Identity = Child of God > Gay Man

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Feel free to not participate, then.

If you want to be cryptic, fine.  Just do so in some other thread.  Don't clutter up this one.

I agree.

Actually, I think I was acknowledging quite a bit. 

Sexuality as "fluid" and on a "continuum" as opposed to rigid, either/or, "fixed and immutable" categorical "identities."

Sexuality as something that, for some, "can change throughout their life."

Sexuality as being influenced, perhaps even substantially so, by "social and cultural influences."

As for Nicholas, I think his Facebook post is thoughtful, meaningful and significant.

It's not so much about what I "like" as about what I believe.

It sure would be easier for the Latter-day Saints to "go along to get along." to abandon or re-define the Church's teachings about sexuality and marriage.  To conform to popular opinions.  To capitulate.

Instead, I see the Brethren as continuing to present to us revealed doctrines, despite their being socipolitically unpopular in the moment.  I like that.  

In John 6 (the "Bread of Life" sermon), Jesus Christ said some things that were not popular.  Many of those who heard it "murmured at him."  Many of those who heard it "strove among themselves."  Many of those who heard it "went back, and walked no more with him."  

That was His modus operandi.  Christ said and did things that were not well-received by the society around Him.  I'm quite okay with that.  I'm also quite okay with His servants doing the same thing.  I am of course interested in the reputation of the Church.  Our reputation affects our ability to fulfill various mandates from God, not the least of which is the Great Commission.  But preserving and ehnancing the Church's "reputation" cannot come at the expense of other mandates, such as upholding and proclaiming and teaching principles pertaining to marriage and the Law of Chastity.

Christ did not upend the moneychangers' tables in the temple because it was popular.  He did so because it was right.

Christ did not preach the "Bread of Life" sermon in John 6 because it was popular.  He did so because it was right.

Christ preached a gospel that was not going to be popular in the minds of an increasingly wicked world.  He knew that.  But He preached it anyway.  I think He knew beforehand that His message would alienate many people, including some otherwise good and decent people.  But He preached anyway.  I think He did so because those who were ready for His message needed to hear it, and needed to be gathered out of the World.  

Perhaps this is why He said "For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me."

I find it grimly satisfying that the Brethren are saying and doing some things that, in my mind, are A) unpopular in the eyes of the World, and B) in accordance with revealed truths.  It is in times like this that we learn and grow, that we are called upon to dig deep and discern just how much value we place in our relationship with the Lord, with His church, with our covenants.  In John 6, we read about the response many of the Savior's follower's had: "From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him."  But then, we also read about the response of others:

The "idea {I} like" is ascertaining, and then following, the will of God.  Even if doing so is difficult.  Even if it is unpopular.  

The Church's teachings about sexual ethics/behavior and marriage are presently a stumblingblock for some members of the Church, rather like how the Savior's teachings in John 6 were a stumblingblock to some in that generation.  

Thanks,

-Smac

On one hand you are trying to embrace a small part of a possible new wave understanding of sexuality. On the other you take pride in taking the unpopular road in accordance with revelation. The philosophies of men mingled with…..hmmmmm…….

I don’t think you understand what is in this new incoming wave. You won’t like most of it. I don’t like a lot of it. We aren’t going back to ‘pre-hetero/homo’ definitions. Appealing to this new ideology to help people endure in the gospel sounds good until they start embracing the rest.

Edited September 9, 2021 by The Nehor

[Canadiandude]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I have heard those in mixed orientation marriages describe themselves as bisexual, gay/lesbian but developed a sexual attraction to solely one person of the sex, and a few other labels I can’t remember now. 
 

My problem is with those that automatically jump to “they were never really gay, but were always bisexual” upon hearing about someone who had solely homosexual relationships in the past having a heterosexual relationship even when the individual defines themself as gay.  The reverse is rarely insisted upon, a woman who was married to a man and had a consensual sexual relationship with him and perhaps even described herself as happily married who later leaves the marriage and now declares herself a lesbian has not been challenged or labeled a bisexual in my experience….nor should she be. Same with a man who had chosen to have heterosexual relationships in the past who later defines himself as gay. 

And heaven help those that identify as Bi in church. All too often they get erased entirely.

[The Nehor]

Just now, Canadiandude said:

And heaven help those that identify as Bi in church. All too often they get erased entirely.

Bi erasure is very much a generalized thing everywhere, particularly in older generations.

[Peacefully]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I'm so sorry. That's terrible!

People often assume that porn is behind it (very often it is very present, that's for sure), but it isn't always at the root. Often people have trouble expressing verbally exactly why  things are the way they are, either. 

Talk about really awkward --- wives asking their bishop if he could talk to their husbands and see if **they** will have sex with them. How, exactly, do you broach that (especially with the human and male psyche? It's an impossible situation for all involved)?

For many women, physical touch and affection are just as, or even more important than sex.

And listening --- women can tell when men are listening, but not really listening.  

I appreciate it, but you are preaching to the choir, lol. He had a myriad of problems and many started when he was very young.

I’ve been through a lot, divorced once, widowed once, and now married for eight years to a man who loves me, respects me, and treats me as his equal. He has shown me what a man should be.

 

[Peacefully]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

This is a long post, as it reflects some of my attempt to address recent developments in society that end up intersecting with the Church's doctrines pertaining to sexual morality/ethics and marriage.

I came across this article this morning in the Daily Mail, in which a young Latter-day Saint man says some pretty important things:

Some excerpts:

A bit of a detour from the article for a moment...

I can't help but feel that we as a society are trying a bit too hard to shoehorn ourselves into categories as pertaining to sexual attraction.  As our own @Hamba Tuhan has summed up:

I like the Latter-day Saint polish he puts on these observations.  As for rigid sexual categories, consider this 2018 article:

 

• "More open to the idea of fluid sexuality..."
• "Along a continuum..."
• "Women's sexuality can change throughout their life..."
• "More people identify themselves as 'mostly-but-not-completely heterosexual' thatn exclusively heterosexual."

This seems largely congruent with Hamba's observations, and seems to reflect the concept of sexual fluidity:

 

• "Changes is sexuality or sexual identity..."
• "Some research indicates that some people may experience change in their sexual orientation..."
• "Sexual identity can change throughout an individual's life..."
• "Sexual orientation . . . is {believed to be} caused by a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental {that is, social and cultural} influences."
• "Sexual orientation can be at any point along a continuum..."

Interestingly, the concept of sexual fluidity seems to be controversial . . . . in the LGBT community:

It seems like, historically speaking, "gay" folks have been much put upon to conform to sociocultural expectations about sexual identity and expression, and yet now we seem to be seeing developments about sexuality becoming more about being potentially "fluid" and on a "continuum."  These ideas don't seem to mesh well with the "sexual orientation is fixed and immutable" concept espoused by "many within the LGBT community."  I wonder how much of this "fixed and immutable" concept has been driven by ideological / political / legal considerations.  

I also wonder how much of an individual's sexual orientation (aka sexual orientation identity) is attributable to, as noted above, "social and cultural influences."  See, e.g., this Wikipedia article about Bisexual Chic:

 

• "The 1920s was a decade of social experimentation, particularly with sex ... {and} heavily influenced by the writings of Sigmund Freud, who theorized that people would behave in any manner to satisfy sexual desire."
• "Sexual experimentation was widespread."
• "Women began to seek out sexual adventure.  Bixesuality became chic..."
• "The phrase ... can be used to assert that someone is free of taboos, experimental, in touch with both masculine and feminine aspects of themselves..."
• "This phenomenon has been criticised for its 'trendy' property..."
• "Bisexuality being chic is also deterimental to the bisexual movement as 'faux bisexuality'..."

Another interesting phenomenon is that the concept of "bisexuality," which implies two genders, is given way to "pasexuality."  See, e.g., here (from 2019) :

Hmm.  This sounds more and more like "social and cultural influences" having a big influence.  It sounds like . . . a trend.

See also here (from 2018) :

The author's disclaimer notwithstanding, it sure looks like "a fad."  Just take a look at the graphic accompanying the article:

Bisexual.  Pansexual.  Omnisexual.  Polysexual.  Queer.  Fluid.  Homoflexible.  Lesbiflexible.  Heteroflexible.  Bi-curious.  Bromantic.  Panromantic.  Bisensual.  Pansensual.  Bidyke.  Byke.  Bisexual-lesbian.  Ambisextrous.  Anthrosexual.  Multisexual, Gender-Blind.  Pomosexual.  "And many more."

And here (from June 2021) :

Yes.  It may also reflect, well, the trendiness of the thing.

See also here (from 2019) :

The foregoing articles are all pretty much laudatory of these trends.  This article provides a different point of view on them:

So this trend seems to be having a disproportionate effect on women.  More specifically, young women.  Read on:

Hmm.

 

• "As 16-year-old Jasper Swartz ... {put it}, all of her friends are 'queer in some way.'"
• "{Bisexual status} seems to better reflect a pop culture fad to be included in the LGBT spectrum in any way possible."
• "Grey-area identities may offer more social clout and sense of rebellion and uniqueness than traditional gay or transgender identities, but with less dramatic personal changes."
• "{Declaring} themselves non-binary or bisexual ... {results in} instant victimhood status and self-validation."
• "{T}he reality appears to be that LGBT identity is a highly desirable social status."

The more I review and consider this matter, the more I find Hamba's summary to be apt, accurate and reasonable:

• "The concept of fixed, gendered sexual identities (both hetero- and homo-) is a late 19th-century social construct that has no historical preceden{t}."
• "{S}ame-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."
• "{I}t is perfectly normal to experience various kinds of attractions to both males and females."
• "{A}ll these things are fluid because humans are dynamic."
• "God, aware that sexuality is powerful, has provided guidelines to keep us safe and happy and help us to become most like Him."
• "{W}e 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."
• "{Y}ou are going to screw up in one or more areas of the Law of Chastity."
• "{D}on'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."
• {I}t is essential that we are all nice to each other since we're all works in progress."

In other words, Hamba point is to acknowledge the complexities of sexuality in this life, and then transcend them by looking to and following the commandments of God.  Very good stuff.

With that context, let's go back to the first article about Nicholas and Jordan Applegate:

Wow.  The wheel is always turning.  It seems that not too long ago Nicholas would have been excoriated for his choice, as it would have been seen as a betrayal or denial of his "fixed and immutable" category of "homosexual."

They sound happy.  I hope things work out for them.

The article quotes his Facebook post in its entirety: Pic 1, Pic 2, Pic 3, Pic 4, Pic 5.  He addresses Elder Holland's remarks to some extent, but overall I was more impressed with him expressing in words concepts that I feel often do not get sufficient attention and emphasis:

First, Nicholas is saying something that often does not get sufficient attention or emphasis: He values his membership in the Church, so much so that "he's happy to make the sacrifice if it means he can remain part of" it.  He wants to "fully participate in the church" because it "means a lot to" him.  Just so.  If the Church is what it claims to be, then joining it and remaining in it will often entail some very real sacrifice, which efforts result in blessings and joy.  In that sense it's like marriage.  Lots of sacrifice and commitment, but lots of blessings too.  Fully participating means a lot to us.

Second, Nicholas is acknowledging the plain reality that is often overlooked or glossed over: Being a member of the Church is more than just a social or nominal thing.  It means obeying the commandments and keeping covenants.  Again, like a marriage.

Third, Nicholas "comes out" in a very Latter-day Saint way: "I am a gay man married to a wonderful wife, and I openly support The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its doctrines, and its leaders."  And here: "However, at the core of myself, I am not a gay man; I am a child of God, a priesthood holder, a husband, and a father. I am not denying my true self by living the tenets of the Church. I would be denying my true self by not living the gospel and leaving the Church to live a gay lifestyle."  And here: "'I decided essentially as soon as I realized I was gay that I would follow the law of chastity and not engage in a relationship with a man."  

Beautiful stuff. 

He chooses to let his identity as "a child of God" predominate over his status as "a gay man."  He finds his "true self" in living the Gospel.  He committed to constraining his sexual behaviors to the parameters set by God.  

I have great affection and love for our gay brothers and sisters.  I cherish my friendships and relationships with them.  I also cherish my relationship with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ.  These days there seems to be a lot of tension and disputation as to matters of sexual identity, expression, behavior, and so on.  I am therefore grateful to have the Restored Gospel, to have living prophets and apostles who, though themselves flawed and imperfect, are providing us with cumulative and coherent and clear guidance on these important matters.  I am reminded of this quote by Joseph Smith:

I believe Heavenly Father actually exists.  I believe we have an incomplete, but nevertheless correct (in our limited sphere) idea of His character, perfections, and attributes.

The part tripping up the Latter-day Saints seems to be that third point: "actual knowledge that the course of life which one is pursuing is according to His will."  In other words: obedience.  Keeping covenants.  Repentance.  Enduring to the end.  Listening to the Lord and His servants more than to the cacaphony of alternative voices out there.

So thank you, Nicholas, for your thoughts.  And thanks again to Hamba for his summary.  

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

When I was younger I was attracted to  both men and women, but when I thought about spending my life with someone, I could only picture myself with a man, and sexual activity was only a small part of that thought process. If someone forced me to marry a woman, it wouldn’t feel natural to me. I don’t think our gay brothers and sisters can just decide to marry the opposite sex because it wouldn’t feel natural to them. Yes, some can make the transition, but that doesn’t mean it works for all. Saying that the only other option is celibacy isn’t very helpful because the church doesn’t only say no sex, we say no kissing, holding hands or anything else that may give rise to homosexual feelings. So basically no intimacy with a partner of the same sex. The people who I hear advising this are usually married heterosexuals. 

Please don’t parse my words. I’m not here to argue or to convince anyone. Let’s all just have some compassion and assume our gay brothers and sisters on the board are capable of making the right decisions for them and their families. It is between them and God. 
 

 

 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

I appreciate it, but you are preaching to the choir, lol. He had a myriad of problems and many started when he was very young.

I’ve been through a lot, divorced once, widowed once, and now married for eight years to a man who loves me, respects me, and treats me as his equal. He has shown me what a man should be.

 

This makes my heart happy, it broke when I read what happened to you. 💕 

[Peacefully]

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This makes my heart happy, it broke when I read what happened to you. 💕 

Thank you:) Although I wouldn’t have chosen it, going through the bad stuff really made me appreciate the good stuff!

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  

Okay.  It means a lot to other people.  

"Interratial marriage" is not comparable.  People of different ethnicities have been marrying each other for time out of mind.  Legal constraints on interracial marriage were very much an exception, not the rule.

I think viewing sexuality through the lens of categorical identities has all sorts of downstream ramifications (excuse the mixed metaphor).

Thanks,

-Smac

 A lot? Who?  You seemed to have seized on this. Why is Hamba an expert on this?

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Interratial marriage" is not comparable.  People of different ethnicities have been marrying each other for time out of mind.  Legal constraints on interracial marriage were very much an exception, not the rule.

The point is conventions and understanding changes over time as new information comes forth and also as social understanding changes.

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think viewing sexuality through the lens of categorical identities has all sorts of downstream ramifications (excuse the mixed metaphor).

And your conclusion and approach is severely tainted by your religious beliefs and bias. Others are going to take that into account as far as how credible you may be on the topic

 

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

 A lot? Who?  You seemed to have seized on this. Why is Hamba an expert on this?

I think his reasoning and broad historical review are sound.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

The point is conventions and understanding changes over time as new information comes forth and also as social understanding changes.

I'm not convinced that "changes over time" are inevitably better.  Some changes are good, some are not.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I think viewing sexuality through the lens of categorical identities has all sorts of downstream ramifications (excuse the mixed metaphor).

And your conclusion and approach is severely tainted by your religious beliefs and bias.  Others are going to take that into account as far as how credible you may be on the topic

Ad hominem doesn't really do much.

I'm not really trying to lay down the law here.  I'm sorting things out.  Collating data.  And I'm doing so in a venue where I can count on hearing from people who disagree with my "religious beliefs and bias."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 9, 2021 by smac97

[smac97]

9 hours ago, Peacefully said:

When I was younger I was attracted to  both men and women, but when I thought about spending my life with someone, I could only picture myself with a man, and sexual activity was only a small part of that thought process. If someone forced me to marry a woman, it wouldn’t feel natural to me. I don’t think our gay brothers and sisters can just decide to marry the opposite sex because it wouldn’t feel natural to them. Yes, some can make the transition, but that doesn’t mean it works for all. Saying that the only other option is celibacy isn’t very helpful because the church doesn’t only say no sex, we say no kissing, holding hands or anything else that may give rise to homosexual feelings. So basically no intimacy with a partner of the same sex. The people who I hear advising this are usually married heterosexuals. 

Please don’t parse my words. I’m not here to argue or to convince anyone. Let’s all just have some compassion and assume our gay brothers and sisters on the board are capable of making the right decisions for them and their families. It is between them and God. 

I'm here to discuss.  To lay out some ideas and subject them to critical feedback/commentary from a diversity of viewpoints.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

On one hand you are trying to embrace a small part of a possible new wave understanding of sexuality.

Actually, Hamba's point is that the "understanding of sexuality" he is describing is old, not new.  I think it is the concept of "identity" based on sexuality that is the novelty.

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

On the other you take pride in taking the unpopular road in accordance with revelation. The philosophies of men mingled with…..hmmmmm…….

Well, no.  I think Hamba's points ("it is perfectly normal to experience various kinds of attractions to both males and females ... all these things are fluid because humans are dynamic ...") better reflect the state of things as compared to the status quo ("fixed, gendered sexual identities (both hetero- and homo-)")

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t think you understand what is in this new incoming wave.

Feel free to edumacate me.

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You won’t like most of it.

No doubt.

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t like a lot of it. We aren’t going back to ‘pre-hetero/homo’ definitions.

We'll see, I suppose.

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Appealing to this new ideology to help people endure in the gospel sounds good until they start embracing the rest.

I was not "appealing" or "embracing" this stuff.  Hamba was describing a milieu, a state of things, in which we as Latter-day Saints are tasked with applying revealed truths and mandates.  As Hamba put it: 

Quote

• 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 think he raises some very good points.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

13 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

Third, for me marriage is about much, much more than romantic/sexual fulfillment.  So varied degrees of romantic/sexual satisfaction over a lifetime commitment would not be sufficient grounds to end that commitment.

I could agree with most everything else you said, but I don't think I can agree on this point. Having lived in a sexless marriage for years myself and spoken to many others in sexless marriages, sexual dissatisfaction is definitely sufficient grounds to end that commitment. I personally have chosen to stay and hope something changes in the future, but I would not begrudge anyone who decided they were unwilling to stay in a sexless marriage.

Fair points.  Reasonable minds can disagree about these sorts of things.

I think what I had in mind was more circumstantial than decisional.  That is, a marriage that is "sexless" due to factors beyond the parties' control and choices.  

From the Church's "Building An Eternal Marriage Teacher Manual":

Quote

“Married couples … should understand that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a means of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife”

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

First, I would need to understand my role in or stewardship over adjudicating "someone leaving a marriage."  Perhaps you mean "approve" or "disapprove?

Well, you have chosen to comment on how one should view sexual relationships to the extent of writing the opening post and others.

Yes.  But that's a fair distance from me personally adjudicating the sexual/marital decisions of another person.

I am fine with discussing general principles.  I am a bit more cautious about adjudicating specific incidents that are outside my stewardship.

15 hours ago, Calm said:

My question is, I guess, more about your reasoning and choices in using the data that is provided.

Well, I spent quite a bit of time laying out my reasoning.

15 hours ago, Calm said:

Let me use an extreme example of misuse of data and theory to point out where I see you might be taking a misstep here…

Meldrum used DNA studies that showed correlation between Native American DNA and Jewish DNA to support his Heartland theory while choosing to ignore the baggage that came along with that correlation including the timeline that didn’t match the Book of Mormon timeline at all and went against his young earth, creationist, global flood beliefs. 

Imo, there is considerable baggage that comes along with the sexual fluidity theory, primarily imo there is little reason to favor monogamous, longterm, heterosexual  sexual relationships/marriage. 

Okay.  I'm not sure how that baggage is problematic, though.  I am not endorsing a laissez-faire, if-it-feels-good-do-it approach to sexual ethics.  Far from it.  Rather, I am proposing that Hamba's general historical overview is accurate:

Quote

• 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

As I noted previously: "Your question seems to not really address the issue of agency.  We are not animalistic, driven by primal urges beyond our control.  We have the capacity to choose.  To exercise self-control.  To constrain our appetites and passions.  This is, I think, a particularly relevant point to make in a Latter-day Saint paradigm."

King Benjamin put it this way: "For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father."

I think Hamba is describing the "natural man" state of things, onto which we can and ought to apply the precepts of the Restored Gospel.  To "put{} off the natural man," to submit ourselves to, as Hamba put it, "{God-given} guidelines {designed and intended} to keep us safe and happy and help us to become most like Him."

15 hours ago, Calm said:

Therefore Imo if one uses sexual fluidity to support certain gospel practices,

That is not what I am doing.  If I point to scientific or sociological data about human inclinations toward promiscuity, I am not endorsing promiscuity.  I am presenting context for the application of revelatory principles such as the Law of Chastity.

I think the points presented by Hamba make more sense as a contextual backdrop than the "fixed, gendered sexual identities (both hetero- and homo-)" framework.

15 hours ago, Calm said:

one also needs to be capable of demonstrating why in other cases sexual fluidity should be set aside in determining what is and isn’t appropriate behaviour. 

I'm not sure I understand your point.  Whatever our sexual predilictions are, I think the Restored Gospel establishes the parameters of "appropriate behavior."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 9, 2021 by smac97

[smac97]

15 hours ago, california boy said:

Why are you bothering posting this here.  

Well, one reason is because this board has a variety of viewpoints.  I like presenting ideas and arguments here, as I know they will be tested through a variety of analytical lenses.

15 hours ago, california boy said:

You should send it to the Church leaders.  

Sarcasm in lieu of substance.

15 hours ago, california boy said:

Convince them that indeed if gay men will just marry someone of the opposite sex, then in the name of God they will no longer be gay.

Not sure why you are saying that.  I am not advocating for mixed orientation marriages.  I am not advocating against them, either.  I am mostly collating data.

15 hours ago, california boy said:

Or if they are then it won’t matter because orientation is fluid.  After all homosexuality is just a modern concept. 

"Homosexuality" as a fixed "identity" appears to be a modern concept, yes.  The word wasn't even coined until the late 19th century.  But certainly the behavior has been around for time out of mind, as is the "experience {of} various kinds of attractions to both males and females."  

15 hours ago, california boy said:

That worked out so well the first time around.  

I am curious about how widespread it was in the Church to tell gay men to marry.  I have not been able to find information about that.

As for whether mixed-orientation marriages can actually work, consider this article (from August 2020) (emphasis added) :

Quote

Skyler Sorensen and his wife Amanda have a lot in common.

For starters, they’re both attracted to men. But Skyler claims that being gay hasn’t gotten in the way of their blissful marriage — or their sex life.

“That sexual attraction came from, I mean, trial-and-error and a lot of practice,” the 25-year-old told The Post, laughing with his wife, also 25.

As Mormons, he and Amanda believe that the “celestial marriage” between a man and woman — and a man and woman only — is key to heavenly salvation. So, the couple sought to make their unusual union work, despite their mismatched desire.
...
Determined to make the conventional marriage work, the Sorensens called on a trusted counselor, with both personal and professional experience in mixed-orientation relationships (MOR), to help them prepare for their unusual arrangement — which it turns out isn’t so uncommon, said Dr. Ty Mansfield, a private practice marriage and family therapist in Provo and adjunct professor at BYU.

Mansfield, who specializes in MORs, specifically among Mormons, said “anywhere from 40 to 60% [of my clients] are navigating sexual or gender-identity questions.”

“Whatever path you choose, there are healthy ways and unhealthy ways to navigate that path,” he said. For some in the church, this could mean a lifetime — an eternity, even — of celibacy. Others, such as the Sorensens, can achieve an “authentic sexual expression” through the “nurturing of the … personal, spiritual bond,” as opposed to defining marriage as “just an expression of [an] orientation.”

Recently, he and his colleagues conducted a study of Mormon adults, either practicing or defected, “who experience sexual attractions to same-sex adults,” according to the survey, published on 4OptionsSurvey.com. Among other insights, they discovered that MORs are, in fact, viable. About 80% of such respondents reported being generally satisfied with their status — almost double the rate of those who were single and celibate (42%) or single and not celibate (40%).

Still, the survey found that the happiest couples were those attracted to members of the same sex who were in same-sex relationships. They reported a 95% satisfaction rate.

I'd like to see the polling data and methodology.

I think this comment by Ty Mansfield merits some consideration:

Quote

Mansfield also experienced change regarding his self-identification when he was single, years before he married his wife, Danielle. Despite Mansfield’s same-sex attraction, he said he made a conscious decision to stop identifying himself as gay.

“I actually had a very strong spiritual impression that if I continued to identify as gay, I would limit my progression,” Mansfield said. “I don’t think of myself as being in a ‘mixed-orientation’ marriage. I’m in a marriage. I’m a man, my wife is a woman, we love each other and we’re married.”

And this one from Jeff Bennion (also gay and in a mixed-orientation marriage) (same link) :

Quote

Jeff Bennion, who is gay and an LDS Church member and a marriage and family therapist, is married to a woman. He said he understands how hard it can be for an LGBT-identified individual to feel a sense of belonging as a member of the LDS Church. However, he has found unity by placing one aspect of his identity above the others.

“If you’re more attached to your sexual identity than you are to your membership and your discipleship of Christ, if any of those labels come before ‘a disciple of Christ,’ then yeah, it’s not going to be easy for you in the church,” said Bennion, who is gay.

And this one from Elder Ballard (same link) :

Quote

“I want anyone who is a member of the Church who is gay or lesbian to know I believe you have a place in the kingdom and I recognize that sometimes it may be difficult for you to see where you fit in the Lord’s Church, but you do,” he said. “We need to listen to and understand what our LGBT brothers and sisters are feeling and experiencing. Certainly we must do better than we have done in the past so that all members feel they have a spiritual home.”

The article also includes comments from Josh Weed that also deserve some consideration.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 9, 2021 by smac97

[smac97]

14 hours ago, Navidad said:

Sorry for my ignorance. Where and when did the Lord command human beings to marry?

From chapter 38 of the Gospel Principles manual:

Quote

Marriage between a man and a woman is a vital part of God’s plan. The Lord has said, “Whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man” (D&C 49:15). Since the beginning, marriage has been a law of the gospel. Marriages are intended to last forever, not just for our mortal lives.
...

Additional Scriptures

• Genesis 1:26–28 (we should multiply and replenish the earth)

• Genesis 2:21–24 (the first marriage was performed by God)

• Matthew 19:3–8 (what God has joined)

• D&C 132 (the eternal nature of the marriage law)

• D&C 42:22–26 (marriage vows should be kept)

• Jacob 3:5–7 (husbands and wives should be true to each other)

See also Hebrews 13:4 ("Marriage is honourable in all...").  

Marriage, like baptism, is a salvific ordinance.  It is, nevertheless, unique among these ordinances in that it is the only one that requires the ongoing consent of and participation by another person.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

11 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

And heaven help those that identify as Bi in church. All too often they get erased entirely.

I have a friend, a faithful and observant (and married) member of the Church, who has recently confided that he is bisexual. 

I use the word "confided" advisedly.  I think some people, including many religious people, are less inclined to use sexual orientation as a predominating identifier.  That's not to say that this is not an important part of the overall person, just that some don't wear it on their sleeve.  From one of my previous posts:

Quote

Jeff Bennion, who is gay and an LDS Church member and a marriage and family therapist, is married to a woman. He said he understands how hard it can be for an LGBT-identified individual to feel a sense of belonging as a member of the LDS Church. However, he has found unity by placing one aspect of his identity above the others.

“If you’re more attached to your sexual identity than you are to your membership and your discipleship of Christ, if any of those labels come before ‘a disciple of Christ,’ then yeah, it’s not going to be easy for you in the church,” said Bennion, who is gay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Peacefully]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I'm here to discuss.  To lay out some ideas and subject them to critical feedback/commentary from a diversity of viewpoints.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you for letting my words stand together. I, too, am here to discuss but sometimes the parsing cheapens the overall meaning of the statement, imho. 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

Thank you for letting my words stand together. I, too, am here to discuss but sometimes the parsing cheapens the overall meaning of the statement, imho. 

I'm a lawyer, so "parsing" out other people's arguments and ideas is a daily habit.

My particular style of parsing is called fisking: "A rebuttal to an article or blog made by quoting its content in sections and refuting each section individually."

There are pros and cons to it.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Canadiandude]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have a friend, a faithful and observant (and married) member of the Church, who has recently confided that he is bisexual. 

I use the word "confided" advisedly.  I think some people, including many religious people, are less inclined to use sexual orientation as a predominating identifier.  That's not to say that this is not an important part of the overall person, just that some don't wear it on their sleeve.  From one of my previous posts:

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes. Thank-you. I read that.

Everyone’s different, so long as they’re happy, and respecting others different expressions and solutions to similar contexts then great. 
 

It’s just odd when people have a moral panic over what identifications I myself choose to place emphasis over.

I read this interesting blog that I thought was worthwhile- of the multiple  times people have communicated their heterosexual identities in BYU commencement addresses- without any fuss! 
 

https://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2021/08/27/how-often-do-byu-student-speakers-at-commencement-suggest-theyre-straight/

 

Fascinating times.

Edited September 9, 2021 by Canadiandude

[Navidad]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From chapter 38 of the Gospel Principles manual:

See also Hebrews 13:4 ("Marriage is honourable in all...").  

Marriage, like baptism, is a salvific ordinance.  It is, nevertheless, unique among these ordinances in that it is the only one that requires the ongoing consent of and participation by another person.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks my friend. I see a few statements in that passage. I don't see any commands. It seems according to what I read, it is a requirement for eternal life in the highest of the three Celestial kingdoms. Is that correct? If that is correct, I still don't understand it as a "command." It is a requirement for highest exaltation, but can't a single person in the spirit world be sealed to his or her grandfather and still qualify? Doesn't, in that case the grandson become part of an eternal family by sealing and thus qualify for a higher, or perhaps even highest degree of exaltation?

I am interested in all of this because three weeks ago in Elders Quorum, based on the conference talk, they had a long discussion on single, divorced, and widowed persons in the church. The consensus seemed to be that all are eligible for exaltation to "eternal life." Perhaps the unspoken understanding among the men was that exaltation did not include the highest of the three levels of the celestial kingdom?

 

[bOObOO]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have a friend, a faithful and observant (and married) member of the Church, who has recently confided that he is bisexual. 

I use the word "confided" advisedly.  I think some people, including many religious people, are less inclined to use sexual orientation as a predominating identifier.  That's not to say that this is not an important part of the overall person, just that some don't wear it on their sleeve.  From one of my previous posts:

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you.  It warms my heart to think you consider me to be one of your friends.  To say that "I AM bisexual" may not be the best way to phrase what I mean when I say that, though.  To be more precise I should probably say that I am sometimes sexually attracted and oriented toward my own sex and some other people who are the same sex that I am, as well as to the opposite sex.  I do not mean that I am 2 sexes, both a man and a woman.  My parents were both, one of each, but I am only one sex of the 2 that are possible for our species.

Anyway, thanks again.  I consider you to be one of my friends too and I am pleased to know you the little bit that I do.

[CV75]

It does not seem too revolutionary to identify first and foremost as a child of God. The idea of "co-existing" identities doesn't seem too controversial either. In any case, I think identity drives spirituality which in turn drives sexual expression. When spirituality is accompanied by chosen covenants, the covenants help us choose how we express ourselves, sexually or otherwise.

[bOObOO]

39 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Thanks my friend. I see a few statements in that passage. I don't see any commands. It seems according to what I read, it is a requirement for eternal life in the highest of the three Celestial kingdoms. Is that correct? If that is correct, I still don't understand it as a "command." It is a requirement for highest exaltation, but can't a single person in the spirit world be sealed to his or her grandfather and still qualify? Doesn't, in that case the grandson become part of an eternal family by sealing and thus qualify for a higher, or perhaps even highest degree of exaltation?

I am interested in all of this because three weeks ago in Elders Quorum, based on the conference talk, they had a long discussion on single, divorced, and widowed persons in the church. The consensus seemed to be that all are eligible for exaltation to "eternal life." Perhaps the unspoken understanding among the men was that exaltation did not include the highest of the three levels of the celestial kingdom?

 

How we choose to define words sometimes does get in the way of properly understanding what our Lord would like us to understand, doesn't it.  When he says or even hints at the idea that we should do something (in old English that would be thou shalt _______) we could call that either a command or just good advice, but the point is that our Lord was saying we should do it, for whatever reason he had in mind for why he said we should do it.  And a requirement may just indicate that something is necessary to be able to accomplish something else, like how both sexes are required to be able to produce another branch of a family.  Children and grand children and great grand children etc will always be members of their own parents family, forever, as long as the parents are sealed to each other, but for those children to be able to become parents of their own children they will also need to be sealed to a spouse of the opposite sex with which they can reproduce to create their own children.  Not just because God said so, but also because that is just how that works.  

Edited September 9, 2021 by bOObOO

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, rongo said:

That's probably true. In my experience, and in my opinion, the professionals are often no better than the untrained bishops. And I'm talking about prestigious professionals, not just Family Services counselors. 

So you think a professionally trained therapist is no better than an untrained bishop?  It think you are grossly mistaken and if you operated like this as a bishop I think it was problematic for your ward.  When I was a bishop I found a number of good therapists I could trust and often referred people because I knew when I was in over my head.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think his reasoning and broad historical review are sound.

Why? Dies he have expertise on this or do you just like what he says.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not convinced that "changes over time" are inevitably better.  Some changes are good, some are not.

Some are good some are not.  Personally I think in the area that is the topic of this thread society is doing much better in spite of religions that oppose such things because they think God says so.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Ad hominem doesn't really do much.

It was not ad hominem. It is a fact that your approach to this is heavily biased by your views on religion and the fact that you think God direct LDS leaders. That certainly needs to be considered in anything you have to say about it,

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not really trying to lay down the law here.  I'm sorting things out.  Collating data.  And I'm doing so in a venue where I can count on hearing from people who disagree with my "religious beliefs and bias."

Thanks,

-Smac

Terrific!