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

[mrmarklin]

Ms Pearson you don’t know me. I have known several of the children you describe.  One in particular went through all the programs of the church. I knew him as a teen while I was a counselor in a bishopric. I didn’t know any details, but strongly suspected his homosexuality as I live in a part of the country where there are many homosexuals in society and I know many. Not only in business, but in associations I belong to. Some are friends. I visited this young man while he was on his mission in a foreign country, since my travels took me near him. AFAIK he served honorably. 
At some point after I lost contact with him.  But  I still knew his family. He came out of the closet at some point, because I recently saw a “wedding” picture of his. All his family was in attendance. I don’t know what his church status is currently, but in my mind if he’s good with his family, he’s good with the world. 
Each child is individual. I submit that the church is not the problem, but the culture of his family and peers. 

[Calm]

9 hours ago, Gillebre said:

Therefore because they'll be living in Zion the policy will of necessity be adjusted lest we excommunicate resurrected beings. Lol.

Or their sealings were meant to be representative of the sealings their wives are meant to have and the women save one will choose another husband in the eternities.  Apparently when Wilford Woodruff was sealed to hundreds of notable women on his birthday, this may have been his understanding.  I will try and find the reference.  We believe it is possible for an individual to have their own sealing covenant intact with God even though their spouse no longer has theirs (excommunication), therefore the part of the sealing that is eternal no matter what anyone else does is not the marriage relationship, but the covenant with God.  I am not saying this is likely, just that it is a possibility.  Some already believes it happens when a man is sealed to a woman with multiple husbands (they believe she has to choose one and it may bot be him).  Surely that implies that it might happen with a woman who desires to be sealed to another man, such as someone she was engaged to but who died before they were marry or if marriage relationship were in place or ordained in the persistence, with a man she was ordained to be sealed to but never had the chance in mortality for some reason. 

Edited November 27, 2021 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

On 11/26/2021 at 6:14 PM, The Great Pretender said:

You may be right.

What I know in my heart that definitely feels wrong is what isn't happening at the moment. I continue to see families broken and lives destroyed.

It is all too easy to point a critical finger and suggest that someone should have been stronger or more willing to fight their internal conflict, even though it is intolerable to the point where they feel death is the least painful option.

When we have walked in the shoes of those for whom life is a constant state of unhappiness, then we are qualified to judge. 

Who has NOT ever been in this state?

Ok well I'll leave this pity party.

Bye. 

[CV75]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

This post should receive 1000 rep points.  THIS is exactly what is going on.  I was that kid.  I was that Decons president, Teachers president, Assistant to the bishop,  The whole reason why I decided to serve a mission was because I honestly thought that when I faced God on that day of judgement, and He weighed my worth, I could say, well at least I gave you two years of my life.  What I didn't have back then is any sign that I could be honest and live an authentic life and not die.  Now kids see that you can still find happiness and be LGBT.  IT GETS BETTER campaign is the one that gives those who see a glimmer of hope that they can still live a life of love and happiness. And once they find that happiness, they realize that being LGBT is not the curse that everyone for their whole life told them it was.

The work you are doing is the work of God.

I think what some members and ex-members forget is that, whatever pressure comes to bear on a person to make decisions to leave the Church, the opportunity for a truly, fully “authentic life” will come to those who are not accountable for missing out on any opportunity for such (this is the doctrine of the redemption of the dead). Naturally, many people find happiness short of that fullness depending on what they are willing to receive, and the Lord has prepared a place for them. In other words, “it ain’t over ‘til it’s over”, though those who leave the principles of the restored gospel typically declare a premature finish to the work of God.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Who has NOT ever been in this state?

Ok well I'll leave this pity party.

Bye. 

I would suggest that the amount of pity offered a cause -- and all are generally noble -- can be measured in the value of political and charitable donations given to their representing organizations (I'm thinking, political, social, healthcare, medical research, etc.).

[Teancum]

On 11/26/2021 at 4:03 PM, mfbukowski said:

There you go. No.

That is MY MY PARADIGM.

Because I am psychologically certain of it, I CALL it "true".  Similar to a courtroom judge who creates "facts".

That is my POSITION which guides my life.  All I say represents that. I take that on faith, which you apparently disavow as not valid, due to your positivism, as YOUR psychological certainty and faith.

Mine is consistent, because I see it as a psychological inclination, POSSIBLY, while you believe that "facts correspond to reality" which makes them "true", requiring your view of "valid evidence" which comes down to "being satisfied" with the results, a contradictory assertion.

  

Excuse me.  Just looking for clarification.

On 11/26/2021 at 4:03 PM, mfbukowski said:

That is MY MY PARADIGM.

Great.  So I am other can have different paradigms that are just as valid as yours? Even if different and contradictory?

 

On 11/26/2021 at 4:03 PM, mfbukowski said:

Because I am psychologically certain of it, I CALL it "true".  Similar to a courtroom judge who creates "facts".

That is my POSITION which guides my life.  All I say represents that. I take that on faith,

Ok. YOUR position. Got it.  So others can have different positions that are just as valid right?

On 11/26/2021 at 4:03 PM, mfbukowski said:

 

which you apparently disavow as not valid, due to your positivism, as YOUR psychological certainty and faith.

And there you go.  I am simply trying tp pin down and understand you and clarify how YOU see it applies to others that have a different reality than you do.

On 11/26/2021 at 4:03 PM, mfbukowski said:

Mine is consistent, because I see it as a psychological inclination, POSSIBLY, while you believe that "facts correspond to reality" which makes them "true", requiring your view of "valid evidence" which comes down to "being satisfied" with the results, a contradictory assertion.

You think it is consistent clearly.  I am trying to see how it is consistent.  And I am still convinced your paradigm and approach is NOT held by those who lead the LDS Church nor the majority of its adherents.  You know those who you have referred to as holding childish views.

 

As for me yea I have leaned more on an evidential paradigm.  I am open to other approaches and I do not insist on one truth as you seem to think I do.  I challenge others who do and that includes many believers on this board. Currently I do not believe one truth exists. It seems to me that religions, political parties, nations, states, laws, etc are all human made constructs that a society will agree to and then try to improve upon as we mature.  Or burn it down as many seem to want to do to democracy these days and replace it with authoritarianism.  These are all imaginary and we simply agree to abide by these imaginary constructs.  They can and do change.  So no I don't hold to one truth at all. I don't think it exists.  Mormonism however does.

[Teancum]

On 11/24/2021 at 1:31 PM, CV75 said:

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.

AFter struggling for some time with reconciling the new information on things LDS, Joseph Smith, etc I was talking with a close friend, a BYUI institute professor. I let him know about a few books on LDS history I was reading.  He said "You better be careful drilling into LDS Church history and make sure you have a strong testimony before you do so."  That night I though long and hard about this and realized that I could no longer defend what had become indefensible, at least to me.  I was a bishop at the time.  The next day was Sunday. I was tired after a sleepless night. I invited my friend into my office after church. We talked to three hours He shared with me the same concerns he personally has about the founding truth claims.  After that meeting I realized my testimony that I had, had spoken may times as well as the spiritual witnesses I thought had confirmed truth to me had been based on limited information. I concluded that I was sold the Bernie Madoff of the religious world.  From that point on I found the methods I had used to be unreliable.

There is a lot on my journey between that point and where I am now including many different ways to try to make the LDS Church and religion work for me. This event was around 14 years ago. But ultimately the things I tried to make it work at least at this point have not worked for me.

[Tacenda]

42 minutes ago, Teancum said:

AFter struggling for some time with reconciling the new information on things LDS, Joseph Smith, etc I was talking with a close friend, a BYUI institute professor. I let him know about a few books on LDS history I was reading.  He said "You better be careful drilling into LDS Church history and make sure you have a strong testimony before you do so."  That night I though long and hard about this and realized that I could no longer defend what had become indefensible, at least to me.  I was a bishop at the time.  The next day was Sunday. I was tired after a sleepless night. I invited my friend into my office after church. We talked to three hours He shared with me the same concerns he personally has about the founding truth claims.  After that meeting I realized my testimony that I had, had spoken may times as well as the spiritual witnesses I thought had confirmed truth to me had been based on limited information. I concluded that I was sold the Bernie Madoff of the religious world.  From that point on I found the methods I had used to be unreliable.

There is a lot on my journey between that point and where I am now including many different ways to try to make the LDS Church and religion work for me. This event was around 14 years ago. But ultimately the things I tried to make it work at least at this point have not worked for me.

I think you and I had our crisis or truth crisis, around the same time. I will always remember the 1st counselor coming to my house to meet with me unannounced about a calling in Primary. My husband and I were walking to our vehicle to go somewhere. Our neighbor came over to talk to my husband and the 1st counselor said we could talk in my vehicle. He was in the back seat and me in the front. He asked if I'd like to teach Primary and that year it was D&C so I knew I'd have to testify of Joseph Smith and I told him that I'd recently read the book, "In Sacred Loneliness". And that I don't think I can teach something I'm struggling with. He then told me he'd had a faith crisis a few years earlier and that the only thing that kept him going was his wife's experience at the temple and then told me to just keep attending and not go inactive. It was a surreal several moments as we stayed discussing things, I wondered what my neighbor and husband thought as he stayed so long in the vehicle with me. But he helped so much by admitting he'd been through the same thing. He and his family moved shortly after that. 

[Teancum]

27 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think you and I had our crisis or truth crisis, around the same time. I will always remember the 1st counselor coming to my house to meet with me unannounced about a calling in Primary. My husband and I were walking to our vehicle to go somewhere. Our neighbor came over to talk to my husband and the 1st counselor said we could talk in my vehicle. He was in the back seat and me in the front. He asked if I'd like to teach Primary and that year it was D&C so I knew I'd have to testify of Joseph Smith and I told him that I'd recently read the book, "In Sacred Loneliness". And that I don't think I can teach something I'm struggling with. He then told me he'd had a faith crisis a few years earlier and that the only thing that kept him going was his wife's experience at the temple and then told me to just keep attending and not go inactive. It was a surreal several moments as we stayed discussing things, I wondered what my neighbor and husband thought as he stayed so long in the vehicle with me. But he helped so much by admitting he'd been through the same thing. He and his family moved shortly after that. 

Sounds like you had a caring 1st counselor.

[The Great Pretender]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

  

Excuse me.  Just looking for clarification.

Great.  So I am other can have different paradigms that are just as valid as yours? Even if different and contradictory?

 

Ok. YOUR position. Got it.  So others can have different positions that are just as valid right?

And there you go.  I am simply trying tp pin down and understand you and clarify how YOU see it applies to others that have a different reality than you do.

You think it is consistent clearly.  I am trying to see how it is consistent.  And I am still convinced your paradigm and approach is NOT held by those who lead the LDS Church nor the majority of its adherents.  You know those who you have referred to as holding childish views.

 

As for me yea I have leaned more on an evidential paradigm.  I am open to other approaches and I do not insist on one truth as you seem to think I do.  I challenge others who do and that includes many believers on this board. Currently I do not believe one truth exists. It seems to me that religions, political parties, nations, states, laws, etc are all human made constructs that a society will agree to and then try to improve upon as we mature.  Or burn it down as many seem to want to do to democracy these days and replace it with authoritarianism.  These are all imaginary and we simply agree to abide by these imaginary constructs.  They can and do change.  So no I don't hold to one truth at all. I don't think it exists.  Mormonism however does.

If God or gods exist, they do so on account of being all-knowing (omniscient). For them, there is one singular truth (the way things truly are), since they understand everything. 

Everyone else is limited to a perception of truth based on limited understanding.

I'm unsure how relevant this is to the original post. 

Edited November 28, 2021 by The Great Pretender

[CV75]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

AFter struggling for some time with reconciling the new information on things LDS, Joseph Smith, etc I was talking with a close friend, a BYUI institute professor. I let him know about a few books on LDS history I was reading.  He said "You better be careful drilling into LDS Church history and make sure you have a strong testimony before you do so."  That night I though long and hard about this and realized that I could no longer defend what had become indefensible, at least to me.  I was a bishop at the time.  The next day was Sunday. I was tired after a sleepless night. I invited my friend into my office after church. We talked to three hours He shared with me the same concerns he personally has about the founding truth claims.  After that meeting I realized my testimony that I had, had spoken may times as well as the spiritual witnesses I thought had confirmed truth to me had been based on limited information. I concluded that I was sold the Bernie Madoff of the religious world.  From that point on I found the methods I had used to be unreliable.

There is a lot on my journey between that point and where I am now including many different ways to try to make the LDS Church and religion work for me. This event was around 14 years ago. But ultimately the things I tried to make it work at least at this point have not worked for me.

This is still not pinpointing how the method stopped working. You are just explaining that it stopped working (but not how). I’m not seeing any indication that the new information was processed using the same method that used to work. I see many people trying to intellectualize and rationalize their religious faith (which isn’t necessarily a rational mental state), and when they can’t, they drop their faith.

If new information came forth that it is a good thing to kill someone, would you do it? 😊

[BRMC]

On 11/10/2021 at 11:03 PM, kimpearson said:

This belief is destroying lives.  

 

I disagree with this statement.   I don't hold the answers as I'm not LGBT, but I have a hard time drawing a hard line that keeping our covenants and commandments are what is destroying lives.  Let's just draw a circle around the Law of Chastity.  While circumstances are unique, the challenge isn't unique to the LGBT community.  I'm friends with many singles who struggle with the Law of Chastity.   The drive on, fall down from time to time, then pick themselves up and keep moving forward.   Some have been doing this for decades.

[CA Steve]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

If new information came forth that it is a good thing to kill someone, would you do it?

No, unless he was passed out drunk at my feet with a really cool sharp sword and a great library collection I wanted.

😲

[CV75]

14 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

No, unless he was passed out drunk at my feet with a really cool sharp sword and a great library collection I wanted.

😲

 Ha ha that was covered elsewhere under the strawman about the Spirit telling you to kill someone and then calling it murder. What kind of information would you require before killing someone?

[MustardSeed]

7 hours ago, BRMC said:

I disagree with this statement.   I don't hold the answers as I'm not LGBT, but I have a hard time drawing a hard line that keeping our covenants and commandments are what is destroying lives.  Let's just draw a circle around the Law of Chastity.  While circumstances are unique, the challenge isn't unique to the LGBT community.  I'm friends with many singles who struggle with the Law of Chastity.   The drive on, fall down from time to time, then pick themselves up and keep moving forward.   Some have been doing this for decades.

I truly believe that chastity outside of marriage and homosexuality are two entirely different issues.  IMO. 

[BRMC]

4 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I truly believe that chastity outside of marriage and homosexuality are two entirely different issues.  IMO. 

How so?

[The Great Pretender]

29 minutes ago, BRMC said:

How so?

My personal experience with homosexuality is that it isn't actually about sex; it's about emotional connection, validation, and security in an attempt to address and resolve what went wrong from infancy and thereafter. Unfortunately, sex is nature's way of ensuring the most intimate connection, so it becomes the end game for almost everyone in that situation—without necessarily offering the emotional remedies individuals hope will accompany it.

For me, the holy grail is to foster restorative emotional same-sex connections without bringing sex into the equation. If that can be done, chastity isn't an issue. However, it remains an issue for opposite-sex couples because that truly is the end game.

[Mike Drop]

45 minutes ago, The Great Pretender said:

what went wrong from infancy and thereafter

Could you explain this please?

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, CV75 said:

This is still not pinpointing how the method stopped working. You are just explaining that it stopped working (but not how). I’m not seeing any indication that the new information was processed using the same method that used to work. I see many people trying to intellectualize and rationalize their religious faith (which isn’t necessarily a rational mental state), and when they can’t, they drop their faith.

If new information came forth that it is a good thing to kill someone, would you do it? 😊

I think I have and feel no need to invest into discussing it further.

[The Great Pretender]

2 hours ago, Mike Drop said:

Could you explain this please?

And risk being vilified? OK, my pleasure. Check the post by Hamba Tuhan on page 10 (November 22).

Shoot me dead for suggesting this, but my gospel convictions lead me to believe that homosexuality is a condition of mortality—since it makes no sense in the context of the Family Proclamation (or logic in terms of a biological binary—except as an aberration).

Die-hard gay folk insist they have always been gay. Well, that's impossible to back up because no one has memories of their earliest social influences or their impacts on development.

In my personal case, I was the fifth child—a sensitive boy (probably with subtle autistic traits) who was afraid of the rough and tumble of his two older brothers. Heap on such a child plenty of passive-aggressive disapproval from family and society for a boy who prefers the company and pursuits of his sisters, and you get a rinse-and-repeat cycle of conditioning that tells the boy in spoken and unspoken ways that society thinks he's something unpleasant. And while this is all unfolding, the boy fails to receive the validation he so desperately needs for his induction into the club of masculinity. And then puberty kicks in, and masculinity—which has become something of an unobtainable "other"—becomes the "sexual other." The child becomes hard-wired; a product of deliberate and/or inadvertent victimisation—ever to remain a victim "happily ever after."

Now, that's a fun bedtime story for the kids. 😉

Edited November 29, 2021 by The Great Pretender

[Mike Drop]

26 minutes ago, The Great Pretender said:

And risk being vilified? OK, my pleasure. Check the post by Hamba Tuhan on page 10 (November 22).

Shoot me dead for suggesting this, but my gospel convictions lead me to believe that homosexuality is a condition of mortality—since it makes no sense in the context of the Family Proclamation (or logic in terms of a biological binary—except as an aberration).

Die-hard gay folk insist they have always been gay. Well, that's impossible to back up because no one has memories of their earliest social influences or their impacts on development.

In my personal case, I was the fifth child—a sensitive boy (probably with subtle autistic traits) who was afraid of the rough and tumble of his two older brothers. Heap on such a child the passive-aggressive disapproval of family and society for a boy who prefers the company and pursuits of his sisters, and you get a rinse-and-repeat cycle of conditioning that tells the boy in spoken and unspoken ways that society thinks he's something unpleasant. And while this is all unfolding, the validation the boy desperately needs to be inducted into the club of masculinity never materialises. And then puberty kicks in, and masculinity—which has become something of an unobtainable "other"—becomes the "sexual other." The child becomes hard-wired; a product of casual victimisation—and ever to remain the victim "happily ever after."

Now, that's a fun bedtime story for the kids. 😉

I’m not going to vilify you. You’re a brave guy for speaking your mind. I agree with you that early childhood experiences can “alter” a child’s life and possibly make them feel more comfortable having an emotional and sexual relationships with a person of the same sex. Where you and I differ is you think because of early childhood experiences, children become “hard wired to be gay” only after birth and experiencing some sort of childhood trauma. But I also think the vast majority of gay people are born gay. 
 

    Let me ask you this! Right now on earth today, what has God given us in perfect form? Is your life perfect, is your marriage perfect, is your health perfect, is your relationship with God perfect? Mine isn’t! If I’m understanding the gospel correctly, don’t we believe everything we do here on earth is part of a big test to see if we’re worthy to return to our heavenly parents? When it comes to gay people, what if the biggest part of the test isn’t trying to figure out why someone might be gay, but learning how to see them as an equal and learning how not to judge them for being gay? 
 

Here’s a different take, tell me what you think! I think heterosexuals are hard wired to reject homosexuality. I mean we are prolific breeders. I think anything out of the “ sexual norm” naturally upsets us, so when we see two guys holding hands our natural reaction is to reject their actions and love for one another because “they’re not doing anything to move along the human species”. I think those feelings are part of our animal instinct. Would you agree with that? 
 

   Over 1000s and 1000s of years, we have learned how to control many of our animal instincts and made laws to govern our animal instincts. What if it’s our job as heterosexual to learn how to accept homosexuals as equals?    

[The Great Pretender]

1 hour ago, Mike Drop said:

I’m not going to vilify you. You’re a brave guy for speaking your mind. I agree with you that early childhood experiences can “alter” a child’s life and possibly make them feel more comfortable having an emotional and sexual relationships with a person of the same sex. Where you and I differ is you think because of early childhood experiences, children become “hard wired to be gay” only after birth and experiencing some sort of childhood trauma. But I also think the vast majority of gay people are born gay. 
 

    Let me ask you this! Right now on earth today, what has God given us in perfect form? Is your life perfect, is your marriage perfect, is your health perfect, is your relationship with God perfect? Mine isn’t! If I’m understanding the gospel correctly, don’t we believe everything we do here on earth is part of a big test to see if we’re worthy to return to our heavenly parents? When it comes to gay people, what if the biggest part of the test isn’t trying to figure out why someone might be gay, but learning how to see them as an equal and learning how not to judge them for being gay? 
 

Here’s a different take, tell me what you think! I think heterosexuals are hard wired to reject homosexuality. I mean we are prolific breeders. I think anything out of the “ sexual norm” naturally upsets us, so when we see two guys holding hands our natural reaction is to reject their actions and love for one another because “they’re not doing anything to move along the human species”. I think those feelings are part of our animal instinct. Would you agree with that? 
 

   Over 1000s and 1000s of years, we have learned how to control many of our animal instincts and made laws to govern our animal instincts. What if it’s our job as heterosexual to learn how to accept homosexuals as equals?    

What you have suggested sounds reasonable enough. However, I do have a problem with the idea that God deliberately makes people gay. That puts them decidedly at a disadvantage (in terms of the gospel view of exaltation), yet we are taught that God is no respecter of persons. I believe all imperfections come not from God but from a fallen world—permitted by God (for a necessary period) for the purpose of learning how to make choices.

My patriarchal blessing told me I would marry a woman and have children, yet the idea was terrifying for me and not the least bit icky because I have never experienced the gosh-darn, deep-rooted, opposite-sex yearning that a straight person feels—and I'd say I'm not even "full-on" gay.

There are plenty of places on Earth where it is still perfectly normal for two men to hold hands without there being any suspicion of sexual intimacy between them. So I feel I am insufficiently qualified to comment on your suggestion that a rejection of homosexuality may be hard wired. If, as has been suggested, homosexuality wasn't even considered as a thing until a couple of hundreds of years ago, the argument is likely to be invalid.

Personally, I have no desire for my homosexuality to be tolerated, accepted, or embraced. It is a huge source of internal conflict. I wish it could simply be erased so I can experience a deeper connection with my wife.

Edited November 29, 2021 by The Great Pretender

[CV75]

6 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

My personal experience with homosexuality is that it isn't actually about sex; it's about emotional connection, validation, and security in an attempt to address and resolve what went wrong from infancy and thereafter. Unfortunately, sex is nature's way of ensuring the most intimate connection, so it becomes the end game for almost everyone in that situation—without necessarily offering the emotional remedies individuals hope will accompany it.

For me, the holy grail is to foster restorative emotional same-sex connections without bringing sex into the equation. If that can be done, chastity isn't an issue. However, it remains an issue for opposite-sex couples because that truly is the end game.

Many people use sex without much of an emotional connection at all. On the other hand, demisexual people only feel sexually attracted to someone they are emotionally connected to, or with. If a demisexual man can only develop an emotional bond with men, then sexual attraction to these individuals might follow. But a general sexual attraction to men is present prior to any emotional bonding, and sexual engagement would not require an emotional bond.

[pogi]

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

What you have suggested sounds reasonable enough. However, I do have a problem with the idea that God deliberately makes people gay. That puts them decidedly at a disadvantage (in terms of the gospel view of exaltation), yet we are taught that God is no respecter of persons. I believe all imperfections come not from God but from a fallen world—permitted by God (for a necessary period) for the purpose of learning how to make choices.

Mortality is unfair.  Period.   Whether God deliberately made it so, or deliberately allowed it to be so doesn't really change the fact that life is unfair and imbalanced.  Either way, all of these unfair experiences can ultimately be for our good and learning, if we allow it.  In the end, God equals the balance between justice and mercy and makes all things fair.  So, I don't see a legitimate theological argument against the idea that people can be born gay.  People are born with all sorts of "imperfections" that may give them a disadvantage in terms of exaltation (if we don't take God's mercy into account), so why should it be any different with gay people? 

If scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of certainty in identical twins which one will be gay based on epigenetic data from birth, how can you say with any degree of certainty that some people are not born gay?

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

Personally, I have no desire for my homosexuality to be tolerated, accepted, or embraced. It is a huge source of internal conflict. I wish it could simply be erased so I can experience a deeper connection with my wife.

It took me a very long time to embrace and accept the fact that I am an addict.  I fought against it for so long, and I too wished that it would simply be erased.  I believed I was a bad person for not being able to control it.  That belief that I was a bad person became a self-fulfilling prophecy, and I acted on that belief.  I no longer believe that.  I know that I became an addict for reasons that were largely out of my control (perhaps like you and your homosexuality).  I am 100% convinced of that.  And while I am still (and always will be) an addict, I no longer struggle with it like I did.  I no longer fight against it, but I direct it instead.  It is no longer a source of internal conflict.  It almost ended my marriage.  My connection with my wife suffered dramatically for it.  Once I learned to accept and even embrace my addiction as a part of me, and heal from the shame of it, my connection with my wife began taking on a whole new life and my addiction no longer controls me.  While I am in no way comparing addiction to homosexuality, I do believe that the experience of shame can be compared and has equal effect on our internal conflicts and relationships with others.      

I am convinced that the internal conflict will end the sooner you personally embrace and accept your own homosexuality, and that of others.  I am not suggesting that you need to act on it, but it is what it is and God deliberately allowed it to be so, so why not you?  Shaming oneself for it, or wishing for what can't be, will only make things worse.

Edited November 29, 2021 by pogi

[MrShorty]

6 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

For me, the holy grail is to foster restorative emotional same-sex connections without bringing sex into the equation. If that can be done, chastity isn't an issue. However, it remains an issue for opposite-sex couples because that truly is the end game.

I'm not sure to what extent I agree with you here. I've been around LDS sexology groups for some time, and, of course, the most common discussion topics are around sexless marriages and managing other sexual differences. Topics often include some form of "[how do we] foster emotional [opposite]-sex connections [while removing] sex [from] the equation." This often triggers debates over whether it is wise or good or proper (or even whether God intended it to be so) to give up on reconciling the sexual side of the relationship. Debates over whether sex is essential or necessary or even important to opposite sex marriages are common. Also common are debates over whether or not sexual differences are sufficient to justify divorce (someone tried to start this one a couple months ago, and the admins/moderators promptly shut it down -- unfortunately, IMO). In the groups I frequent, there is an uncomfortable consensus that, when sexual differences become irreconcilable, then divorce is justified, but there is a lot of discomfort and dissension.

In these debates, I find that the Church makes no helpful contribution. The Church, in its efforts to stay strictly outside of couples' bedrooms, says almost nothing helpful about the importance of sex to marriage. In many ways, this is almost certainly wise, but the Church does not even try to offer principles that can be used in making these decisions. At the end of the day, because the Church offers next to nothing to help an opposite sex couple understand the place and role that sexuality ought to play in their marriage, I find myself doubting that the Church has anything truly helpful to offer same-sex attracted individuals (and couples) anything better in helping them understand and integrate their sexuality.