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

[CV75]

16 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.

It seems to me that the Church sees North Star as a resource, but not an arm of, or representative of, the Church.

A consensus opinion is not doctrine, and I think the Church is pretty clear about the doctrine without directly challenging members' beliefs and opinions. Various members might believe a lot of weird stuff but as long as they participate in a constructive way, they can stay included. But the Church is not going to police their beliefs. The Church makes bold statements on what to believe, but that is different.

 

Edited November 22, 2021 by CV75

[The Great Pretender]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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.

My decades of serving in priesthood leadership capacities have tainted my views. On one occasion while I was serving as the first counsellor to a bishop who was soon to be released, the exec sec manoeuvred to have me released so he could fulfil his personal ambition of becoming bishop. Funnily enough, I have never aspired to be a bishop or anything else for that matter. I have two brothers who have each served multiple times in that capacity, and I know it is a demanding, thankless task. I was immediately released after the exec shared a comment I made about a visiting area Seventy asking for our meeting order to be changed—but I had pointed out how the handbook says the meeting order is determined by the bishop.

I consider my current bishop to be vain, slapdash, unreliable, and untrustworthy. I have no intention of disclosing such personal information to him for his own gratification. I am also acutely aware that we (priesthood leaders) are all volunteers, and no one really wants to deal with this stuff.

[The Great Pretender]

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

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   

 

You are too kind, Calm.

Regarding support groups or supportive groups, I actually instigated a group here in the UK in 2017 after launching a supportive website (www.ldsbeacon.org, originally aimed exclusively at the UK but then opened to a global audience). The site lists 36 supportive groups, almost all of which are in the U.S.: https://www.ldsbeacon.org/support

The UK group consisted of approximately 12 individuals I had encountered through my affiliation with North Star. Without exception, these individuals were either insular (wanting to go it alone) or were nursing deep, psychological issues that probably needed professional, secular therapy. By 2019, the group was defunct in spite of my repeated efforts to keep it alive—and despite all 46 stakes of the United Kingdom and Ireland being aware of the website resource and supportive group.

If you have a look at the map of stakes (the world map) where one or more individuals with differing attractions were known to reside (in 2017-2019), you'll see the extent of members with whom I have personally been in contact: https://www.ldsbeacon.org/maps

Everyone wants to look away because it's an ugly issue that is best left to the next guy—except there is no next guy.
 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, The Great Pretender said:

My decades of serving in priesthood leadership capacities have tainted my views. On one occasion while I was serving as the first counsellor to a bishop who was soon to be released, the exec sec manoeuvred to have me released so he could fulfil his personal ambition of becoming bishop. Funnily enough, I have never aspired to be a bishop or anything else for that matter. I have two brothers who have each served multiple times in that capacity, and I know it is a demanding, thankless task. I was immediately released after the exec shared a comment I made about a visiting area Seventy asking for our meeting order to be changed—but I had pointed out how the handbook says the meeting order is determined by the bishop.

I consider my current bishop to be vain, slapdash, unreliable, and untrustworthy. I have no intention of disclosing such personal information to him for his own gratification. I am also acutely aware that we (priesthood leaders) are all volunteers, and no one really wants to deal with this stuff.

At this point, what are you looking for? I see two main topics of concern for you: 1) The Church's message on LGBTQ+ inclusion differs from yours, which you believe compromises doctrine; 2) this message of inclusion does not help those LGBTQ+ who cannot feel better about themselves because they understand the doctrine the same way you do.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

Everyone wants to look away because it's an ugly issue that is best left to the next guy—except there is no next guy.

Support groups that last more than a few years that are organized grassroots are the exception.  I am guessing the rate has gone up with the internet, but still most of those I have heard about failed in 3 years,  hardly any even took off.

But you are definitely working uphill in a nasty downpour in the middle of an earthquake.

Edited November 22, 2021 by Calm

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

On one occasion while I was serving as the first counsellor to a bishop who was soon to be released, the exec sec manoeuvred to have me released so he could fulfil his personal ambition of becoming bishop.

That is not how any of that works.

[Hamba Tuhan]

11 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

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.

Just for the sake of clarity, I didn't mean to suggest that there is any kind of scholarly consensus on the full range of things you have expressed in this thread, just that sexual identity is a social construct, not a biological one.

In many ways, social constructs feel as real as something 'physical' in that they are the frameworks in which we interpret and then reconstruct the broad diversity of our personal (including physical) experiences. But as you've discovered, they often don't work that well because they are necessarily limited and inherently artificial (i.e., man made).

I'm happy, however, to help you feel less alone. Work is eating me alive right now, but if you feel like sending me a very short PM, I'll attempt to reply when I can. 

Edited November 22, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[JustAnAustralian]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

That is not how any of that works.

Going along with this, I wonder why an exec-sec having seen just a fraction of the workload a bishop is under, would actually desire to be a bishop in the first place.

[The Nehor]

54 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Going along with this, I wonder why an exec-sec having seen just a fraction of the workload a bishop is under, would actually desire to be a bishop in the first place.

Some people like responsibility but I am trying to wrap my head around the 1st counselor in the bishopric being some kind of “heir apparent” to the bishop, that a comment about a Seventy somehow got a counselor to the bishop released. Who did he share it with? The stake presidency? Why did they care? Why is the ward executive secretary convinced that if he removes the 1st counselor that he will be bishop? Why is the stake releasing people for quoting the handbook?

Does he live in a stake full of budding Machiavellis who all play this stupid game?

[LoudmouthMormon]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

6 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

On one occasion while I was serving as the first counsellor to a bishop who was soon to be released, the exec sec manoeuvred to have me released so he could fulfil his personal ambition of becoming bishop.

That is not how any of that works.

Makes me wonder.  I keep hearing hard-to-believe stories about pettiness in church leadership out of the UK.  Maybe half a dozen stories or so in the last decade.

What the crap is up with you Brits?  Is the church somehow less true out where you live?  Is there some cultural quirk that leads to either pettiness, or seeing pettiness where there is none?

[kimpearson]

On 11/19/2021 at 4:01 AM, The Great Pretender said:

As a father of four children, I have read plenty about the early development of language. I also studied German, Spanish, Russian, and Japanese. More than these, I spent the greatest amount of time studying French (from the age of 10 until the second year of my university degree). While working in Paris for three months in 1985, I was fully able to process all my thoughts in French.

In my formative years, I believed in a magical concept of Adam and Eve. I no longer do. My gospel understanding and education now lead me to accept evolution as part of the extraordinary plan of mortality. No contrived shortcuts. Billions of years in the making. That sure sounds like heresy to many members. Whatever. I think they are foolish to believe in a God of magic and chaos (and a respecter of persons). I believe in a God of science and order.

Consequently, I believe humans still inherit certain animal instincts, including the instinct to suck, swallow, and blink—and seek sexual partners when the associated hormones kick in. In organised society, however, some of those instincts are at least partially controlled by societal programming.

The only thing that makes sense to me in respect of sexuality is that we arrive on Earth largely as a blank slate—and society shapes us according to convention and the whims of those who exert particular influence. For most, the process is relatively straightforward. A few, however, are systematically shamed and ostracised—whether for issues relating to their body, their temperament, their sensitivities, or a bunch of other factors. The net result is that they fail to identify properly with their gender/sexual binary—and when puberty kicks in to hard-wires things, the die is cast.

Because I tend to rely on  personal experiences for evidence, how many other gay men and women have felt your belief is true for themselves also.  Do you have any current (last 10 years) credible research which supports your position?  Credible being peer reviewed and published in a recognized authoritative forum and based on actual work with gay men and women or gender questioning individuals?

[Tacenda]

10 hours ago, kimpearson said:

Because I tend to rely on  personal experiences for evidence, how many other gay men and women have felt your belief is true for themselves also.  Do you have any current (last 10 years) credible research which supports your position?  Credible being peer reviewed and published in a recognized authoritative forum and based on actual work with gay men and women or gender questioning individuals?

Good question!

[pogi]

On 11/19/2021 at 5:01 AM, The Great Pretender said:

My own idea. Sorry if that devalues it.

As a father of four children, I have read plenty about the early development of language. I also studied German, Spanish, Russian, and Japanese. More than these, I spent the greatest amount of time studying French (from the age of 10 until the second year of my university degree). While working in Paris for three months in 1985, I was fully able to process all my thoughts in French.

In my formative years, I believed in a magical concept of Adam and Eve. I no longer do. My gospel understanding and education now lead me to accept evolution as part of the extraordinary plan of mortality. No contrived shortcuts. Billions of years in the making. That sure sounds like heresy to many members. Whatever. I think they are foolish to believe in a God of magic and chaos (and a respecter of persons). I believe in a God of science and order.

Consequently, I believe humans still inherit certain animal instincts, including the instinct to suck, swallow, and blink—and seek sexual partners when the associated hormones kick in. In organised society, however, some of those instincts are at least partially controlled by societal programming.

The only thing that makes sense to me in respect of sexuality is that we arrive on Earth largely as a blank slate—and society shapes us according to convention and the whims of those who exert particular influence. For most, the process is relatively straightforward. A few, however, are systematically shamed and ostracised—whether for issues relating to their body, their temperament, their sensitivities, or a bunch of other factors. The net result is that they fail to identify properly with their gender/sexual binary—and when puberty kicks in to hard-wires things, the die is cast.

I don't know if I believe that we are born a "blank slate" per se, as epigenetics and chemical/environmental pressures during in-utero development seems to play a role in homosexuality to a predictable degree.  See:

https://www.ashg.org/publications-news/press-releases/201510-sexual-orientation/

https://www.science.org/content/article/homosexuality-may-be-caused-chemical-modifications-dna

I suspect that social constructs may also play a role, but to what degree each different pressure plays a role in the spectrum of homosexuality is hard to say.   

[california boy]

On 11/22/2021 at 3:27 AM, The Great Pretender said:

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.

LOL.  I am hardly challenged by your comments.  You are still assuming that every gay person has experienced what you have experienced and think they are all wrong about how they feel and you are the only one that is right.

It is perfectly fine to have your own opinions about homosexuality.  Declaring that everyone else is wrong about homosexuality but you becomes problematic.    It  kinda sounds like it is you that is "on the high horse."   After reading your follow up posts, my statement stand. " 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."

There is no definitive understanding at this time about what causes a person to be attracted to the same sex.

Edited November 23, 2021 by california boy

[Teancum]

On 11/22/2021 at 11:49 AM, CV75 said:

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

Feelings can be uncertain and betraying. As I came to understand this I started to question the validity of using them for truth confirmation.  The LDS culture of monthly testimony meetings, Packer's bear a testimony even if you don't have it and you will get it, the idea that if you don't get a testimony it is because you are doing something wrong (Moroni 10:3-5).

Additionally as I drilled more into the founding claims of the LDS Church I realized my spiritual experiences were not based on accurate information.  I did not have full disclosure. For me I came to the point that if I was going to believe someone was speaking for God I had to trust them.  Further information about Joseph Smith and his successors led me to conclude I could not trust them. Accordingly my spiritual witness was faulty at least as far as it confirming truth claims.  Further I have carried this line of inquiry into the Christianity, the New and Old Testament and so on and have found similar problems.

Last of all as I have said numerous times here, similar approaches to finding religious truth are used by people of many faiths and many of which conflict. People think they have truth by the same method you use but their truth would result in your being not true. The method is not reliable at least for me.

 

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Last of all as I have said numerous times here, similar approaches to finding religious truth are used by people of many faiths and many of which conflict. People think they have truth by the same method you use but their truth would result in your being not true. The method is not reliable at least for me.

I will be blunt.

The problem here is that you persist in believing there IS such a thing as ONE TRUTH, when there is not.

Science itself is based on trusting a theory until a better one that works as a "better explanation" / paradigm comes around.

You have NO evidence of this odd notion of ONE TRUTH based on empiricism.

From my view you believe in a strange metaphysical world that cannot be experienced by humans, some Ideal One Truth For All.

Your world of naive realism takes more faith than I can muster to believe in.

There is literally no evidence for your belief in such a world, as has been shown by 2500 years of failed Western philosophy.

And Moroni 10 speaks of a truth that is MANIFESTED, not "proven"

THAT is your error.

Your "manifested" truth is different from mine, quite clearly.

My approach is "finding my own testimony" for all truth, which is what Moroni says.

"Ask God, and He will manifest the truth" is what it says.  What we CONSIDER what that word  "manifest" means is the issue.  We all have different "manifestations" due to our different abilities, cultures, talents, etc. etc.

And even relative truth itself is only relatively "true". 

Your position is more faith based than mine. 

Poof.

One world in which everyone agrees on every "truth".  

Best wishes on finding it on this side of the Veil. 

THAT is my Truth. NOW "through a glass darkly,", THEN "face to face".

Find your OWN testimony.  That is the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Edited November 24, 2021 by mfbukowski

[The Great Pretender]

On 11/22/2021 at 8:06 PM, CV75 said:

At this point, what are you looking for? I see two main topics of concern for you: 1) The Church's message on LGBTQ+ inclusion differs from yours, which you believe compromises doctrine; 2) this message of inclusion does not help those LGBTQ+ who cannot feel better about themselves because they understand the doctrine the same way you do.

Pretty close. The Church effectively says, "We want you, but we don't want your sin." I am 100% with the Church on that. But the Church offers no pragmatic help to avoid sin. Telling a person with eczema to avoid scratching only works for so long.

People cannot turn off their attractions. That's why we still have an issue with members succumbing to suicide or leaving the Church. I have a close personal friend who is extricating himself from the Church right now. I don't agree with him, but he said he is exhausted and defeated by crying all the time. Over recent years, he has paid for no end of secular and Church counsellor therapy. It has resolved nothing for him because he believes he was born gay, that God must therefore be OK with it, and his 30-year marriage is meaningless when pitted against his constant state of distress.

The Church's message of inclusion is hollow. No amount of prayer, devotion, service, fasting, avoidance, denial, or longsuffering removes the attraction—it is a permanent feature that screams to be addressed.

The Church has revelation to impose commandments, but in this case it has no revelation to ease the emotional suffering caused by some of them. I support the commandments, but I cannot support the lack of understanding for those in distress.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Feelings can be uncertain and betraying. As I came to understand this I started to question the validity of using them for truth confirmation.  The LDS culture of monthly testimony meetings, Packer's bear a testimony even if you don't have it and you will get it, the idea that if you don't get a testimony it is because you are doing something wrong (Moroni 10:3-5).

Additionally as I drilled more into the founding claims of the LDS Church I realized my spiritual experiences were not based on accurate information.  I did not have full disclosure. For me I came to the point that if I was going to believe someone was speaking for God I had to trust them.  Further information about Joseph Smith and his successors led me to conclude I could not trust them. Accordingly my spiritual witness was faulty at least as far as it confirming truth claims.  Further I have carried this line of inquiry into the Christianity, the New and Old Testament and so on and have found similar problems.

Last of all as I have said numerous times here, similar approaches to finding religious truth are used by people of many faiths and many of which conflict. People think they have truth by the same method you use but their truth would result in your being not true. The method is not reliable at least for me.

I would agree that you feel "the method" you felt as once reliable is no longer reliable, but I was asking you to pinpoint how they stopped working (requiring an explanation of how they worked in teh first place).  You pointed to your feelings, and your trust (firm belief), indicating that these are the primary drivers for whatever source you obtain accurate information and the method you use to process it. Sine you've adopted a scientific method, and trust that, the rest is just filling in the blanks. So to back up a little, please pinpoint how they stopped working for you.

[The Great Pretender]

On 11/23/2021 at 1:40 AM, The Nehor said:

Some people like responsibility but I am trying to wrap my head around the 1st counselor in the bishopric being some kind of “heir apparent” to the bishop, that a comment about a Seventy somehow got a counselor to the bishop released. Who did he share it with? The stake presidency? Why did they care? Why is the ward executive secretary convinced that if he removes the 1st counselor that he will be bishop? Why is the stake releasing people for quoting the handbook?

Does he live in a stake full of budding Machiavellis who all play this stupid game?

Oh boy, you really need to visit the UK. Or not. As someone who was baptised exactly 50 years ago, I can tell you that is exactly how it works. There is a line of promotion, basically. You need to see it to believe it. It is like theatre.

I'm nothing to shout about, but I have served as ward ym president (four times), stake ym president, sunday school president, high priest group leader (when we had those), elders quorum president, activities committee chair, bishop's counsellor (twice), a counsellor on pretty much everything, and twice on the stake high council (which I'm currently doing and which includes serving on the stake ym presidency).

There was more to the story, but no one wants to read volumes. Here's an extra piece of the puzzle. While I was serving as the first counsellor, the stake president at the time was in my ward (with his wife and kids). He is now inactive, but that's beside the point. His eldest son was 18 and preparing to serve a mission. Sadly, this young man and three of his peers decided to play a prank in the middle of the night by phoning the YM president and pretending to be the police. They told the YM president that his son had been involved in a serious road accident.

In the fall-out of this prank, one young man was made the scapegoat—and he left the Church. Two weeks later, the bishop put forward the name of the stake president's son for advancement to the Melchizedek Priesthood. The YM president objected, as did I and several others. The bishop later advised each of us individually that the ordination would go ahead. To avoid embarrassment, I stayed away from the stake conference, but the YM president attended and opposed the sustaining. His objection was overruled and the ordination went ahead.

The young man lasted for about four months on his mission. He is no longer a member.

The Church in the UK is hilarious. Since membership is relatively thin on the ground, there aren't many to choose from. Those who are well-groomed, who can present the best KPIs (key performance indicators), and who can show emotion on cue are selected for leadership. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

[The Great Pretender]

On 11/22/2021 at 10:04 PM, Calm said:

Support groups that last more than a few years that are organized grassroots are the exception.  I am guessing the rate has gone up with the internet, but still most of those I have heard about failed in 3 years,  hardly any even took off.

But you are definitely working uphill in a nasty downpour in the middle of an earthquake.

Yes I am, and it sucks.

[The Great Pretender]

On 11/23/2021 at 12:39 AM, JustAnAustralian said:

Going along with this, I wonder why an exec-sec having seen just a fraction of the workload a bishop is under, would actually desire to be a bishop in the first place.

You'd need to see how the Church, nepotism, and cronyism all work together in a Church backwater. It is something we simply accept. It becomes a tad annoying when others assume you are playing that game and try to make life difficult—even though you'd rather not have a calling at all.

The exec-sec in question was the son of a senior-ranking Europe-Area Church official. He was expected to rise. He is now on our stake presidency. I'm guessing he's hoping to become an area Seventy someday. Sound fanciful? Visit the UK and see for yourself.  😉

[CV75]

11 minutes ago, The Great Pretender said:

Pretty close. The Church effectively says, "We want you, but we don't want your sin." I am 100% with the Church on that. But the Church offers no pragmatic help to avoid sin. Telling a person with eczema to avoid scratching only works for so long.

People cannot turn off their attractions. That's why we still have an issue with members succumbing to suicide or leaving the Church. I have a close personal friend who is extricating himself from the Church right now. I don't agree with him, but he said he is exhausted and defeated by crying all the time. Over recent years, he has paid for no end of secular and Church counsellor therapy. It has resolved nothing for him because he believes he was born gay, that God must therefore be OK with it, and his 30-year marriage is meaningless when pitted against his constant state of distress.

The Church's message of inclusion is hollow. No amount of prayer, devotion, service, fasting, avoidance, denial, or longsuffering removes the attraction—it is a permanent feature that screams to be addressed.

The Church has revelation to impose commandments, but in this case it has no revelation to ease the emotional suffering caused by some of them. I support the commandments, but I cannot support the lack of understanding for those in distress.

I suggest that a threshold level of "prayer, devotion, service, fasting, avoidance, denial, or longsuffering" removes the desire to sin, and that sin is different from attraction and temptation.

Revelations to ease suffering are typically general in nature and need to be applied by the followers of Christ to suit their individual, personal needs.

My observation is that a lack of understanding, including those with the keys, is offset by an abundance of empathy and charity among the followers of Christ.

My understanding is that the path of discipleship, revelation and understanding draws people together on their most common denominator -- identity --  as the children and saints of God.

[The Great Pretender]

On 11/23/2021 at 2:05 AM, LoudmouthMormon said:

Makes me wonder.  I keep hearing hard-to-believe stories about pettiness in church leadership out of the UK.  Maybe half a dozen stories or so in the last decade.

What the crap is up with you Brits?  Is the church somehow less true out where you live?  Is there some cultural quirk that leads to either pettiness, or seeing pettiness where there is none?

Honestly and truly, I have seen and heard many extraordinary things over the decades. There are plenty who are genuine, of course. But these are shark-infested waters. Shyster-infested, even.

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, The Great Pretender said:

Oh boy, you really need to visit the UK. Or not. As someone who was baptised exactly 50 years ago, I can tell you that is exactly how it works. There is a line of promotion, basically. You need to see it to believe it. It is like theatre.

I'm nothing to shout about, but I have served as ward ym president (four times), stake ym president, sunday school president, high priest group leader (when we had those), elders quorum president, activities committee chair, bishop's counsellor (twice), a counsellor on pretty much everything, and twice on the stake high council (which I'm currently doing and which includes serving on the stake ym presidency).

There was more to the story, but no one wants to read volumes. Here's an extra piece of the puzzle. While I was serving as the first counsellor, the stake president at the time was in my ward (with his wife and kids). He is now inactive, but that's beside the point. His eldest son was 18 and preparing to serve a mission. Sadly, this young man and three of his peers decided to play a prank in the middle of the night by phoning the YM president and pretending to be the police. They told the YM president that his son had been involved in a serious road accident.

In the fall-out of this prank, one young man was made the scapegoat—and he left the Church. Two weeks later, the bishop put forward the name of the stake president's son for advancement to the Melchizedek Priesthood. The YM president objected, as did I and several others. The bishop later advised each of us individually that the ordination would go ahead. To avoid embarrassment, I stayed away from the stake conference, but the YM president attended and opposed the sustaining. His objection was overruled and the ordination went ahead.

The young man lasted for about four months on his mission. He is no longer a member.

The Church in the UK is hilarious. Since membership is relatively thin on the ground, there aren't many to choose from. Those who are well-groomed, who can present the best KPIs (key performance indicators), and who can show emotion on cue are selected for leadership. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Got to be this royalty thing. Exactly the same.  Merit has nothing to do with pretened leadership.

Sad to hear this. 

[The Great Pretender]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I suggest that a threshold level of "prayer, devotion, service, fasting, avoidance, denial, or longsuffering" removes the desire to sin, and that sin is different from attraction and temptation.

With respect, I suggest this is untrue for anyone with differing sexual attractions. I can only speak for myself, of course. I've done all that, and I've felt my attractions strongly, even while serving in the temple. And to say that the attractions aren't sinful is hogwash.

Attractions have a lot in common with addiction (even though there are clear differences). And maintaining spiritual fortitude alone will not cure addiction.

While serving a mission, I repeatedly pleaded with the Lord to remove my attractions to help me serve most effectively. I was a diligent missionary who immersed himself in his missionary efforts. My attractions never left me. You are free to suggest or imply that I am mistaken or even lying, but my experience is common to all those people who find they can no longer bear being in the Church. Telling us we are wrong solves nothing. That's what makes me so angry. I'm trying to hang on to my faith, but there's nothing to temper the hidden distress. No remedies. And devotion isn't a remedy. At best, it is a placebo.