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

[california boy]

8 minutes ago, The Great Pretender said:

The Church position is that LGBTQ issues are a legitimate experience but not an innate identity. Because stating this position publicly would be tantamount to a hate crime in modern secular society, the Church softens its stance without acknowledging or realising that it is actually contributing to the problem. It says that all the contributing factors are too complex, so people may identify how they see fit (as long as they don't act on anything that is contrary to the Family Proclamation)—while remembering that our primary identity is as a child of God.

This is pandering—and it will satisfy no one in the long run. Only today, I have been in contact with a sister whose husband identifies as gay and who has reached the end of the marital road after 24 years. She told me that the Spirit had testified to them both that their marriage has run its course because her husband can no longer reconcile his true gayness in a heterosexual marriage. And she insists that she is at peace with it. OK, fine; if you like. I don't believe a word of it, sorry. I don't believe gayness is innate, and I don't care if I'm the only person on God's Earth who believes that.

Sadly, individuals try to reconcile being gay (as they understand it) with their membership in the Church, and sooner or later they find themselves in an intolerable situation.

The Church is now too media-sensitive (or cowardly) to state, "God wants you to do x, y, or z, and this is how you go about it if you experience a, b, or c."

What exactly is  x, y, or z, and  a, b, or c."

[The Great Pretender]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

What exactly is  x, y, or z, and  a, b, or c."

"a, b, or c" are any attractions, worldviews, proclivities, urges, or whatever that differ from the accepted biblical gender binary. That means anything along the lines of being/feeling lesbian, bisexual, gay, trans, queer, asexual, aromantic, pansexual, and so forth.

"x, y, or z" are a whole bunch of things that could run into many pages and bore any reader to sleep. The Church wants people to unchain themselves from Satan and fully embrace the Family Proclamation. They may as well say, "Come on, guys. We've stopped telling you you're going to hell; we just need you to accept that your messed-up stuff is all in your head." The Church wants people to feel joy in being part of a plan, despite it feeling alien and uncomfortable for those who experience life differently. The Church wants people to avoid discussing their reservations publicly and directly (it wants its membership only to talk about loving people who experience these issues in spite of how messed up they may be on account of being unable to address them). The Church wants people to avoid forming socially supportive groups that have sensitive issues as their focus. The Church wants people to believe that everything will be just fine when they know they are loved and welcome.

The trouble is, people genuinely don't understand the obstacles because they cannot imagine how it feels to experience what others feel. Like when someone suggests to person with clinical depression that they simply snap out of it and develop a positive mental attitude. We think we understand another's journey. I'm tired of hearing, "Hey, my nephew/son/husband/father is gay. The Spirit confirmed to me that he will find happiness only by taking another path through life (that doesn't involve the gospel), and God will work it all out."

[california boy]

1 hour ago, The Great Pretender said:

"a, b, or c" are any attractions, worldviews, proclivities, urges, or whatever that differ from the accepted biblical gender binary. That means anything along the lines of being/feeling lesbian, bisexual, gay, trans, queer, asexual, aromantic, pansexual, and so forth.

"x, y, or z" are a whole bunch of things that could run into many pages and bore any reader to sleep. The Church wants people to unchain themselves from Satan and fully embrace the Family Proclamation. They may as well say, "Come on, guys. We've stopped telling you you're going to hell; we just need you to accept that your messed-up stuff is all in your head." The Church wants people to feel joy in being part of a plan, despite it feeling alien and uncomfortable for those who experience life differently. The Church wants people to avoid discussing their reservations publicly and directly (it wants its membership only to talk about loving people who experience these issues in spite of how messed up they may be on account of being unable to address them). The Church wants people to avoid forming socially supportive groups that have sensitive issues as their focus. The Church wants people to believe that everything will be just fine when they know they are loved and welcome

I knew I was attracted to the same sex when I was 12 and really was not interested at all in women.  Are you suggesting that I have been chained to Satan since I was 12??

 

1 hour ago, The Great Pretender said:

The trouble is, people genuinely don't understand the obstacles because they cannot imagine how it feels to experience what others feel. Like when someone suggests to person with clinical depression that they simply snap out of it and develop a positive mental attitude. We think we understand another's journey. I'm tired of hearing, "Hey, my nephew/son/husband/father is gay.

I would suggest that you are one of those people who genuinely don't understand the obstacles because they cannot imagine how it feels to experience what others feel.

1 hour ago, The Great Pretender said:

 

The Spirit confirmed to me that he will find happiness only by taking another path through life (that doesn't involve the gospel), and God will work it all out."

What this statement says to me is the your view of the Spirit makes it totally unreliable in telling you what the path OTHERS should take.

[CV75]

6 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

The Church position is that LGBTQ issues are a legitimate experience but not an innate identity. Because stating this position publicly would be tantamount to a hate crime in modern secular society, the Church softens its stance without acknowledging or realising that it is actually contributing to the problem. It says that all the contributing factors are too complex, so people may identify how they see fit (as long as they don't act on anything that is contrary to the Family Proclamation)—while remembering that our primary identity is as a child of God.

This is pandering—and it will satisfy no one in the long run. Only today, I have been in contact with a sister whose husband identifies as gay and who has reached the end of the marital road after 24 years. She told me that the Spirit had testified to them both that their marriage has run its course because her husband can no longer reconcile his true gayness in a heterosexual marriage. And she insists that she is at peace with it. OK, fine; if you like. I don't believe a word of it, sorry. I don't believe gayness is innate, and I don't care if I'm the only person on God's Earth who believes that.

Sadly, individuals try to reconcile being gay (as they understand it) with their membership in the Church, and sooner or later they find themselves in an intolerable situation.

The Church is now too media-sensitive (or cowardly) to state, "God wants you to do x, y, or z, and this is how you go about it if you experience a, b, or c."

Thank you, I'll work within the parameters of your description.

Yes, our primary identity is that we are all children of God, and members of the Church in addition are bound to Him by specific covenant. We do not know why people identifying as LGBTQ+ have their particular type of orientation or attraction experience. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/same-sex-attraction?lang=eng

My observation is that the Church offers general counsel and resources (including local leader training) to address topical issues of the day affecting the members. For example, within my lifetime, sexual liberation, masturbation and pornography each received special attention as the years rolled on, and in the past decade or so, LGBTQ+ matters.

I would add that our personal experience with sexual and gender identity, whatever that may be, may prompt us to prayerful consideration and to seek priesthood leader counsel in relation to keeping our covenants, or, as you put it, reconciling our understanding with our membership. Sometimes competent professional counsel and treatment are in order, irrespective of covenants. For these reasons, and because it ministers to LGBTQ+ members of all perspectives, the Church cannot point to a single theory of why people are LGBTQ+, and why the statement, "God wants you to do x, y, or z, and this is how you go about it if you experience a, b, or c, " remains more general than specific.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

The trouble is, people genuinely don't understand the obstacles because they cannot imagine how it feels to experience what others feel.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

What this statement says to me is the your view of the Spirit makes it totally unreliable in telling you what the path OTHERS should take.

I think these two statements reflect why the Church does not get more specific on "God wants you to do x, y, or z, and this is how you go about it if you experience a, b, or c. " The first explains why the Church cannot possibly address every single individual experience (that is why we have the gift of the Holy Ghost). The second demonstrates that the Spirit is totally reliable in confirming the path of the Restored Gospel for those who experience its witness.

[Hamba Tuhan]

13 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

I don't believe gayness is innate, and I don't care if I'm the only person on God's Earth who believes that.

In case it helps, I spent just over 13 years (first as a PhD student and then as an employee) affiliated with a research school at a globally ranked university that brought together historians, linguists, and anthropologists who conduct research in a specific world region (i.e., 'area studies'). They would all tell you that you're right.

Scholars in these fields whom I know and have worked with all acknowledge that gendered, fixed sexual identity (of literally any variety, including ‘straight’) is a late 19th-century social construct that is without historical precedent. It is a novelty that, once normalised in the West, travelled along existing webs of power as part of the past (and continuing) colonising project, with, to date, uneven results. In some cases it has overwhelmed and replaced infinitely diverse traditional modes of constructing sexuality and gender, and in many others it continues to clash with more traditional discourses (including but not limited to 'Abrahamic' ones).

The Latter-day Prophets have made it clear that they understand this reality, but I agree with you that the Church is in a difficult space. For now. Totalising discourses not only mask their own genealogies to create an impression of 'always already' existing but also project their false universality onto an infinite future ... which works right up until the entire movement self-deconstructs. Like all previous such movements, this one has inherent within it the seeds of its own unraveling. We are starting to see early fractures already. I wonder sometimes if the prophets are just riding this one out?

 

Edited November 22, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[The Great Pretender]

12 hours ago, california boy said:

I knew I was attracted to the same sex when I was 12 and really was not interested at all in women.  Are you suggesting that I have been chained to Satan since I was 12??

 

I would suggest that you are one of those people who genuinely don't understand the obstacles because they cannot imagine how it feels to experience what others feel.

What this statement says to me is the your view of the Spirit makes it totally unreliable in telling you what the path OTHERS should take.

Here's where we hit an insurmountable obstacle. You are challenged by my comments because your feel they invalidate your experiences and/or core convictions. Get down from your soapbox; I am 58 and same-sex attracted. I first realised there was something I needed to keep a secret when I was only four years old. I began having dreams about adult men abducting me—and I enjoyed the dreams. Since I was raised in what can accurately be described as an "orthodox" LDS home, I was unable to process my attractions and sidelined them as a dirty trick that either my mind or Satan was playing on me.

This is where the train hits the buffers with everyone I meet who is similarly attracted or who has a loved-one in the same situation.

For a while, homosexuality was classed as a mental illness. Understandably, that is now considered to be insulting. However, I believe the earlier claim wasn't that far off the mark. I believe homosexuality is an expression of unmet emotional needs framed by early social imprinting (either malicious or inadvertent). To me, that is the only way it makes sense in the context of the Plan of Salvation and the Family Proclamation. All other positions end up with God making mistakes. Be offended or don't; the truth will out.

[The Great Pretender]

9 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think these two statements reflect why the Church does not get more specific on "God wants you to do x, y, or z, and this is how you go about it if you experience a, b, or c. " The first explains why the Church cannot possibly address every single individual experience (that is why we have the gift of the Holy Ghost). The second demonstrates that the Spirit is totally reliable in confirming the path of the Restored Gospel for those who experience its witness.

I respect your opinions, but they fail to resonate with my understanding of the Plan of Salvation, the Family Proclamation, and my personal experiences.

People will claim that the Spirit told them to do all manner of stuff that suits their desires but is patently nonsense—like the former husband of one of my sisters in law. He left her for his secretary shortly after my sister in law gave birth to their third child born under the covenant. He said the Spirit affirmed to him that his non-member secretary (with whom he was having an affair) was his soulmate. He married her, had a further three children with her, and then left her for another soulmate (a Church member this time). He had a child with her, and then also left her. This man is a shyster hiding behind claims that the Spirit prompted him to leave a trail of destruction in his wake.

I believe the majority of Church members, me included, tend to feel what we want to feel and attribute those feelings to the Spirit to validate our opinions and actions.

I suspect the change in "tone" about how the Church treats matters of differing attractions has more to do with public image and acceptability in woke society than it has to do with eternal truth. And therein lies the continuing injustice. Differing attractions are often associated with mental health complications—whether cause or effect—but the Church is conveniently sidestepping these issues by insisting that everyone is welcome (but please leave your crap at the door).

[The Great Pretender]

5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

In case it helps, I spent just over 13 years (first as a PhD student and then as an employee) affiliated with a research school at a globally ranked university that brought together historians, linguists, and anthropologists who conduct research in a specific world region (i.e., 'area studies'). They would all tell you that you're right.

Scholars in these fields whom I know and have worked with all acknowledge that gendered, fixed sexual identity (of literally any variety, including ‘straight’) is a late 19th-century social construct that is without historical precedent. It is a novelty that, once normalised in the West, travelled along existing webs of power as part of the past (and continuing) colonising project, with, to date, uneven results. In some cases it has overwhelmed and replaced infinitely diverse traditional modes of constructing sexuality and gender, and in many others it continues to clash with more traditional discourses (including but not limited to 'Abrahamic' ones).

The Latter-day Prophets have made it clear that they understand this reality, but I agree with you that the Church is in a difficult space. For now. Totalising discourses not only mask their own genealogies to create an impression of 'always already' existing but also project their false universality onto an infinite future ... which works right up until the entire movement self-deconstructs. Like all previous such movements, this one has inherent within it the seeds of its own unraveling. We are starting to see early fractures already. I wonder sometimes if the prophets are just riding this one out?

 

Hamba Tuhan—in one short post, you have validated the feelings I have been wrestling with since for the past five years (after finally accepting the nature of my "orientation" challenges at the age of 53). You are the only individual I have come across who hasn't entirely rejected my views as poison or treachery, and I have engaged in dialogue with hundreds of Church members—including Church area authorities and senior members of North Star LDS who have "audiences" with the Twelve.

At the risk of sounding melodramatic, I am convinced that a shameful scenario is unfolding—and it makes me seem like I am paranoid.

I emailed lgbt@churchofjesuschrist.org to ask if I could express my concerns about the way the Church is handling matters of differing attractions. Someone responded to confirm that my comments would be duly reviewed.

I shared with them my disappointments about how I see the Church as pandering to those with the loudest voices who demand social justice and equality, while the genuine needs remain unaddressed or deliberately sidestepped. I received no response. Sadly, you only need to review Church online material in support of gay-identifying individuals to discover how the Church is taking a questionable doctrinal path in pursuit of secular acceptability.

A key Family Services counsellor in my country (UK) recently emailed me to ask how things are going. I explained that I view the Church situation as becoming ever more challenging. She backed off. She has an adult gay son who lives with his partner in Utah. I believe her family loyalty and desire to "love everyone" eclipses everything, including reality (and core doctrine). The assertion that her son's homosexuality may have developed in infancy while he was in her care isn't something she would want to consider. What I believe people are unwilling to entertain, however, is that the result isn't necessarily attributable to anyone's fault. Two children can turn out differently when exposed to the similar influences. It is one's core disposition that I suspect is more likely to be innate but which isn't directly tied to eventual sexual identity.

I can recognise how I was a far more sensitive, worrying child than my two older brothers. They could "roll with the punches" from an aggressive, authoritarian father, whereas I found security in identifying with the caring, nurturing, non-confrontational association of my sisters. Blah, blah, blah...

Thank you Hamba Tuhan. I have previously felt entirely alone. I have expressed my thoughts on many occasions to my wife (after coming out to her in 2017), but she only understands to a limited extent.

[Teancum]

On 11/17/2021 at 8:15 PM, CV75 said:

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.

 

When I was a teenager I waxed hot and cold with church attendance and such.  I would be active for a time then less active.  I attended seminary though.  Always liked to read scripture and church history.  My father, who was not active, was still well read in things LDS and we discussed such things often.

In the 70s it seems that was the time under President Kimball where the heat was put on for young men to serve a mission. I did not want to do this but felt the obligation.  And of course there was pressure from bishops,YM presidents, etc.

I honestly wanted to know if the Church was true and if I should serve a mission. So I followed Alma 32 and Moroni 10:3-5.  It took some time but I kept at it. As  result I had two experiences which could be termed spiritual experiences that I still think were profound and had meaning for me.  And they still do but in a different way now. 

As a result my lack of desire to serve a mission turned into a burning desire to serve.  And I felt I had a testimony that the Church was what it claimed at least based on the information I had at the time. 

So I served. And regardless about how I feel about the Church now this changed my life i think for the positive. I was not heading in a good direction.

 

On 11/17/2021 at 8:15 PM, CV75 said:

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.

Yes.

[CV75]

5 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

I respect your opinions, but they fail to resonate with my understanding of the Plan of Salvation, the Family Proclamation, and my personal experiences.

People will claim that the Spirit told them to do all manner of stuff that suits their desires but is patently nonsense—like the former husband of one of my sisters in law. He left her for his secretary shortly after my sister in law gave birth to their third child born under the covenant. He said the Spirit affirmed to him that his non-member secretary (with whom he was having an affair) was his soulmate. He married her, had a further three children with her, and then left her for another soulmate (a Church member this time). He had a child with her, and then also left her. This man is a shyster hiding behind claims that the Spirit prompted him to leave a trail of destruction in his wake.

I believe the majority of Church members, me included, tend to feel what we want to feel and attribute those feelings to the Spirit to validate our opinions and actions.

I suspect the change in "tone" about how the Church treats matters of differing attractions has more to do with public image and acceptability in woke society than it has to do with eternal truth. And therein lies the continuing injustice. Differing attractions are often associated with mental health complications—whether cause or effect—but the Church is conveniently sidestepping these issues by insisting that everyone is welcome (but please leave your crap at the door).

I think people will do the same stupid things whether or not they think and/or claim the Spirit told them to do it. People’s beliefs don’t bother me, and I don’t l know their hearts; only what they do.

I agree that most people feel and attest to experiences with the Spirit in good faith. When we find ourselves becoming better disciples and closer to the Spirit in our association with them, all the better.

The Church has certainly stepped up in addressing LGBTQ+ matters due to the demand expressed among the members, but appropriately takes a doctrinal approach (“eternal truth”). The resources provided support members seeking mental health and other professional treatment, and respects their right and ability to come to these decisions. Priesthood leadership is available to assist spiritually and temporally.

I think everyone is welcome, and more importantly included, at Church. I’m not sure what you mean by leaving your crap at the door, but the line is often drawn where tolerating inappropriate behavior harms oneself and others.

[CV75]

58 minutes ago, Teancum said:

 

When I was a teenager I waxed hot and cold with church attendance and such.  I would be active for a time then less active.  I attended seminary though.  Always liked to read scripture and church history.  My father, who was not active, was still well read in things LDS and we discussed such things often.

In the 70s it seems that was the time under President Kimball where the heat was put on for young men to serve a mission. I did not want to do this but felt the obligation.  And of course there was pressure from bishops,YM presidents, etc.

I honestly wanted to know if the Church was true and if I should serve a mission. So I followed Alma 32 and Moroni 10:3-5.  It took some time but I kept at it. As  result I had two experiences which could be termed spiritual experiences that I still think were profound and had meaning for me.  And they still do but in a different way now. 

As a result my lack of desire to serve a mission turned into a burning desire to serve.  And I felt I had a testimony that the Church was what it claimed at least based on the information I had at the time. 

So I served. And regardless about how I feel about the Church now this changed my life i think for the positive. I was not heading in a good direction.

 

Yes.

Thank you for sharing the steps and how they worked for you. Can you pinpoint how they stopped working for you?

[Calm]

5 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

Thank you Hamba Tuhan. I have previously felt entirely alone. I have expressed my thoughts on many occasions to my wife (after coming out to her in 2017), but she only understands to a limited extent.

Have you looked into sexual fluidity at all?  The science may help you frame your thoughts. Lisa Diamond is where I usually go for data. She is herself a lesbian and an activist, so the science isn’t inherently supporting any moral judgment.  For me, it is a matter of the science. Not settled by any means, but at this point sexual fluidity embraces the total of sexual orientation issues best imo. 
 

You might be interested in the posts of klindley.  Hasn’t posted recently and the board search function doesn’t work past a year now, but Google should get you to some of his discussions. He is the other poster besides Hamba that have helped me find and evaluate the science. 

Edited November 22, 2021 by Calm

[CA Steve]

6 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

All other positions end up with God making mistakes.

Be offended or don't but you don't get to speak for God.

[The Great Pretender]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

The Church has certainly stepped up in addressing LGBTQ+ matters due to the demand expressed among the members, but appropriately takes a doctrinal approach (“eternal truth”). The resources provided support members seeking mental health and other professional treatment, and respects their right and ability to come to these decisions. Priesthood leadership is available to assist spiritually and temporally.

I fear the Church is obfuscating its doctrinal approach to make it palatable to secular society.

As for resources, I have found nothing to help me overcome the emotional discomfort I feel. I function perfectly well as a member of society and within my professional sphere. I also shoulder leadership responsibility at church without any obvious signs of distress because I am so experienced at hiding it.

I cannot seek "help" from secular professionals because they would surmise that the root of my internalised conflict is my faith versus my orientation (as they would see it).

Priesthood leaders are also unable to help. I am a priesthood leader myself, and the only answers I can find put me in jeopardy of abandoning my covenants.

[The Great Pretender]

1 minute ago, CA Steve said:

Be offended or don't but you don't get to speak for God.

Sorry, but you misunderstood my point—probably because I phrased it badly. I was implying that all other positions "suggest" that God makes mistakes.

[The Great Pretender]

5 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Be offended or don't but you don't get to speak for God.

I don't believe God makes mistakes. I believe mankind can make it appear that way by misunderstanding or manipulating truth—and this may be well-intentioned.

[The Great Pretender]

9 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Be offended or don't but you don't get to speak for God.

Exodus 32:14 states: "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."

I don't believe the Lord needed to repent of anything at all. I'd say that was poor reporting.

[CA Steve]

18 minutes ago, The Great Pretender said:

Sorry, but you misunderstood my point—probably because I phrased it badly. I was implying that all other positions "suggest" that God makes mistakes.

No they don't. Only those that support your position do.

The mistake isn't with God.

 

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, The Great Pretender said:

I fear the Church is obfuscating its doctrinal approach to make it palatable to secular society.

D&C 19, meaning of endless and eternal

God understands the impact of language choices and makes good use of them. 

Edited November 22, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, The Great Pretender said:

As for resources, I have found nothing to help me overcome the emotional discomfort I feel.

Are you in Utah?  If so, will PM you at 25 posts about a possibility of at least a paradigm that might help, though you mentioned Northstar iirc, so you may have encountered it before. 
 

There is also someone I know in a similar situation, though I may not be able to connect with him as it has been a few years. Anyway, if I can he may have some ideas for you if you are interested. 
 

I definitely suggest PMing klindley as he is a therapist, though may not specialize in this area, but would know resources, hopefully you can connect with him for info at least. 

Edited November 22, 2021 by Calm

[The Great Pretender]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you in Utah?  If so, will PM you at 25 posts about a possibility of at least a paradigm that might help, though you mentioned Northstar iirc, so you may have encountered it before. 
 

There is also someone I know in a similar situation, though I may not be able to connect with him as it has been a few years. Anyway, if I can he may have some ideas for you if you are interested. 
 

I definitely suggest PMing klindley as he is a therapist, though may not specialize in this area, but would know resources, hopefully you can connect with him for info at least. 

Sorry, no. I am in the UK. I have been a member of three North Star Facebook groups since 2017. In those groups, the consensus of opinion is that God is responsible for making people with differing attractions and they are somehow a blessing. To me, that is heresy and a sad indication of how the Church is so concerned about offending people that it is now leaving people to their own confusion.

There are at least two therapists who are members of the North Star groups. I'm not impressed with them. They support the "God made me like this" mantra.

[CV75]

45 minutes ago, The Great Pretender said:

I fear the Church is obfuscating its doctrinal approach to make it palatable to secular society.

As for resources, I have found nothing to help me overcome the emotional discomfort I feel. I function perfectly well as a member of society and within my professional sphere. I also shoulder leadership responsibility at church without any obvious signs of distress because I am so experienced at hiding it.

I cannot seek "help" from secular professionals because they would surmise that the root of my internalised conflict is my faith versus my orientation (as they would see it).

Priesthood leaders are also unable to help. I am a priesthood leader myself, and the only answers I can find put me in jeopardy of abandoning my covenants.

Regardless of what you think the Church is doing with published material on the topic, you still have the scriptures and the gift of the Holy Ghost to help you deal with this topic.

Emotional discomfort is felt in varying extents, and you mentioned you don’t need therapy. Your bishop can point you to reliable resources should you decide you require it, and many (including non-members) are skilled at, and even specialize in, working within the parameters of a client’s faith. You’d need to trust a priesthood leader to help you before seeking it from him, that is for sure.

[The Great Pretender]

22 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

No they don't. Only those that support your position do.

The mistake isn't with God.

 

Again, you misunderstood. I don't believe God makes mistakes. I believe mankind makes mistakes and attributes some of them (unwittingly or otherwise) to God.

There is no need for you to try to invalidate my position. I am a covenant-keeping member of the Church who has served in positions of priesthood leadership for decades. I have a testimony of the restored gospel, but I am also same-sex attracted and unable to meet my emotional needs in a gospel setting. I believe the current Church position is harming vulnerable individuals.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, The Great Pretender said:

Sorry, no. I am in the UK. I have been a member of three North Star Facebook groups since 2017. In those groups, the consensus of opinion is that God is responsible for making people with differing attractions and they are somehow a blessing. To me, that is heresy and a sad indication of how the Church is so concerned about offending people that it is now leaving people to their own confusion.

There are at least two therapists who are members of the North Star groups. I'm not impressed with them. They support the "God made me like this" mantra.

Not that direction.  More like orientation is similar to language, though oversimplification of course.  I will PM you info that I can get it just about the paradigm.  I don’t know of any support groups

May not work for you, just a possibility.  Not trying to sell anything here   

 

Edited November 22, 2021 by Calm