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

[The Great Pretender]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

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.

Demisexual? Oh, my. I think I need to run away and hide until the 2nd coming.

Edited November 29, 2021 by The Great Pretender

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Mike Drop said:

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? 

Except for other men not breeding means there is more for the children of those who breed, especially if the nonbreeders are contributing support to the breeders of their tribe/clan/community.  In a community with low resources having more adults working to protect and provide for one’s own children would be a big plus, not a negative.

And since women often didn’t have a choice about mating or not if they wanted protection of a family, to have value for it, a man not interested in competing for women would mean more mates available for the men who do. Another plus. 

Edited November 29, 2021 by Calm

[Tacenda]

7 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.

You're more than likely aware that in the early history of Mormonism, there were men that held hands and even slept side by side. I think men could indeed have affectionate relations w/o sex. 

https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/pwh/josephsmith.asp

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Great Pretender said:

Demisexual? Oh, my. I think I need to run away and hide until the 2nd coming.

It is just a label to differentiate behaviour and reactions, no more controversial than using ice, vapor, and water to describe the variety of behaviours of H2O or using Catholic, Latter-day Saint, Mennonite, Lutheran, Unchurched, None and the rest of the endless variations of behavioural groupings that exist under the Lives as a Christian umbrella. 
 

It is only because we haven’t seen a need for such labels before because we didn’t talk about the variety of sexual behaviour that it seems weird, imo.  Sex in casual conversation was for our culture in the past couple of hundred years default the one size fits all boy meets girl, they are physically attracted to each other, fall in love emotionally, couple up, live ever after…happy or not.

But it is easier to use labels when having a discussion of other ways of falling in love or creating a sexual relationship than having to explain each time that you are talking about someone who falls in love with those they are friends with and not because of physical or other attributes or something similar or someone who isn’t interested that much in sex as part of their coupling relationship (asexual), attracted to both sexes (bisexual), or for whom gender is irrelevant to attraction (Pan sexual), etc. 

Someone who talks about Christianity in more in-depth conversations is more likely to use labels of smaller groupings rather than the larger ones of Catholic, Protestant, NonChristian I grew up with.  It is a hassle to explain what one means without labels over and over again. I was quite grateful when it appeared that most people I talked to realized Mormons were not Protestants and I got a bit of a thrill the first time I saw an LDS option on a form.

Same thing is happening with the increase of in-depth conversations about sexual relationships. 

Edited November 29, 2021 by Calm

[BRMC]

9 hours 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 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. 😉

This an interesting thought-line that I hadn't considered.  Thanks for providing food for though.

[california boy]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

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?

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.

Wise advice.  My life completely changed when I began to accept that I will always be gay.  And like you, the shame I felt really disappeared.  Even for those who choose to remain celibate in order to stay in the Church, I personally think that they really can not move forward very much until they accept the fact that they will always be gay.  

Given the lessons I have learned from being gay, my attitude changed from feeling it was a curse from God to an understanding that being gay really has been a blessing in my life.

[Canadiandude]

11 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

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.

Think carefully about this statement. How much of the church’s own claims are unverifiable or cannot be falsified?

Is there a double-standard presented here as to the validity, and/or reliability requirements expected of religious actors and claims as opposed to those that are irreligious?

~
 

As a gay man myself, my journey away from the church began after realizing that my faith was demanding of myself and others too much sacrifice, relative to the kind, quality and degree of evidences used to support their associated truth claims.

Once I realized the risks that I and the church were taking, relative to the evidence and arguments animating them, I became much more curious, and willing to explore alternative explanations & behaviours, and their own associated costs, benefits & evidences.

~
 

In the temple endowment there are warnings are given for covenant breakers, and I’m often unsure I was ever sufficiently informed to have entered in these in the first place considering their temporal, and supposedly spiritual consequences, and how endowment historically evolved.
 

Within the church’s culture & doctrines, there are also warnings (explicit and less so) discouraging members from looking beyond the church’s authorized explanations, positions and practices.

Deconstructing my faith proved, as a result, very difficult for me, and I often had to look past my discomfort and ask the very same questions you have about the verification process behind the claims being made.

~
 

Most scholarly explanations regarding the ‘causes’ behind sexual orientation have moved past strict nature vs. nurture paradigms, yet I think it’s the subject of ‘so what’ which is, in policy terms, too often missing in the conversation.

If claims made by gods’ supposed mouthpieces cannot be substantiated through any sufficiently reliable and/or valid means, then how reasonable become then the mouthpieces’ argumentation & evidences in support of x, independent of all the skyhooks, relative to alternative claims/explanations with their own supporting arguments & evidences? 
 

 

 

Edited November 30, 2021 by Canadiandude

[CV75]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Wise advice.  My life completely changed when I began to accept that I will always be gay.  And like you, the shame I felt really disappeared.  Even for those who choose to remain celibate in order to stay in the Church, I personally think that they really can not move forward very much until they accept the fact that they will always be gay.  

Given the lessons I have learned from being gay, my attitude changed from feeling it was a curse from God to an understanding that being gay really has been a blessing in my life.

By this logic, your life would completely change and move forward when you stop telling gay members they cannot move forward by keeping their covenants, a consideration you seem to have overlooked in the above statement. It is great that "being gay" -- whatever that means to you absent the commandments --  is no longer viewed as a curse of God upon you, but there are other, superior blessings from God involved in staying with the Church.

[Canadiandude]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

By this logic

By what logic? 
 

I’m not sure what you’re saying here, in reference to the quote you are responding to.

 

[CV75]

12 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

By what logic? 
 

I’m not sure what you’re saying here, in reference to the quote you are responding to.

 

By "logic" I'm referring to his line of reasoning, not necessarily adhering to strict rules of disciplinary (choose any discipline) validity. Feel free to take what follows as a stand-alone statement so as not to get bogged down with how it relates to the quote i am responding to.

[rodheadlee]

On 11/27/2021 at 8:28 AM, california boy said:

I don't think you really understand the corrosive effect of having people assume you are straight when you are gay.  It feels like you are lying to everyone every single day of your life.  It feels like you can never trust anyone's love.  When they say you are a wonderful person, in your mind, you are constantly asking yourself, if you knew I was gay, would you still think I am a wonderful person?  The answer may be yes, but you don't really know.  As a result of that, you can never fully trust someone's love for you.  

Try living an entire life, without ever being able to trust anyone's love.  You may think, well surely those that are closest to you, your family and friends would love you no matter what.  But even those close to may very well abandon you if they knew you were gay.  My family abandoned me for 13 years of my life when I came out.  Those in the Church that I thought I was close to, only two ever reached out and talked to me again.  That answered the question for me.  If they knew I was gay, would they still love me.

Coming out was the BEST thing that I have ever done.  As painful as it was, and as much rejection that I received, I could now begin to live my life in honesty, rather than deceit. If people loved me, they loved me not because who they thought I was, but who I actually am.  It is like this 20 ton burden is lifted from you and your life can begin in authenticity. Sure it is painful and difficult.  But THIS is why you see people even in their 80's finally coming out.  It is why famous people or people in prominent businesses who have everything to loose, including their careers, still need to come out.  Every person who comes out rolls the dice with the strong chance that their lives will become exponentially worse.  But the one thing money or fame can not buy is peach of mind and knowing that you are honest in your life.

No, you don't need to tell every single person you come in contact with that you are gay.  But if the guy remodeling your house starts asking you about your marriage, or if you have a girlfriend, or what you did that weekend and with who, then there is NO reason to retreat back into that closet for a perfect stranger.  I would also add that perhaps the best thing that has gained LGBT acceptance and understanding is when people realized that their nice neighbor or the person you buy pastries with on Saturday morning, or the plumber that fixes your pipes, or the boy who mows your lawn who they though highly of was LGBT.  It is less likely that you will treat a minority group poorly when you actually know someone from that minority group.

Ok. I'm wrong. You win. I still think my sex life is no one's business but mine but I'm a boat anchor these days so it doesn't matter. 

[Teancum]

On 11/29/2021 at 8:32 AM, The Great Pretender said:

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).

Once you come to understand that the document you reference is simply a man made document that was issued in order for the LDS Church to battle the even increasing acceptance of homosexual behavior as well as marriage yo ucan free yourself.  That is all it is. You certainly can choose to view it as divine and God directed for your own life or not. 

[The Great Pretender]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

Once you come to understand that the document you reference is simply a man made document that was issued in order for the LDS Church to battle the even increasing acceptance of homosexual behavior as well as marriage yo ucan free yourself.  That is all it is. You certainly can choose to view it as divine and God directed for your own life or not. 

I accept your prerogative to view any guidance from Church leadership as manmade and confected for the purpose of maintaining power and influence over its membership. For someone who has no faith in the integrity of Church leaders, that is perfectly logical. However, such claims fail to become fact without being able to convince said leadership to sign a statement to the effect that they made everything up. As it stands, you are simply asserting a position of disbelief, which is a form of belief.

There are many things in the teachings of the Church that I have decided I will take with a pinch of salt simply because they pertain to the functioning of a global organisation. For many, those things actually become an integral part of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Not me. I recognise a business meeting when I see one. The moment key performance indicators rear their heads, I switch off. When I see rituals creeping in, I switch off. My focus is on the atonement and the two great commandments: to love God and our neighbours, both of which I do badly—but I hope to do better.

My view of homosexuality is now on a par with my also being left-handed and perhaps a little autistic at times. I can't radically change any of them, but I can look for ways to prevent them from working against me and causing me unnecessary disadvantage.

[The Great Pretender]

22 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

Think carefully about this statement. How much of the church’s own claims are unverifiable or cannot be falsified?

Is there a double-standard presented here as to the validity, and/or reliability requirements expected of religious actors and claims as opposed to those that are irreligious?

~
 

As a gay man myself, my journey away from the church began after realizing that my faith was demanding of myself and others too much sacrifice, relative to the kind, quality and degree of evidences used to support their associated truth claims.

Once I realized the risks that I and the church were taking, relative to the evidence and arguments animating them, I became much more curious, and willing to explore alternative explanations & behaviours, and their own associated costs, benefits & evidences.

~
 

In the temple endowment there are warnings are given for covenant breakers, and I’m often unsure I was ever sufficiently informed to have entered in these in the first place considering their temporal, and supposedly spiritual consequences, and how endowment historically evolved.
 

Within the church’s culture & doctrines, there are also warnings (explicit and less so) discouraging members from looking beyond the church’s authorized explanations, positions and practices.

Deconstructing my faith proved, as a result, very difficult for me, and I often had to look past my discomfort and ask the very same questions you have about the verification process behind the claims being made.

~
 

Most scholarly explanations regarding the ‘causes’ behind sexual orientation have moved past strict nature vs. nurture paradigms, yet I think it’s the subject of ‘so what’ which is, in policy terms, too often missing in the conversation.

If claims made by gods’ supposed mouthpieces cannot be substantiated through any sufficiently reliable and/or valid means, then how reasonable become then the mouthpieces’ argumentation & evidences in support of x, independent of all the skyhooks, relative to alternative claims/explanations with their own supporting arguments & evidences? 
 

 

 

I accept everything you have to say, except that I don't wish to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Homosexuality aside, there are several reasons why logic and maths convince me of some great order to life and the cosmos rather than chaos and randomness. The Church is the only organisation I know of that teaches principles that complement an eternal process of development with an architect (i.e. the plan of salvation). I am highly skeptical of many assertions made about revealed specifics, but I don't get too hung up about them because I figure the individuals who claim to speak for deity by saying we must do x, y, and z will have to account for that in due course—especially if deity only had in mind for us to do a, b, and c, and the leaders got a little too carried away by revealing stuff that was more aspirational than accurate. 😉

[california boy]

On 11/29/2021 at 5:13 PM, CV75 said:

By this logic, your life would completely change and move forward when you stop telling gay members they cannot move forward by keeping their covenants, a consideration you seem to have overlooked in the above statement. It is great that "being gay" -- whatever that means to you absent the commandments --  is no longer viewed as a curse of God upon you, but there are other, superior blessings from God involved in staying with the Church.

It was an easy decision for me because what the Church offers to those LGBT that are gay is something I have no interest in receiving.  I have absolutely no interest in being married to a woman for eternity.  So whether I break the commandments, really doesn't matter.  Either way, I remain outside the Celestial Kingdom.  Maybe you can tell me why keeping the commandments is important to someone who is LGBT,  And maybe you can tell me why I should believe that the Church leaders has knowledge from God on what LGBT people should do.  Cause as far as I know, the only claim of a revelation from God came from President Nelson on the whole we aren't baptizing your underaged children announcement. A "revelation" that he himself rescinded.  

Can you truthfully say that you know for a fact that sex within a gay marriage is considered sinful by God?  If so, what evidence do you have for such a conclusion?

 

[The Nehor]

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

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

Can I quote you on this?

I have a lot of people I need to judge.

[CV75]

11 hours ago, california boy said:

It was an easy decision for me because what the Church offers to those LGBT that are gay is something I have no interest in receiving.  I have absolutely no interest in being married to a woman for eternity.  So whether I break the commandments, really doesn't matter.  Either way, I remain outside the Celestial Kingdom.  Maybe you can tell me why keeping the commandments is important to someone who is LGBT,  And maybe you can tell me why I should believe that the Church leaders has knowledge from God on what LGBT people should do.  Cause as far as I know, the only claim of a revelation from God came from President Nelson on the whole we aren't baptizing your underaged children announcement. A "revelation" that he himself rescinded.  

Can you truthfully say that you know for a fact that sex within a gay marriage is considered sinful by God?  If so, what evidence do you have for such a conclusion?

 

I'm not questioning your decision, only pointing out your faulty reasoning for your advice to LGBTQ+ people who choose to remain in in the Church.

Keeping the commandments is important for all the children of God; whether it is important to them is an individual choice. The reasons for believing (rather, choosing to believe) that the prophets have the keys of revelation and sealing, etc. is a function of knowledge (e.g. scriptures, history), experience (e.g. observation and precedent) and faith.

Doctrinally speaking, I know that "gay marriage" doesn't exist, and sex outside of legitimate marriage is a sin for reasons I'm sure you understand.

Edited December 1, 2021 by CV75

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

I accept your prerogative to view any guidance from Church leadership as manmade and confected for the purpose of maintaining power and influence over its membership. For someone who has no faith in the integrity of Church leaders, that is perfectly logical. However, such claims fail to become fact without being able to convince said leadership to sign a statement to the effect that they made everything up. As it stands, you are simply asserting a position of disbelief, which is a form of belief.

There are many things in the teachings of the Church that I have decided I will take with a pinch of salt simply because they pertain to the functioning of a global organisation. For many, those things actually become an integral part of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Not me. I recognise a business meeting when I see one. The moment key performance indicators rear their heads, I switch off. When I see rituals creeping in, I switch off. My focus is on the atonement and the two great commandments: to love God and our neighbours, both of which I do badly—but I hope to do better.

My view of homosexuality is now on a par with my also being left-handed and perhaps a little autistic at times. I can't radically change any of them, but I can look for ways to prevent them from working against me and causing me unnecessary disadvantage.

I just wish you well in your journey. It is clear you are very thoughtful and engaged.  Blessings to you.

[Tacenda]

15 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

I accept everything you have to say, except that I don't wish to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Homosexuality aside, there are several reasons why logic and maths convince me of some great order to life and the cosmos rather than chaos and randomness. The Church is the only organisation I know of that teaches principles that complement an eternal process of development with an architect (i.e. the plan of salvation). I am highly skeptical of many assertions made about revealed specifics, but I don't get too hung up about them because I figure the individuals who claim to speak for deity by saying we must do x, y, and z will have to account for that in due course—especially if deity only had in mind for us to do a, b, and c, and the leaders got a little too carried away by revealing stuff that was more aspirational than accurate. 😉

Just read over this from the church owned newspaper about David Archuletta. Not sure if you know him. Anyway, it looks like he's like you in some ways, and both of you want to hold onto the faith. Hope the article will help in some way. https://www.deseret.com/faith/2021/11/30/22712703/david-archuleta-same-sex-attraction-lgbtq-faith-mormon-lds-journey-singer?fbclid=IwAR2ypyErE6B7YHenSdFzXP8TbIFSswbHXtNob34RRbTN0UtE7RMlvL4j4ZY

[The Great Pretender]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Just read over this from the church owned newspaper about David Archuletta. Not sure if you know him. Anyway, it looks like he's like you in some ways, and both of you want to hold onto the faith. Hope the article will help in some way. https://www.deseret.com/faith/2021/11/30/22712703/david-archuleta-same-sex-attraction-lgbtq-faith-mormon-lds-journey-singer?fbclid=IwAR2ypyErE6B7YHenSdFzXP8TbIFSswbHXtNob34RRbTN0UtE7RMlvL4j4ZY

Thanks. I was already aware of his story. Not a fan of his music, personally. 

[MustardSeed]

On 11/29/2021 at 2:59 AM, BRMC said:

How so?

Because I believe that sex outside of marriage is a behavior, and alternatively that homosexuality is often who someone is intrinsically. I personally am not in any way offended by two people who are in a legal, committed monogamous consensual relationship regardless of gender. I am offended by affairs, casual sex, violence and non consensual sex, and it seems as if none of these behaviors get nearly the amount of attention, hate and intolerance that homosexuality gets.  No CFR, I’m spitballing here.  You get my point. 

Edited December 1, 2021 by MustardSeed

[CV75]

52 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Because I believe that sex outside of marriage is a behavior, and alternatively that homosexuality is often who someone is intrinsically. I personally am not in any way offended by two people who are in a legal, committed monogamous consensual relationship regardless of gender. I am offended by affairs, casual sex, violence and non consensual sex, and it seems as if none of these behaviors get nearly the amount of attention, hate and intolerance that homosexuality gets.  No CFR, I’m spitballing here.  You get my point. 

This is unfortunate because none of our doctrine supports any attention, hate and intolerance toward "intrinsic" (which is debatable since we do not know all the ways it comes about) homosexuality for homosexuality's sake. Our doctrine does support the covenant way that Christ came into the world, which is a pattern for us all.

[BRMC]

4 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Because I believe that sex outside of marriage is a behavior, and alternatively that homosexuality is often who someone is intrinsically. I personally am not in any way offended by two people who are in a legal, committed monogamous consensual relationship regardless of gender. I am offended by affairs, casual sex, violence and non consensual sex, and it seems as if none of these behaviors get nearly the amount of attention, hate and intolerance that homosexuality gets.  No CFR, I’m spitballing here.  You get my point. 

I disagree with your conclusion, but I agree with much of what you said after.   Committed same sex relationships don't offend me.  I don't think "offended" would be the correct word I'd use for how I feel about affairs and casual sex, either.   If someone asked me what I felt a worse offense is:  an affair or a same-sex marriage/relationship, I think that's a no brainer.   I understand others don't feel the same way, though.   

 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, BRMC said:

I disagree with your conclusion, but I agree with much of what you said after.   Committed same sex relationships don't offend me.  I don't think "offended" would be the correct word I'd use for how I feel about affairs and casual sex, either.   If someone asked me what I felt a worse offense is:  an affair or a same-sex marriage/relationship, I think that's a no brainer.   I understand others don't feel the same way, though.   

 

I'm confused, but nothing new, what do you mean a no brainer? Do you think SSM is worse than an affair?

[The Nehor]

I am not sure what their rating system is but any relationship that involves the term “polycule” is automatically evil and the worst on the ranking scale.