What do you believe is the current narrative for most LGTBQ members of the Church?

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

If what you are concluding is incompatible with the counsel given from living prophets and apostles, then that's a pretty good indicator that your personal moral compass is askew.

Why assume that my moral compass is askew and not theirs?

First, my use of "you" was generic.  I was not referring to you, but to anyone using Michael Ash's stool.

Second, I did not say the individual should "assume" that.  I instead said that if the individual reaches a conclusion "incompatible with the counsel given from living prophets and apostles," then that incompatibility is "a pretty good indicator that {the individual's} personal moral compass is askew."  It's a conclusion borne of analysis and reasoning, not an assumption.

Third, the cumulative and clear counsel of living prophets and apostles about moral issues carries, in my view, considerable probative weight.  Their intended function is to provide such guidance.

11 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Or, perhaps more important to this thread, why assume that moral compass of those LDS LGBT who leave the Church (shall we assume it is a vast majority as @kimpearson claims?) is askew?

I decline to follow you down this trail.

11 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

After all, as a solidly cis-hetero man, I have no real skin in this game, so I maybe shouldn't trust my own moral compass on this.

Lacking "skin in this game" could just as easily be said to make you more objective, more clinical, less emotionally involved.

By way of analogy, look at courts of law.  We don't ask judges to do their jobs because they have "skin in the game."  To the contrary, we expect them to not have skin in the game.  We expect them to be impartial and dispassionate, and to rely on evidence and reasoning rather than emotion and personal preferences.

11 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

If the OP is correct that a vast majority of LDS LGBT+ people believe that God is leading them away from the Church, then I feel it appropriate to wonder whose moral compass is really askew.

That's a pretty big "if."

11 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

If we dispense with the notion of infallibility, then following the Brethren becomes markedly easier.

This is venturing further down the tangent to the main idea of the thread, but I wonder exactly how you see this working for you?

I don't insist that the Brethren be infallible as a precondition for following their counsel.  The "Yes, I'll follow prophetic counsel, but only if they are infallible and/or only if their counsel fits neatly and comfortably within my preconceived notions of how things ought to be" is pretty much guaranteed to fail.  

I have been a civil litigation attorney for 17 years.  I have appeared before dozens of judges, both state and federal.  I have no expectation that they will infallibly and perfectly follow the law.  To the contrary, I have some expectation that personal biases, errors or gaps in understanding, individual temperaments, etc. might play a role in this or that part of a lawsuit.  However, I also recognize that a sitting judge is considerably more likely to get things right then wrong.  There is a vetting process for judges that includes reviewing their education, credentials, legal experience, reputation, and so on.  Every judge went to college, then to law school, then practiced law.  Every judge takes an oath to impartially apply the law.  Every judge understands that his decisions are subject to review by appellate courts, and that there is a process for removing a judge for misconduct.  Moreover, in my 17 years I have come to feel that judges before whom I appear generally and broadly do a good job, apply the law well, and so on.  So does all this mean we can rely on them to infallibly apply the law in every instance and in every respect?  Nope.  But generally speaking they are good, and there are safeguards in place for if and when they make a mistake or step out of line.

By analogy, I think the same general sentiments can be said about the Brethren.  They are good and decent men.  They come from backgrounds of substantial prior experience of service in the Church.  And the revelatory process deserves some consideration as well.  Does this mean they are infallibly perfect in how they fulfill their responsibilities?  Nope.  But overall they are pretty good.  And cumulatively, in the aggregate, they are quite good.

If I have used my moral compass and decided that it is morally acceptable to, say, step out on my wife every once in a while, I think it would be prudent to search the scriptures and prophetic counsel about whether that conclusion is correct.  Going outside of my own perspective as to matters of sexual ethics would pretty much always be a good idea, IMO.

11 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

For me, I can see one way that dispensing with infallibility helps follow the brethren -- it makes it easier to pick and choose which practices and beliefs I accept (easier to be a cafeteria Mormon).

Harboring expectations of infallibility make following the Brethren more difficult, not less.

11 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

There are often various social pressures -- entering a homoromantic relationship will cause many members to look askance at you and, subject to the whims of leadership roulette, may lead to a place of partial fellowship.

I don't know what this means.

I think there are massive social pressures these days to capitulate on the Law of Chastity.  The path of least resistance is to ignore the Brethren, not follow them.

11 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

And, if an LDS LGBT person decides the brethren are wrong about SSM and they choose to marry, they will almost certainly be pushed into a place of partial fellowship (or even full withdrawal of membership).

Well, yes.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Religion poisons everything" seems to to not contemplate "trade offs."  No acknowledgement of the merits of religion.

Right.  Atheism has a much better track record.

Thanks,

-Smac

Did I make the claim that atheism has a better track record?  Hard to tell since for most of civilized humanity religions have ruled the earth and left plenty of sorrow and misery in their path.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

I assume so too.

My basic assumption is that God is good, God is fair, and God is no respecter of persons.  So, no special treatment that anyone else wouldn't get.

I don't know, but that doesn't mean God doesn't know.  My basic outlook on the exalting plan might be described as "long-path free-will universalist". 

Let me provide an example of God having figured out a solution to a multitude-damning dilemma long before any of us did:

Up until September of 1842 the Christian world had no "plan B" for the millions who died without baptism, who would therefore be denied entry into the Kingdom of God and condemned to an eternity in hell.  They had no choice but to worship a God who was obviously fundamentally unfair, or be a heretic.  Then along came Joseph Smith's teachings about baptism for the dead and proxy temple ordinances.  Well okay Joseph's still a heretic to many, but his teachings on the subject change everything, revealing that God was NOT fundamentally unfair when it comes to baptism being the requirement for entry into His kingdom.  There is a way provided such that nobody gets cheated out of salvation, and proxy exaltation ordinances are included. This new paradigm (plan B, ordinance work for the dead) saves Christianity from being fundamentally unjust.  And the coming forth of a corresponding paradigm shift is what I believe, or at least hope, will be the case on the topic of LGBTQ members.  And I think the highly intelligent Good Shepherd has whatever plans He might need for anyone else as well. 

Since the LDS church has an open canon, it is arguably in a very good position to be where new paradigms are introduced (as was the case with baptism for the dead).  But imo it is worthwhile to acknowledge the possibility implied by the story of Balaam's donkey:  The donkey was right about which direction to go, and was beaten for it three times (by the prophet himself), when actually the prophet was wrong all along.  That was arguably limited-scope bottom-up revelation, in a situation where the prophet's eyes were not opened (for what reason is unclear to me).  Apparently it all ended with Balaam and donkey reconciled.  That'll do, donkey.  That'll do. 

Backing up a bit to include @MrShorty: The Church integrates elements of both universalism and exclusivism:

Universalism: D&C 76: 42-43 (all God’s children are saved in a kingdom of glory)

Exclusivism: D&C 88: 36-39 (each kingdom has its own law) and D&C 88: 32 (we enjoy all we are willing to abide).

The redemption of the dead, revealed to have been established from before the foundation of the world, seems to be within the Plan, and not a Plan B (it is the only plan for most of God's children), so people who leave the Church would still be on that path if they need to repent in the spirit world. They are covered, and not lost to God. The redemption of the dead of course involves every choice we can make from no ordinances at all to everything from baptism to marriage.

So, we need to find a basis for changing the ordinance of marriage as it stands today, which was likewise set down before the foundation of the world, in two ways: the council decision to bring Jesus into mortality to carry out His Atonement (and we know who His parents are); and, the marriage of Adam and Eve before the Fall, who I’m suggesting may have served as a type for the Father and Mary (and that extends to Abel and Cain as types of the Savior and the devil).

A Balaam’s herd could be like the many people before Joseph Smith, and then Joseph Smith himself, who were inspired to believe in and hope for a restoration of the keys to the earth. The parallel is suggested with a divinely inspired build-up of expectation for same-sex marriage: the inspired voices respecting the angel with the sword who comes to change the corrupt, Balaam-like stubbornness to authorize marriage only as it stands.

How can same-sex marriage be shown to have been established from before the foundation of the world, given that all things point to Christ, and He was the foreordained, prophesied and foreseen product of a marriage instituted from before the foundation of the world?

Yes, anything can happen, but I think it would need to be consistent with the assumption that the Church is what she says she is and build upon what has been revealed thus far.

[Teancum]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

What were the steps you took for being an active full believing Latter day Saint for 57 years?

So in addition to the methods of Alma 32 and Moroni 10:3-5 I would add:

John 7:17  If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority.

I certainly did my best to jeep the commmandments,do what the LDS Church taught as God's will.

Followed the brethren.  I hung on every word.  Read conference talks over and over. Bought tapes and listened again and again.

Tithed.

\Held temple recommend.

Attended the temple.

Served in every calling I ever received.  From SS teacher, primary, EQ pres, councilor to bishop, bishop, HC twice, YM president, Ward mission leader twice and so on.

Prayed regularly.

Studied scripture avidly.

Studies church doctrine by reading lots of books on lots of topics.

Loved studying church history.

Did apologetics which may be partially the cause of my faith transition.

Did FHE family prayer, scripture study.

 

The list goes on and on. I lived the LDS gospel, believed it, had a testimony of it, understood the recommended process for personal revelation and so on.

 

 

 

 

 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Moroni assumes that the book is true and if you get a negative answer you apparently do not have enough faith and did not ask with sincere intent.

Alma 32 is better but it is similar to methods others use to determine truth and it results in conflicting results. Also it is not testable and unique to the individual.

Using either reference (whichever is easier), can you walk me through the exact steps you took with a real-life example? Despite the "instructions" in the text, the actual steps do become unique to the individual and their circumstances.

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So in addition to the methods of Alma 32 and Moroni 10:3-5 I would add:

John 7:17  If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority.

I certainly did my best to jeep the commmandments,do what the LDS Church taught as God's will.

Followed the brethren.  I hung on every word.  Read conference talks over and over. Bought tapes and listened again and again.

Tithed.

\Held temple recommend.

Attended the temple.

Served in every calling I ever received.  From SS teacher, primary, EQ pres, councilor to bishop, bishop, HC twice, YM president, Ward mission leader twice and so on.

Prayed regularly.

Studied scripture avidly.

Studies church doctrine by reading lots of books on lots of topics.

Loved studying church history.

Did apologetics which may be partially the cause of my faith transition.

Did FHE family prayer, scripture study.

 

The list goes on and on. I lived the LDS gospel, believed it, had a testimony of it, understood the recommended process for personal revelation and so on.

So at some point, for some time, the steps did seem to work for you, if you lived it, believed it, had a testimony of it (received revelation), etc.

Edited November 18, 2021 by CV75

[The Nehor]

There area a couple of key differences between this struggle and those that involve other sins.

• The desire for other sins often does lessen when the gospel is applied. This rarely happens with sexual desire.
• Until the last few years there was nothing to do but hide it. Confessing the struggle to others was more likely to get you labeled than helped.
• The desire hits at the very core of the gospel. If I am unable to go on a mission I may feel sorrow but that can be overcome. If I struggle with greed or fear or spite or whatever I can fight it and feel like I am striving to serve God. If I want exaltation marriage is not optional. Single people can put it off to the next life if (for whatever reason) they are unable to find anyone or are incapable of being a spouse or parent. It is a direct stab at the crowning ordinance of the gospel on Earth. It makes you cease to desire it, desire it but with changes, or just leads to despair.

 

[Olmec Donald]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

How can same-sex marriage be shown to have been established from before the foundation of the world, given that all things point to Christ, and He was the foreordained, prophesied and foreseen product of a marriage instituted from before the foundation of the world?

My guess is that we don't yet know the whole story, but it is not obvious to me that the one necessarily precludes the other.

Prior to September 1842, similar questions could have been raised about the notion of someone who hadn't been baptized making it into the Kingdom of God (and then along came baptism for the dead).

I may not be using the correct terminology, but am aware of six biological gender identities: 

1.  Physiology male and endocrine system male

2.  Physiology female and endocrine system female

3.  Physiology male and endocrine system female

4.  Physiology female and endocrine system male

5.  Both, and

6.  Neither

The words "man" and "woman" are used throughout the scriptures, so does that mean these other four biological gender identities do not exist?  No.  Does it mean the scriptures are invalid because they are not mentioned?  No. 

Do we know for sure that there are only two spirit gender identities?  I don't think we do.  

How many souls are of great worth to God?  All of them. 

Let me rephrase that:  All of us.  If we enlarge our tents enough there's no longer "us" and "them"; instead there's only "us". 

Edit:  And to quote something imo absolutely brilliant that @Fether wrote in another thread:  "You don’t develop Charity by choosing to love one person at a time."

Edited November 18, 2021 by Olmec Donald

[CV75]

10 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

My guess is that we don't yet know the whole story, but it is not obvious to me that the one necessarily precludes the other.

Prior to September 1842, similar questions could have been raised about the notion of someone who hadn't been baptized making it into the Kingdom of God (and then along came baptism for the dead).

I may not be using the correct terminology, but am aware of six biological gender identities: 

1.  Physiology male and endocrine system male

2.  Physiology female and endocrine system female

3.  Physiology male and endocrine system female

4.  Physiology female and endocrine system male

5.  Both, and

6.  Neither

The words "man" and "woman" are used throughout the scriptures, so does that mean these other four biological gender identities do not exist?  No.  Does it mean the scriptures are invalid because they are not mentioned?  No. 

Do we know for sure that there are only two spirit gender identities?  I don't think we do.  

How many souls are of great worth to God?  All of them. 

Let me rephrase that:  All of us.  If we enlarge our tents enough there's no longer "us" and "them"; instead there's only "us". 

Edit:  And to quote something imo absolutely brilliant that @Fether wrote in another thread:  "You don’t develop Charity by choosing to love one person at a time."

I agree, we certainly do not know everything, so we can only act in faith on what we do know, and prioritize our actions accordingly (individually and collectively). This is why I find the Joseph Smith quote about fundamentals and appendages so helpful.

Also, that revelation typically answers questions, for each member and leader individually, and when by the keys, sustained collectively.

No doubt the Lord loves us all and we are happiest when we follow suit, and integrate that charity into acting in faith on all that He has given us to know. But I think we’re getting away from the thought experiment, because the assumption would be that those who leave the Church and those who remain, no matter their biological makeup, are also acting in faith and charity.

Here are a couple of scriptures on new revelation that wasn’t revealed before:

Alma 26:22, “Yea, he that repenteth and exerciseth faith, and bringeth forth good works, and prayeth continually without ceasing—unto such it is given to know the mysteries of God; yea, unto such it shall be given to reveal things which never have been revealed; yea, and it shall be given unto such to bring thousands of souls to repentance, even as it has been given unto us to bring these our brethren to repentance”

D&C 128: 18, “…for it is necessary in the ushering in of the dispensation of the fulness of times, which dispensation is now beginning to usher in, that a whole and complete and perfect union, and welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories should take place, and be revealed from the days of Adam even to the present time. And not only this, but those things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world, but have been kept hid from the wise and prudent, shall be revealed unto babes and sucklings in this, the dispensation of the fulness of times.”

The brother of Jared had such a “new” revelation, and while he didn’t share it with his contemporaries, I’m sure he acted more Christlike thereafter because of it. The central feature of his vision was that Jesus would be born in the earth, in the flesh, to redeem God’s sons and daughters (from Ether Chapter 2):

14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.

15 And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image.

16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.

17 And now, as I, Moroni, said I could not make a full account of these things which are written, therefore it sufficeth me to say that Jesus showed himself unto this man in the spirit, even after the manner and in the likeness of the same body even as he showed himself unto the Nephites.

18 And he ministered unto him even as he ministered unto the Nephites; and all this, that this man might know that he was God, because of the many great works which the Lord had showed unto him.

The account doesn’t say whether sexual and gender identity were among the top social issues creating conflict and confusion among the covenant people, but it does offer some insight into the eternal identity of the sones and daughters of God, and the ordinances as Jesus gave them to the Nephites.

[Kevin Christensen]

16 hours ago, MrShorty said:

@Kevin Christensen It is a significant tangent -- I'm not sure how far to pursue this away from the main thrust of the thread. In addition to those you list who promote a sexual addiction model, what do you make of those experts who argue against a sexual addiction model? Does "following the science" require one to accept a sexual addiction model, or is there a way to understand the science that does not lead to an addiction model?

To illustrate how I think the sex addiction model does a poor job of distinguishing between normal and pathological behavior, I could compare myself (as a cis-hetero man in a sexless marriage) and easily check 6 or 7 of those 10 criteria. If I tried hard enough, I could probably argue myself into checking all 10. I don't think that makes me a sex addict. It makes me a normal human being with a less than satisfied libido. Are LGB people addicts or are they normal people with libidos who are trying to figure out what their moral compass tells them about their libido (having dealt with some "good-boy syndrome" in the past, I think I kind of understand how difficult that part can be, too)?

I can give a specific example of the The Mormon Therapist at Patheos.   Some years back I read one of her posts that claimed that to label someone as sex addicted was to inappropriately "pathologize" them, and as paradigmatic justification, she cited examples from recovery groups that she depicted as unhelpful shame fests.  I commented that the rhetorical effect of the word "pathologize" was far from neutral, far from "diagnose."  And I found that my many years experience in recovery groups was nothing whatsoever like her examples.  Indeed, the point of participation was to release shame, to heal it, not inflict it.  I know of cases where the unexpected acceptance in group for confession of same sex behaviors interrupted plans to commit suicide.  On the importance of dealing with shame in a healthy way, see Healing the Shame that Binds you, by John Bradshaw.  Bradshaw distinguishes between toxic shame ("I am a mistake") and healthy shame ("I am a human being, make mistakes, and need boundaries.")  Plus I cited Patrick's Carnes's research based on a long term study of over 1000 people who had successfully recovered (See Don't Call It Love).  Carnes did not invent the concept of sex addition, and impose his theories on the subjects, but rather, studied those who had formed recovery groups because they had seen the close resemblence between their other addictions (drugs, narcotics, gambling, eating, etc.) and the sexual behavior.  The Mormon Therapist did eventually publish my comment.   

Over 43 years of marriage, we have had occasion to see counselors at various points.  There were some who could have diagnosed me long before my worst period, but did not.  I had one therapist in California, bearded and with patches on his elbows, tell me, with a notable display of impatience, "If you don't want a fat wife, get a skinny one."  I never went back.  Another one gave us the MMPI, and looking back at her comments on the data, I now see that she had everything she needed to diagnose me, but instead used a "bell curve" model that, it happens, offered no help whatsoever.  I used similar logic to talk one of my friends out of attending a sex addiction recovery group.  My personal amends for that conversation took a very very long time.  I had an LDS Stake leader who was a Phd. and therapist, tell my wife that recovery groups were for people with problems worse than mine. I have learned to play close attention to the stories that any commentor, expert or amateur, cites as exemplary, as representative, as paradigmatic, as defining the framing myth. For instance, According to Madan Sarup:
 

Quote

One of the ruling illusions of Western metaphysics is that reason can somehow grasp the world without close attention to language and arrive at a pure, self-authenticating truth or method. Derrida’s work draws attention to the ways in which language deflects the philosopher’s project. He does this by focusing on metaphors and other figurative devices in the texts of philosophy…
His method consists of showing how the privileged term is held in place by the force of the dominant metaphor, and not, as it might seem, by any conclusive logic. 

So pay close attention to the stories and examples a person generalizes from.  Are the examples truely representative of the general case?  And when dealing with exceptional cases, are the predictions and advice actually helpful?  I think of Trump launching his candidacy on the claim that immigrants were typically rapists and murders.  Are they?  And is building one's life on that sort of exaggerated grievance healthy? 

Does a generalization that sex addiction does not exist fit my general experience over almost 20 years now?  Personally, I have read many books on the topic, backed by extensive research and practical and I have found that in several cases, my therapists had not read them.   Sometimes I knew much more then the therapists.  We went to Houston to see Milton Magness for one his intense three-day workshops, and it quite literally saved our marriage, and was a turning point in my life.  He knows the research, and also has personal experience as a recovered addict.  I wrote a personal account of what happened that another therapist, Marsha Means posted on her website.  Since I have personally gone through recovery, and experienced the real difference it makes, I simply cannot be persuaded any longer that addiction does not exist.  If it did not exist, there would have been nothing real to change, and therefore, no change possible.  But the change is real.  I have also worked with many other people over many years, and heard their life stories, and seen how recovery, when embraced, has consistently, dramatically, changed their lives for the better.  For instance, a man came to meetings because his behavior had shattered his marriage.  He recognized himself in the stories and the literature, and embraced the story and remedy.  Three weeks later, he reported a conversation with his oldest daughter as she gave him a ride.  "Dad, you've changed.  I never liked you before.  I do now."

Of course, as in anything else, accurate diagnosis is important.  Truth is knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come.  To fix what is broken, you have to know what is broken, and how to fix it.  Pulling teeth does not fix either broken legs or covid.

Again, my message is not that all LBGT people are addicts, but that they, like anyone else, can be.  And IF that is a correct diagnosis for an individual, then there is a solution for that individual that is not going to change their orientation, but rather their compulsiveness and obsession.  And that will leave them with more freedom to choose their live path.  Not less.

And it happens that one crucial aspect of recovery is called "Dismantling the Grievance Story."  This is part of the effect of a Fourth Step.  A Searching and Fearless Moral inventory.   Notice, during this holiday season, if you watch It's a Wonderful Life, that the thing that makes George Bailey's life a living hell is when he is focused on his not insubtantial personal grievances and frustrations.  It is when he is focusing on them that he becomes bitter and hurtful in action and words towards people in his life.  The only thing Clarence does is to help him see the significance of his personal reationships, that his suffering and sacrifice has a meaning.  It's not all about George, saying "I want to do what I want to do!"  In Alma 36, the angel takes Alma through his recovery fourth step, a life review, exactly a life review as reported by modern Near Death experiencers.  (The book, He Did Deliver Me From Bondage by Colleen Harrison shows that the Book of Mormon contains the 12 steps of addiction recovery). Notice that after Lamen and Lemuel see the angel, they do not take a searching and fearless moral inventory, but rather focus on personal fear and grievance and frustration.  So for them, nothing really changes.  Zeezrom, who does not see an angel, also turns to consider his own faults, how his actions had hurt other people, as Alma had done.  So it is not the angel that makes the difference in conversion, but the life review, the personal moral inventory, a turning inward, looking at one's self, and the significance of personal actions and relationships, and turning to Christ for healing, rather than stewing in the juices of one's personal resentments and frustrations.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, 

[Mark Beesley]

15 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

. . .

Edit:  And to quote something imo absolutely brilliant that @Fether wrote in another thread:  "You don’t develop Charity by choosing to love one person at a time."

The only reason Charity should be referenced in any discussion about same sex attraction is to describe how we must approach those who struggle with weakness.  Charity has nothing to do with sex or sexual attraction. Charity is outgoing, giving, and selfless.  Sex is desire, longing, selfish. Charity is a gift God gives to true disciples of Christ.  Sex is a biological drive to propagate the human race.  Too often Charity/Love gets confused with hormones.

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

Sex is desire, longing, selfish

I disagree.  It can be that, but if one cares about the other, cares about how the act affects them as well as oneself, is love and compassion.  Sexual desire can be as much about wanting to experience connection with your loved one as personal pleasure, that desire focused by love may be even stronger for many. 
 

And the Church teaches this as well:

Quote

Physical intimacy between husband and wife is beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love between husband and wife. God has commanded that sexual intimacy be reserved for marriage.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/for-the-strength-of-youth/sexual-purity?lang=eng

Edited November 18, 2021 by Calm

[Mark Beesley]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

I disagree.  It can be that, but if one cares about the other, cares about how the act affects them as well as oneself, is love and compassion. 
 

And the Church teaches this as well:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/for-the-strength-of-youth/sexual-purity?lang=eng

Just goes to show how far away we are from being a people the Lord can call Zion. 😇

As for the reference from For the Strength of Youth, well, when I was I child, I spoke as a child . . . etc., etc.

One can be an entirely selfless "lover" in the sex arena, but in the end it is driven by hormones. So, while sexual intimacy can be an expression of love, it is not love, it is not charity, and as an expression of true love/charity, it is a poor example. Sacrifice and service are much better expressions of love.

[MrShorty]

27 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

Charity is outgoing, giving, and selfless.  Sex is desire, longing, selfish. Charity is a gift God gives to true disciples of Christ.  Sex is a biological drive to propagate the human race.

I feel like this needs to be challenged. A multitude of LDS and Christian sources talk about sexuality as also being God-given. I'd venture to say that so much of the "good-girl/boy syndrome" that we inflict on ourselves as Latter-day Saints and Christians comes from this idea that sexuality and spirituality are in opposition and do not mix. I think that kind of thing is a mistake, and we need to do better at recognizing that sexuality and spirituality can and should exist in harmony within ourselves. Of course, relating that to the OP, I think this is particularly challenging for LGBT people, and why I think one of the most important things we can do as we craft a "current narrative" for LGBT people is to help them figure out how to integrate their sexuality and spirituality.

[Olmec Donald]

1 hour ago, Mark Beesley said:

Charity has nothing to do with sex or sexual attraction.

I didn't mean to imply that it did.

24 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

sexual intimacy...  as an expression of true love/charity, it is a poor example.

If that's the way my post came across, then I worded it very poorly.   

Edited November 18, 2021 by Olmec Donald

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

Just goes to show how far away we are from being a people the Lord can call Zion. 😇

As for the reference from For the Strength of Youth, well, when I was I child, I spoke as a child . . . etc., etc.

One can be an entirely selfless "lover" in the sex arena, but in the end it is driven by hormones. So, while sexual intimacy can be an expression of love, it is not love, it is not charity, and as an expression of true love/charity, it is a poor example. Sacrifice and service are much better expressions of love.

It honestly sounds like you view sex as ultimately detrimental and something that should be avoided if possible so as not to be blinded by hormones or selfishness.  Is this an accurate perception?  If not, how do you see sex being a positive force in a relationship?  Something that should be cultivated if possible. 

Edited November 18, 2021 by Calm

[Mark Beesley]

22 hours ago, Calm said:

Why?  How does it effective you? 

It is divisive and selfish, and thus displeasing to the Lord. If it displeases the Lord, it displeases me.

Why is it divisive?

How is it selfish?

How do I know it is displeasing to the Lord?

These are all of the follow-up questions.  And that answer to each, so no one has to waste time responding, is  . . . it is my opinion based on my relationship with my God.

[MrShorty]

@Kevin Christensen I, too, have followed Natasha Helfer's blog and other stuff for a long time. I am glad that you found success in an addiction recovery program. From numbers that I have seen, 12 step recovery programs actually have fairly low success rates at treating addictions, with many addiction counselors preferring other therapy types even for chemical addictions 9where there is less controversy over the addictive nature of the substance). I also anecdotally see many alleged sex addicts who claim that they saw much more improvement when they got out of sexual addiction treatment. Does the idea of sex as addiction help some people? As with a lot of things in the psychological/social sciences, it seems that there are few methods/paradigms that have a 0 success rate, so sex as addiction models almost certainly help some people. What I am seeing (as a lay person) is that it seems that more people are helped by using something other than an addiction model than are helped by an addiction model.

[Tacenda]

20 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

Just goes to show how far away we are from being a people the Lord can call Zion. 😇

As for the reference from For the Strength of Youth, well, when I was I child, I spoke as a child . . . etc., etc.

One can be an entirely selfless "lover" in the sex arena, but in the end it is driven by hormones. So, while sexual intimacy can be an expression of love, it is not love, it is not charity, and as an expression of true love/charity, it is a poor example. Sacrifice and service are much better expressions of love.

I kinda agree. I feel like it's basically lust not love. Feel more loved when my husband shows other ways of love. 

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

@Kevin Christensen I, too, have followed Natasha Helfer's blog and other stuff for a long time. I am glad that you found success in an addiction recovery program. From numbers that I have seen, 12 step recovery programs actually have fairly low success rates at treating addictions, with many addiction counselors preferring other therapy types even for chemical addictions 9where there is less controversy over the addictive nature of the substance). I also anecdotally see many alleged sex addicts who claim that they saw much more improvement when they got out of sexual addiction treatment. Does the idea of sex as addiction help some people? As with a lot of things in the psychological/social sciences, it seems that there are few methods/paradigms that have a 0 success rate, so sex as addiction models almost certainly help some people. What I am seeing (as a lay person) is that it seems that more people are helped by using something other than an addiction model than are helped by an addiction model.

Quite agree. And they need to quit with the word "addiction". Causes so many problems, especially with saying someone is addicted to porn. If someone thinks that or are treated or told that's what they have they feel a bit like a lost cause. The church is causing more problems with their programs for porn addiction, IMO. And bringing it up constantly to the youth, or they use to. 

[Tacenda]

On 11/17/2021 at 11:21 AM, Teancum said:

As noted, more and more I think religion really does poison everything.  When people think they really know what God's will is and anything outside of that person's particular conclusion is wrong, evil and abomination, etc, well that is a problem.  The topic of this thread is a fine example  I feel great sympathy for homosexual LDS.  Those who want to try to make it work usually have a long a sorrowful road and most are not successful. All because some religion thinks they know what God thinks about this.

👍

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

It is divisive and selfish, and thus displeasing to the Lord. If it displeases the Lord, it displeases me.

Why is it divisive?

How is it selfish?

How do I know it is displeasing to the Lord?

These are all of the follow-up questions.  And that answer to each, so no one has to waste time responding, is  . . . it is my opinion based on my relationship with my God.

Well, my personal experiences don’t align with that, but not like I can convince you. 
 

In an ideal marriage where both center their life on God first, do you believe that sex should only be used for procreation then? 

Edited November 18, 2021 by Calm

[Mark Beesley]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I feel like this needs to be challenged. A multitude of LDS and Christian sources talk about sexuality as also being God-given. I'd venture to say that so much of the "good-girl/boy syndrome" that we inflict on ourselves as Latter-day Saints and Christians comes from this idea that sexuality and spirituality are in opposition and do not mix. I think that kind of thing is a mistake, and we need to do better at recognizing that sexuality and spirituality can and should exist in harmony within ourselves. Of course, relating that to the OP, I think this is particularly challenging for LGBT people, and why I think one of the most important things we can do as we craft a "current narrative" for LGBT people is to help them figure out how to integrate their sexuality and spirituality.

Absolutely, sexual intimacy is ordained of God.  Adam and Eve were commanded to multiply, which was a command to engage in sexual intimacy.  Christ admonished that a man should leave his mother and cleave unto his wife and together they become one flesh, an obvious endorsement of sexual intimacy to create a new life.  But just because it ordained of and approved by God does not make it something it is not.  

Sexual intimacy is driven by hormones, not by the Spirit.

Charity is drive by the Spirit, not by hormones.

It is that simple.

Edited November 18, 2021 by Mark Beesley

[Mark Beesley]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

Well, my personal experiences don’t align with that, but not like I can convince you. 
 

In an ideal marriage, do you believe that sex should only be used for procreation then? 

In an ideal marriage, sex is never an issue.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Mark Beesley said:

In an ideal marriage, sex is never an issue.

Meaning you don’t do it or you both accept that it is okay to be selfish and carnal?  Or something else?

[Chum]

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And they need to quit with the word "addiction". Causes so many problems

I no longer agree with that. I learned that some conditions are notorious for triggering an existing addictive response - eg: feeling helpless or tired. If we're at a point where we reliably react with destructive behavior, addiction countermeasures are what is most likely to interrupt it.

Anger was my goto behavior. Treating it as an addiction made the difference.