, Masha waits patiently at home. And, yes, she knows what happens on the road. She met Andrei at an event organized by the marketing firm she founded. She knows what can start with a smile in the Miami airport, a knock on a hotel door in Cleveland. The wrong woman, at the wrong time, in the wrong place, with the wrong man. Her man. "Male athletes in this country are extremely attractive," she says. "They get chased by women. It's hard to resist. It's the way men are by nature."

She calls it Andrei's "allowance." Once a year he can have sex with another woman. One night. No affairs, no divided loyalty. She can live with that. It was her idea, offered as a gift.

"Of course, it was a surprise," Andrei says. "I'm not planning to do anything. But she said if you want to do it, you can do it."

Masha doesn't flinch. Her makeup is gone now, revealing earnest eyes and a pouting upper lip. But a ripple of doubt dances at the corner of her twitchy, introspective smile. "When this article comes out, girls will be lining up outside his hotel door," she says. Maybe married women will line up outside her front door brandishing picket signs after they read about her plan to keep her husband from making a mistake. "When I'm aware and I let him do it, it's not cheating."

Andrei says something in Russian, they laugh. "I don't think anyone can substitute him for me," Masha says.

Do you think a Latter-day Saint could adopt this sort of reasoning? 

Do you think the Law of Chastity is whatever the individual wants it to be?

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And think gays would like getting married or would eschew a wild free for all.

Yes.  The same could be said for heterosexuals as well.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

you wonder about homosexuals prior to 1820 when the restoration happened. No prophets, no new scriptures, no true church. They lived out their lives and die and then what becomes of them. They had nothing we have, church policies, coming out of closet, marriage, a community of other gay people. I can't imagine telling someone you were gay in 1411, you'd be burned at the stake. We baptized my Mom's cousin who was gay, no boyfriend, no kids, no nothing-Coming out of the closet was never an option for him in the farming community he lived in. I wonder how God will take care of him so that he has all the blessings of the Gospel. I worry that stereotypes of gay people, that he definately grew up with,  impacted his view of God (don't know). I don't know why he was gay in the first place if God will change it in the next life, what was the point of a loveless life, why would he choose God after all that? Like, thank you for allowing me to have no one in my life and if I did it's morally wrong. and if we take Longviews delusional view i'd end up in the telestial kingdom with people like him.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I wasn't basing my argument that way, I just don't see where agency makes a difference in this issue. Heterosexual love and homosexual love and their benefits are both dependent on agency. It was your introduction of agency that does not seem relevant to me.

This is what is sounds like you are saying, to me: Homosexual love is a misuse of agency. I ask how? You say/imply because people said God said it's a sin. I ask why is it a sin? The answer? It's a sin because it's a sin. 

You've also introduced the Atonement as if it has some extra relevance here. In the broad gospel framework, everyone relies upon the Atonement. No mortal satisfies the demands of justice. Again, I think what you're getting at--correct me if I'm wrong--is that in order to access the Atonement to its fullest--to be valiant--one must follow a certain path that excludes homosexual love. Why? Because it's a sin. Why is it a sin? Because it's a sin.

To me, a real path of righteousness is not milestones like marriage. That is something beyond an individual's control. The real path of righteousness is kindness, love, honesty, and hope, among other principles. And homosexual love is not inconsistent with kindness, love, honesty, hope, or many other righteous principles. Furthermore it can advance them, for the couple themselves, for society, for the future. They can stand just as much as Saviors on Mount Zion as a husband and wife who happily bring forth lots of babies raising them up in light and truth. Maybe not in the same way, but still abundantly good.

 

Attempts at infinite regress that lead to predictable complaints that the construct is too complicated are counterproductive. But check this out: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/sin?lang=eng

I think you have it backwards: To access the Atonement of Christ to the fullest, you need to have faith and be willing to receive grace. An outgrowth of that is the covenant path as presented in the pre-existence and is extended into the next life.  Your concept of marriage as a milestone is wrong because the ordinances need not be obtained, nor perfection attained, in this life. Faith in Christ gets us through to the hoped-for other side of this vale of tears, sexuality being one source of tribulation for some. And faith in Christ can be awakened after this life as well. What you describe as “a real path of righteousness” is incomplete. The Atonement of Christ and its outgrowth subsumes it, which you've unfortunately decided is too complicated a construct.

[rongo]

14 minutes ago, Duncan said:

you wonder about homosexuals prior to 1820 when the restoration happened. No prophets, no new scriptures, no true church. They lived out their lives and die and then what becomes of them. They had nothing we have, church policies, coming out of closet, marriage, a community of other gay people. I can't imagine telling someone you were gay in 1411, you'd be burned at the stake. We baptized my Mom's cousin who was gay, no boyfriend, no kids, no nothing-Coming out of the closet was never an option for him in the farming community he lived in. I wonder how God will take care of him so that he has all the blessings of the Gospel. I worry that stereotypes of gay people, that he definately grew up with,  impacted his view of God (don't know). I don't know why he was gay in the first place if God will change it in the next life, what was the point of a loveless life, why would he choose God after all that? Like, thank you for allowing me to have no one in my life and if I did it's morally wrong. and if we take Longviews delusional view i'd end up in the telestial kingdom with people like him.

I think two things would have a bearing on this:

1) To what extent do our trials and challenges in mortality have to do with the pre-existence?

2) Will gay people no longer be gay in the resurrection?

This is somewhat similar to my views on race (and many, many other things). I think we entered mortality on different levels and with different levels of pre-existence achievement/progress. It is indisputable that we leave earth life with different levels of progress/achievement, and it is probably/approaching certainty that the next life's progression will similarly be at different rates and levels. It may be (this is my belief) that the "degrees of difficulty" we encounter in life (of which sexual orientation is only one) might be either what is most needed for our refinement --- or to "make up ground" or "close the gap" based on the pre-existence. Some would say this is an awful thought, but if true, we all would have been willing in the pre-existence to go through whatever degree of difficulty is necessary to get where we want to be. 

Gay people and their advocates are angry at the thought that they won't be gay in the resurrection, but they have no more certain knowledge about this than they insist traditional believers don't have. From the traditional/orthodox LDS view, there is a lot of reason to believe that it's a difficulty in this life only --- and that God isn't making loads of gender assignment mistakes, etc. 

What would be the point of a life where you couldn't "be true to your true self?" To become like our Heavenly Parents, same as everyone else (though our difficulties are different). This is exactly what we taught people as missionaries, but it seems like many don't want to really believe it when the rubber hits the road. 

[Jamie]

On 5/12/2021 at 8:15 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

I have a PhD in history, so my approach is certainly shaped by that. I don't have children of my own, but I have long worked with young men and young missionaries and have taught them the following facts that are fully supported by historical and anthropological research:

• the concept of fixed, gendered sexual identities (both hetero- and homo-) is a late 19th-century social construct that has no historical precedence and, despite 150 years of Western colonisation of the imagination, these still haven't become natural categories across all cultures
• same-sex sexual behaviour has been ubiquitous since the beginning of recorded history (along with opposite-sex and other behaviours too numerous to list), though it has been framed in a dizzying number of ways across both time and space, with some cultures (for example, many Melanesian ones) having once required it as part of normal human development
• it is perfectly normal to experience various kinds of attractions to both males and females
• it is also perfectly normal not to be attracted to an entire class of people; for example, a male does not have to be attracted to females as a class, and to be honest, this can make living the Law of Chastity much easier!
• whilst some cultures offer very narrow gender stereotypes, there are actually an infinite number of ways to be a righteous man or woman
• the one constant is that all these things are fluid because humans are dynamic

To which I add the following:

• God, aware that sexuality is powerful, has provided guidelines to keep us safe and happy and help us to become most like Him
• we are currently in a historically unique time that presents a number of complications for Saints, so don't worry if you feel confused at times
• you are going to screw up in one or more areas of the Law of Chastity; I know because I have done the same
• don't panic when you find yourself in a headspace that doesn't fully match your eternal desires; this is a perfectly normal part of discipleship, which is why we have so many scriptures about it
• NEVER listen to someone who wants to place you in a box and keep you there; the whole point of the gospel is to free us from such limitations
• wherever you are in this process, I love you, and you are important to me
• it is essential that we are all nice to each other since we're all works in progress
• remember that perception is reality, so when people believe things about themselves that aren't true, those things are true to them at that point in time; try to be someone people might listen to when they're ready to shift their perceptions

I've had several young men and at least one former missionary thank me for taking this approach with them. They report feeling empowered by knowing the truth.

I am still in a state of wonder about what all of this means, especially the part I highlighted.  I've been thinking about it and pondering and praying about it since I read it a couple of days ago.

Just putting this out there with hope that maybe someone will say something inspired about what it would be like to not think in terms of hetero or homo, which I am having trouble doing because now that I think that way, how can I not?

What did people who lived before the terms hetero and home think in regards to sexual orientation?  I don't want to load the question unfairly as I still try to remain open about what to think.

[Meadowchik]

27 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Attempts at infinite regress that lead to predictable complaints that the construct is too complicated are counterproductive. But check this out: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/sin?lang=eng

I think you have it backwards: To access the Atonement of Christ to the fullest, you need to have faith and be willing to receive grace. An outgrowth of that is the covenant path as presented in the pre-existence and is extended into the next life.  Your concept of marriage as a milestone is wrong because the ordinances need not be obtained, nor perfection attained, in this life. Faith in Christ gets us through to the hoped-for other side of this vale of tears, sexuality being one source of tribulation for some. And faith in Christ can be awakened after this life as well. What you describe as “a real path of righteousness” is incomplete. The Atonement of Christ and its outgrowth subsumes it, which you've unfortunately decided is too complicated a construct.

No I didn't say the Atonement is too complicated. I'm saying that it applies no less or more to homosexual love as to heterosexual love. But you have to appeal to the Atonement in differentiating between them. Why is that? Why is homosexual love different from heterosexual love? Why can't both be equally consistent in the covenant path? 

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Why is homosexual love different from heterosexual love? Why can't both be equally consistent in the covenant path? 

I know that you don't believe any more, but if (as the believers here believe), gender and orientation is an essential characteristic of our individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose --- in a divine pattern that has always existed, with no beginning and no end, with male and female spirits (and eternal roles and orientations as part of them) . . . if this is the case, then homosexual love is different than heterosexual love. Under this set of beliefs (traditional/orthodox LDS), they are intrinsically, fundamentally, and inherently different. One is the spirit setting, and the other is a corrupted mortal setting some experience (without getting into the weeds of why). 

They cannot both be equally consistent in the covenant path, because one of them is not consistent with the covenant path. It is diametrically opposed to the covenant path. 

Again, you will say, as you've said in this thread, "But just because you say so?"  People can and do reject this belief, but for those who actually believe it, that is why. Homosexual love is incompatible with the plan of salvation in the traditional/orthodox LDS belief system. 

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

Then I respectfully submit- without a hint of snark (in case some does come across) - what is the point of that kind of a God at all?  I can do all of those things, and come to those conclusions myself.  It just seems like dressed up agnosticism to me - which, as I said, I can respect the choice to be - but I don't have much use for a God who doesn't give me something bigger than I can do as a natural man.

I do believe Descartes used his experience to rebuild (since he destroyed all his beliefs at first) a little more authoritative version of God for himself.  

In the end, I admit it is about my faith for me - as I can in no wise prove anything nor condemn another for their conclusions.

 

Is a God so accessible as that really objectionable to you? Really? A God that requires what conscientious, compassionate, and thoughtful people can figure out? Do you think that being decent is not challenging or special enough? Personally I think there's much good which can be done already without the introduction of esoteric ideas.

[Meadowchik]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

I know that you don't believe any more, but if (as the believers here believe), gender and orientation is an essential characteristic of our individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose --- in a divine pattern that has always existed, with no beginning and no end, with male and female spirits (and eternal roles and orientations as part of them) . . . if this is the case, then homosexual love is different than heterosexual love. Under this set of beliefs (traditional/orthodox LDS), they are intrinsically, fundamentally, and inherently different. One is the spirit setting, and the other is a corrupted mortal setting some experience (without getting into the weeds of why). 

They cannot both be equally consistent in the covenant path, because one of them is not consistent with the covenant path. It is diametrically opposed to the covenant path. 

Again, you will say, as you've said in this thread, "But just because you say so?"  People can and do reject this belief, but for those who actually believe it, that is why. Homosexual love is incompatible with the plan of salvation in the traditional/orthodox LDS belief system. 

In that case believers like you are putting the potential of loving homosexual relationships and the spiritual advancement resulting from them onto the alter to sacrifice, for the sake of believing what some people say is right. 

Just to be clear. That's what you're doing.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

In that case believers like you are putting the potential of loving homosexual relationships and the spiritual advancement resulting from them onto the alter to sacrifice, for the sake of believing what some people say is right. 

Just to be clear. That's what you're doing.

And shall we be arrogant and dismissive and ignore your actual beliefs and start telling you that you are leading people away from God and contributing to spiritual confusion and unhappiness, just to be clear?

Edited May 14, 2021 by Calm

[Maestrophil]

9 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Is a God so accessible as that really objectionable to you? Really? A God that requires what conscientious, compassionate, and thoughtful people can figure out? Do you think that being decent is not challenging or special enough? Personally I think there's much good which can be done already without the introduction of esoteric ideas.

It’s not a matter of what I want God to be or not be.  It is a matter of what I think He is.  I see NO evidence of such a God in Judeo Christian scripture when taken as a whole. 

if I reject all of that or create my own god, then no, the idea isn’t offensive, but it doesn’t offer me much either because there is no striving in such a god - just being, and I am doing that anyway.  I can learn to love myself unconditionally without a god - and to be basically decent, but I can’t get a hard metric for Truth and Justice or how (or what) to overcome for a god that just sits there and lets me be.  

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

In that case believers like you are putting the potential of loving homosexual relationships and the spiritual advancement resulting from them onto the alter to sacrifice, for the sake of believing what some people say is right. 

Just to be clear. That's what you're doing.

From your perspective, yes. 

And you are halting or hindering their eternal potential for the sake of believing what some other people say is right. 

From our perspective. 

This is all known, of course, but the barrage of Socratic questions of "But why can't you just stop believing that?" would require us . . . to stop believing what we believe. You may not agree with our beliefs, but they are internally consistent, and we believe them. 

Would you have us not be true to our true selves?  

[Meadowchik]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

And shall we be arrogant and dismissive and ignore your actual beliefs and start telling you that you are leading people away from God and contributing to spiritual confusion and unhappiness, just to be clear?

Why would you? I'm talking about what is on the line, here, in this conflict when people say homosexual love is a sin. And all you have to justify it is someone said it is. That's consequences to real lives and happiness being dismissed, which is nothing compared to me dismissing your claims.

[Meadowchik]

2 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

It’s not a matter of what I want God to be or not be.  It is a matter of what I think He is.  I see NO evidence of such a God in Judeo Christian scripture when taken as a whole. 

if I reject all of that or create my own god, then no, the idea isn’t offensive, but it doesn’t offer me much either because there is no striving in such a god - just being, and I am doing that anyway.  I can learn to love myself unconditionally without a god - and to be basically decent, but I can’t get a hard metric for Truth and Justice or how (or what) to overcome for a god that just sits there and lets me be.  

Well you did frame it as what such a God would offer to you.

[Maestrophil]

11 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

In that case believers like you are putting the potential of loving homosexual relationships and the spiritual advancement resulting from them onto the alter to sacrifice, for the sake of believing what some people say is right. 

Just to be clear. That's what you're doing.

No it isn’t at all.  I/we are saying that we believe truly that GOD said it.  You don’t.  
So it’s a classic battle of “is not” vs “is too”.  Your position is just as valid AND invalid as mine.  But it is either disingenuous or ignorant or both to say my belief is only there because “other people said so”. That doesn’t take into account scriptural text, and personal spiritual experiences.   Otherwise your belief likewise is only there because other people said so.