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

[Gillebre]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

So, I end up asking again, what does it mean to overcome the natural man?

To overcome the natural man is to experience a spiritual rebirth wherein we develop a determination to set the covenants we've made with the Lord as our highest guiding priority on a daily basis.

It means losing the desire to sin such that we're more motivated by a hunger for light, for greater personal righteousness, more than we value temporal concerns or distractions.

A person who has been spiritually reborn strives to set their heart on treasures in Heaven and not treasures on earth. They turn to prayer easily rather than grudgingly, and in prayer they regularly and proactively ask Heavenly Father to help them clear out any debris that would prevent them from having the Holy Ghost as their literal constant companion.

In three words: let God prevail.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 12/11/2021 at 9:34 PM, MacGyver said:

I think the church is currently stuck between a rock and hard place. The LGBTQ+ movement is sweeping over the nation (and many other parts of the world). The number of people who identify as LGBTQ is growing by leaps and bounds, especially among young people. It's very popular to be LGBTQ these days. More and more members of the church are also getting caught up in this. 

The church doesn't want to drive these people away, but also doesn't want to compromise on the law of chastity, either. Many in the LGBTQ community are easily offended at the slightest appearance of intolerance and non-acceptance of their lifestyle. The church is trying to be sensitive and not offend, while maintaining that homosexual relations are a grievous sin. This has given rise in recent years to this idea in the church that one can openly identify as LGBTQ, without actually having homosexual relations, and live a fulfilled life as a member of the church. The church has shared many testimonials of members who identify as LGBTQ, live a chaste life, and are perfectly happy in the church. But in nearly all of these cases, the members who share these testimonials eventually choose to fully pursue the LGBTQ lifestyle, including engaging in homosexual sexual relationships. The church then pulls these testimonials and produces new ones. And the cycle repeats itself. 

I think it's becoming very obvious that this teaching that one can openly identify as LGBTQ and also live a happy and fulfilled life as an active member of the Lord's church is not true. One can struggle with same-sex attraction and be trying to overcome, it and find fulfillment in the church, but not openly and proudly identify as LGBTQ.

I hope that the church returns to trying to help people overcome same-sex attraction, rather than telling them that's perfectly fine to be LGBTQ and that this lifestyle is fully compatible with the gospel of Jesus Christ, as long as one doesn't enter into a homosexual sexual relationship. 

 

I think it important that the Church of Jesus Christ continue to convey the message that all regardless of sexual orientation are welcome to come and partake of the blessings of the restored gospel so long as their behavior conforms to the commandments of God. 
 

My hunch is that there are untold numbers of devoted Latter-day Saints whom we don’t know about because they live quiet lives, do not engage in forbidden aspects of the LGBTQ lifestyle and do not push the baseless narrative that it’s only a matter of time before the Church will approve of sexual behavior between persons of the same sex and will perform same-sex marriages in the temple. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

So I still ask the question -- what does it mean to overcome the natural man?

I have always identified the “natural man” as the ‘animal’ side of our mortal being, that which operates more by instinct and momentary desires than reason, foresight, and mature emotions. Overcoming the natural man means to me to become aware of how our instincts and drives for physical comfort and pleasure influence us and to take control of them, alter how we use them rather than letting them use us so to speak, so we dispense with them if damaging or use them to support more mature behaviour (such as using sexual desire to develop bonds with one’s spouse).

In terms of the Gospel, this would mean a greater awareness of our self and greater self control through spiritual rebirth and aligning our desires with God’s Will through our covenants, which means we don’t let our instincts and base desires determine our behaviour, but what we see as fulfilling our covenants becomes the ruling drive. 

Edited December 13, 2021 by Calm

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Must an explication of the Law of Chastity be "new" in order to be valid?

No, but if these long standing, old explications fail to answer the question for me, is it really that helpful to simply regurgitate the same old explications that have not answered the question?

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't think we can fault the Church for teaching a generalized principle.

Perhaps, but, if we are going to teach generalized principles, we also need to be open to people coming to different conclusions. I will agree with you that God generally disapproves of fornication, but I also disagree with Pres. Kimball that God disapproves of oral sex in marriage. I also find myself disagreeing with the Church that same sex marriage is inherently wrong, preferring to respect the discernment of those who feel that God approves of their same-sex unions. I don't think the Church really knows how to deal with those who come to different conclusions.

[Teancum]

23 hours ago, MacGyver said:

Hopefully you're not so closed minded that you would discount the many stories of those who overcame their same-sex attraction and their LGBTQ lifestyle through Jesus Christ. 

All weakness and sin can be overcome through Jesus Christ. 

Assuming homsexuaity is a weakness or a sin, which it is not.

Edited December 13, 2021 by Teancum

[MrShorty]

@Gillebre: I understand the general idea, just as you describe it. The long running challenge I find is trying to understand exactly how my sexuality fits into those covenants. Is a desire for sex a "temporal concern or distraction" or is it a source of light that ought to be pursued? When I got married and covenanted to a sexually exclusive relationship with my wife, did I covenant to happily and willingly enter a sexless marriage when her sexual interest waned? Exactly what are my covenants in relation to my sexuality?

@Calm: I understand the relationship to "animalistic," but I'd also say that that is part of the confusion. Is sexuality something that is purely an animalistic desire, or can it also be spiritual? What does self-control really mean? Is it only about the spouse with higher desire exercising self-restraint, or does it include the lower desire spouse nurturing desire? What does "overcoming the natural man" mean with respect to my sexual experience and desire?

And, in the context of this thread, my experience as a cis-hetero man is not even the most important scenario to consider. What does all of this mean for those who experience same sex attraction and desire? What are the "connecting links" that suggest that "overcoming the natural man" means "LGB individuals must never give expression to same-sex experiences"?

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

Must an explication of the Law of Chastity be "new" in order to be valid?

No, but if these long standing, old explications fail to answer the question for me, is it really that helpful to simply regurgitate the same old explications that have not answered the question?

You are asking very broad questions.  Of strangers, no less.  And you gave no indication of prior familiarity with the "old explications."

7 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

I don't think we can fault the Church for teaching a generalized principle.

Perhaps, but, if we are going to teach generalized principles, we also need to be open to people coming to different conclusions.

Sure.  I think the Brethren work hard at this, as do bishops.  Nobody is looking to be hyper-doctrinaire.  We are, instead, seeking to be as inclusive as possible.  

That said, such inclusivity has its limits.  I suspect that by "people coming to different conclusions" about the Law of Chastity you mean . . . false doctrine.  Wresting it.  Re-defining it.  Rejecting inconvenient and/or unpopular portions of it.

As the saying goes:  “You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”

If, as I suspect, you are proposing that by "we also need to be open to people coming to different conclusions" about the Law of Chastity you are saying something along the lines of "we also need to be open to re-defining the Law of Chastity and the doctrines and teachings of the Church so as to endorse homosexual behavior and ratify and embrace same-sex marriages," then would you mind just saying as much?  If I am misreading you, I am eager to be corrected on this point.

7 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I will agree with you that God generally disapproves of fornication, but I also disagree with Pres. Kimball that God disapproves of oral sex in marriage.

You "disagree" in the present tense?

I think this blog article is worth consideration:

Quote

The question, is oral sex appropriate sexual behavior? Or is it an "unnatural" and "unholy" sexual behavior? These are important questions that a handful of individuals have attempted to answer. But the debate continues in often divisive ways. Leaving the reader no more clear, or more confused than previous to reading the explanation. However the answer to the questions are both spiritually and therapeutically clear in my mind and heart. What I find even more interesting about the continued debate is that its evidence of our culture's moral and spiritual inconsistency.

The official LDS Handbook 2: Administering the Church says the following about sexual behavior in marriage:

"Married couples should also understand that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a way of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife."  21.4.4 Birth Control

And this;

"The Lord’s law of chastity is abstinence from sexual relations outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. Adultery, fornication, homosexual or lesbian relations, and every other unholy, unnatural, or impure practice are sinful. Members who violate the Lord’s law of chastity or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline."  21.4.5 Chastity and Fidelity

That is it.

There is no further instruction, warnings, "doctrines" or teachings to avoid specific behaviors in marriage. It’s also worthy to note that the only two mentioning's are in the "Birth Control" sections and "Chastity and Fidelity". There is NO section, discussion of any sort on "approved" sexual behavior in marriage. None. Then why is this topic a debate or even a question?

Because of this phrase; "...and every other unholy, unnatural, or impure practice are sinful."

In their book "Real Intimacy" the authors point out the cultural confusion of this phrase;

"There is a quote from a handbook produced by the LDS Church that advises people to guard against anything "unnatural" within the bonds of their sexual relationship. This is where semantics come into play. What exactly does "unnatural" mean? Is it "unnatural to stick your tongue in your spouse's ear because the ear isn't a "natural" place for a tongue to go? Some people interpret "unnatural" to mean anything other than the traditional missionary sexual position, while others have a much broader definition of the word. Who is right?" Real Intimacy: A Couples' Guide to Healthy, Genuine Sexuality by Thomas G. Harrison,‎ Kristin B. Hodson,‎ Alisha Worthington pg 98

You can purchase "Real Intimacy: A Couples' Guide to Healthy, Genuine Sexuality" on Amazon.

Who is right? "Unnatural" appears to be completely subjective. Some have even argued that sex other than for the purpose of procreation is unnatural and an abuse of the sacred power. Others claim that the Prophet has declared oral sex, specifically as an "unholy, unnatural, or impure practice."

In almost every case, these individuals quote out of context President Kimball’s January 5, 1982 letter to leadership, "...The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an "unnatural, impure, or unholy practice."

There are at least three significant issues with this quote out of context. First, the failure to include the following sentence, "If a person is engaged in a practice which troubles him enough to ask about it, he should discontinue it." But this also brings up additional issues if only quoting these two sentences. It doesn't address family, culture, taboo, and traditions that might make one feel "troubled" in a specific behavior.

Second, January 5, 1982 letter was addressed specifically to the interviewing leadership of the Church, the First Presidency emphasizes the importance of saving souls and instructs them on the proper way to conduct worthiness interviews. However, in addressing the topic of “no unclean thing” should enter the temple, the first presidency lists an entire paragraph of potential things they consider “unclean.” The theme of that paragraph focused entirely on those who abuse their spouse or children, to which they mention “oral sex.” This can easily be interpreted in proper context as, "those who force spouses into any sexual behavior, including oral sex are committing acts of abuse. Which is an unnatural, impure, or unholy practice." This letter was helping leaders identify and address abusive behaviors. Oral sex, if engaged in mutually, without corrosion or abuse, is between the couple and the Lord. Oral sex is NOT abuse or unnatural itself.

To further support their argument, individuals will include a handful of statements from earlier (pre-1982) that also specifically state that oral sex is an "unnatural, impure, or unholy practice." This brings me to the third and most important point.

In spite of clear, direct and specific guidance in the January 5, 1982 letter from the First Presidency to "scrupulously avoid indelicate inquiries which may be offensive to the sensibilities of those being interviewed;" there was a noticeable shift and intrusiveness in the interviewing process—to the point that the First Presidency had to address the inappropriate nature of the interview process.

Nine months later, after receiving numerous complaints that Leadership is delving into intimate marital behaviors in interviews, The First Presidency issued a second letter on October 15, 1982. In response, they firmly remind Leadership that worthiness interviews are to precisely follow as outlined in the “temple recommend book.” Also, that no one should ever, “inquire into personal, intimate matters involving marital relations between a man and his wife...if in the course of such interviews a member asks questions about the propriety of specific conduct, you should not pursue the matter…” 

Nevertheless, every time this subject is approached, someone brings up this letter stating that oral sex is an “unnatural, impure, or unholy practices." With the defense that a Prophet's words are as good as a command (“Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you,” (D&C 21:4)), they latch onto this obscure reference. A reference which, not only wasn’t distributed to the church as a whole, but was recanted. We often create our own paradox’s, and this is one of them. On the one hand, we proclaim a virtue in that, “it is not meet that [God] should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant” (D&C 58:26). While on the other hand, we are a very directive people wanting clarity in all things. This demand for clarity causes saints to lose sight of the core concept that sexual behavior is to be between the couple and God, further dismissing the fact that the First Presidency gave specific instruction to not discuss these behaviors. Eventually, in the 1986 version of the question, the phrase “unnatural, impure, or unholy practices” was completely removed.

Fair points these.

7 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I also find myself disagreeing with the Church that same sex marriage is inherently wrong, preferring to respect the discernment of those who feel that God approves of their same-sex unions.

I'm curious as to how far this "respect the discernment" thing can be taken.  Pretty far, I think.

If someone were to come to you and say they have "discerned" that "God approves of" adultery, would you be on board with that?

If someone were to come to you and say they have "discerned" that "God approves of" fornication, would you be on board with that?

If someone were to come to you and say they have "discerned" that "God approves of" physical violence against one's spouse, would you be on board with that?

7 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I don't think the Church really knows how to deal with those who come to different conclusions.

I think it does.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

23 hours ago, MacGyver said:

I hadn't heard this, but I'm not surprised. This is precisely what I'm talking about.

The idea that it's possible to be openly LGBTQ and also have a fulfilled life as an active member of the Lord's church is a mirage. I don't think it exists. People try to do it, but eventually most choose to fully pursue the LGBTQ lifestyle over the church. 

I see a little contradiction here. On one hand you don't think it is possible to be openly LGBTQ and a saint, but on the other you acknowledge that some still pursue the life of a saint over a sexually active LGBTQ lifestyle.

The Church gives us the tools and teaches us how to be saints: actively cultivate the companionship of the Holy Ghost. When the Church administers legitimate ordinances and covenants and teaches correct principles, it doesn't have to focus on changing sexual orientation: the saints simply govern themselves.

The Church certainly adopts and applies the latest science of the day in good faith and as part of "all we can do." So attempts to change sexual orientation have been supported in the past. But the science changes, certain theories and methods are proven unhelpful, and that is OK. The Church moves on to other methods for members dealing with their desire to keep the covenants. One of those methods has not proven to be "use the Holy Ghost to change your orientation," though some may have discovered this works -- for them -- as they govern themselves.

Everybody can use the Holy Ghost to change their behavior to align with the covenants.

[MiserereNobis]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It seems like insinuating that a new poster is really Ahab in sock puppet form has become an all-too quick and convenient means of well poisoning. I say we give MacGyver a chance before jumping to a conclusion. 

I loved catching Ahab' sock puppets, but I didn't accuse until I was absolutely certain. Ahab has such a unique style that it's easy to see. MacGyver is not Ahab.

[MacGyver]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Assuming homsexuaity is a weakness or a sin, which it is not.

According to the scriptures and teachings of the Lord's church it is most definitely a weakness or sin. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

What does self-control really mean? 

For me, it is pretty simple; it means there aren’t regrets due to wanting immediate gratification. 
 

Self control means I am both aware of my impulses and desires and can manage them to work for what I really want in my life overall, which usually means in my life not just responding to ‘make the pain go away now!’ but knowing there are more benefits in the long run to endure the pain now and try and stay sane rather than indulging myself (like focusing on the wisdom of not running out of meds and going through withdrawal at the end of the month or the value of not having to live with years of family members wincing when I get upset and being seen as someone who screams because I let my temper loose a very few times in my early family life due to not understanding what was going on with my blood sugar and preferring to blame my husband than take responsibility myself…why is it that our crap behaviour is so easily remembered even when it is the rare exception?). Instead I now use the energy of anger to get work done as it somehow works as energy to move my body as well and often clears my head as well. (Think of a caffeine hit without any side effects).  And I self dialogue while working to figure out what is really going on and how to effectively communicate what I really need.  
 

Quote

What are the "connecting links" that suggest that "overcoming the natural man" means "LGB individuals must never give expression to same-sex experiences"?

I am not going to attempt to explain what it means for someone else, especially when the need is for self control in an area that is not something I have concerns about and therefore never got to experiment on how to control that side of myself. 
 

I would only say generally speaking we need to find what gives us a sense of direction and rightness and meaning to our lives. And then we experiment to find what maximizes our progress in those areas and what minimizes regrets or pain and hopefully it is important to us to minimize pain in others as well as ourselves.  Usually discovering our meaning and experimenting to support it happen at the same time, we learn more about what gives us joy through our struggle for joy and meaning. 
 

And this is the purpose of mortality in my belief, to understand what is joy and how we can experience it because I believe each person has a different set of requirements for joy and behaviours that bring them this joy and God respects our differences and does not intend to impose a one size fits all.  

Edited December 13, 2021 by Calm

[Teancum]

7 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

According to the scriptures and teachings of the Lord's church it is most definitely a weakness or sin. 

According to the  books YOU think  are scripture and the Church you think is the Lord's....

[Gillebre]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

@Gillebre: I understand the general idea, just as you describe it. The long running challenge I find is trying to understand exactly how my sexuality fits into those covenants. Is a desire for sex a "temporal concern or distraction" or is it a source of light that ought to be pursued? When I got married and covenanted to a sexually exclusive relationship with my wife, did I covenant to happily and willingly enter a sexless marriage when her sexual interest waned? Exactly what are my covenants in relation to my sexuality?

As far as coming to a place of understanding about how your sexuality fits into those covenants all I can suggest is that this is something that can only be received by revelation. I've discovered this to be one of the governing principles of our right to receive revelation for our lives: the Gospel gives us the broad strokes, the highest principles we strive towards, and when specifics are required beyond the general then that must come by revelation. We must grow in our ability to hear Him and be close to Him on a more regular basis so that we can hear the answers we seek (and we must get better at forming inspired questions).

 

Edited December 13, 2021 by Gillebre

[smac97]

58 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I understand the relationship to "animalistic," but I'd also say that that is part of the confusion. Is sexuality something that is purely an animalistic desire, or can it also be spiritual?

Certainly.

58 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

What does self-control really mean?

I think the normative dictionary definition works.

58 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Is it only about the spouse with higher desire exercising self-restraint, or does it include the lower desire spouse nurturing desire? What does "overcoming the natural man" mean with respect to my sexual experience and desire?

Elder Renlund put it well:

Quote

Our purpose in mortality is to become like our heavenly parents. Our divine understanding and use of sexual intimacy are essential to that process of becoming.

The law of chastity is an eternal law, given by our Heavenly Father to all His children in all ages. It remains in force and is as applicable today as it was in earlier times in history. As with other commandments, the law is given by Heavenly Father to bless and help His children achieve their divine potential. Obeying the law of chastity includes abstaining from all sexual relations before marriage and remaining completely faithful and loyal after marriage. Sexual relations are to be limited to marriage between a man and a woman.

Heavenly Father intends that sexual relations in marriage be used to create children and to express love and strengthen the emotional, spiritual, and physical connections between husband and wife. In marriage, sexual intimacy should unite wife and husband together in trust, devotion, and consideration for each other. Sexual relations within marriage must respect the agency of both partners and should not be used to control or dominate.

We may wonder, though, “Why should I obey the law of chastity? Why does God care about my moral behavior?” To answer these questions, God has revealed doctrine that, if correctly understood, will motivate us to keep the law of chastity and choose to express our sexuality within the boundaries He has set. As with all of God’s commandments, the law of chastity is best understood within the context of Heavenly Father’s plan of salvation and exaltation (see Alma 12:32). Obedience to the law of chastity will bring extraordinary blessings.

Read the whole thing.

There are constraints on sexual behavior as well.  Don't commit adultery.  Don't commit fornication.  Don't engage in homosexual behavior.  Don't engage in lascivious conduct.

58 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

And, in the context of this thread, my experience as a cis-hetero man is not even the most important scenario to consider.

I don't think there is a heirarchy of importance.  We are all children of God.

58 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

What does all of this mean for those who experience same sex attraction and desire?

The same that it means for everyone else.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, Gillebre said:

I've discovered this to be one of the governing principles of our right to receive revelation for our lives: the Gospel gives us the broad strokes, the highest principles we strive towards, and when specifics are required beyond the general then that must come by revelation.

Yes, this is a very good way of putting it imo.  I have described it as prophets teach me what questions I need to be asking, even through what I see are mistakes (and I may be right or wrong there).

Quote

. We must grow in our ability to hear Him and be close to Him on a more regular basis so that we can hear the answers we seek (and we must get better at forming inspired questions).

Haven’t reached this point yet…at least not sure, don’t think it is likely and yet the peace is growing. I find comfort in my speculations at times, sometimes they even feel they have a ‘right fit’, they are very satisfying to me even though I wouldn’t claim I know they are right (that has only happened in a very few instances of what I believe was pure revelation).  Perhaps my speculations are inspired, maybe the details aren’t correct but I am getting to know the ultimate reason behind it all so my trust in God grows even when it seems my prayers are being answered less because the world makes more sense to me (in part because I realize we (meaning all the communities I am a part of) don’t know what we think we know, so much inconsistency has been removed and I no longer have to make sense of it.  At the very least it seems to be easier to find the way to move forward in my own internal behaviour even if, man, there are so many obstacles in the world that want me on my butt.

Edited December 13, 2021 by Calm

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

@Gillebre: I understand the general idea, just as you describe it. The long running challenge I find is trying to understand exactly how my sexuality fits into those covenants. Is a desire for sex a "temporal concern or distraction" or is it a source of light that ought to be pursued? When I got married and covenanted to a sexually exclusive relationship with my wife, did I covenant to happily and willingly enter a sexless marriage when her sexual interest waned? Exactly what are my covenants in relation to my sexuality?

@Calm: I understand the relationship to "animalistic," but I'd also say that that is part of the confusion. Is sexuality something that is purely an animalistic desire, or can it also be spiritual? What does self-control really mean? Is it only about the spouse with higher desire exercising self-restraint, or does it include the lower desire spouse nurturing desire? What does "overcoming the natural man" mean with respect to my sexual experience and desire?

And, in the context of this thread, my experience as a cis-hetero man is not even the most important scenario to consider. What does all of this mean for those who experience same sex attraction and desire? What are the "connecting links" that suggest that "overcoming the natural man" means "LGB individuals must never give expression to same-sex experiences"?

Happy to butt in! 

I would say we use our sexuality to bring about God’s purposes (childbearing, emotional connection, wholesome recreation and pleasure, etc.). When a couple discover they are not, or no longer, sexually on the same page due to personality, age, illness, and any other thing beyond their control, other purposes of God are to learn obedience, sacrifice, consecration, self-mastery, etc. in keeping the covenants (i.e., overcoming the natural man).

I do not think that sexuality is instinct, but the capacity for sexual feelings, activity and behavior. Sexual instinct would be a fixed pattern of behavior among our species governed by our reactions to sexual stimuli. In my mind such a fundamentally universal commonality would be easily superseded by our mental states, which includes or overlaps with our sexual orientation. 

Edited December 13, 2021 by CV75

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, MacGyver said:

According to the scriptures and teachings of the Lord's church it is most definitely a weakness or sin. 

You just might have an alter ID, Ahab perhaps???

[MacGyver]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

You just might have an alter ID, Ahab perhaps???

What makes you say that?

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, MacGyver said:

What makes you say that?

Your inability to see things, why do you think homosexuality is a sin or weakness, when your own church disagrees with you? https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/same-sex-attraction?lang=eng

The Church distinguishes between same-sex attraction and homosexual behavior. People who experience same-sex attraction or identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual can make and keep covenants with God and fully and worthily participate in the Church. Identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin and does not prohibit one from participating in the Church, holding callings, or attending the temple.

[MustardSeed]

On 12/12/2021 at 12:04 PM, MacGyver said:

Is it?

(Sigh) 

Ok I’m done here. 

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Your inability to see things, why do you think homosexuality is a sin or weakness, when your own church disagrees with you? https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/same-sex-attraction?lang=eng

The Church distinguishes between same-sex attraction and homosexual behavior. People who experience same-sex attraction or identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual can make and keep covenants with God and fully and worthily participate in the Church. Identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin and does not prohibit one from participating in the Church, holding callings, or attending the temple.

I agree with Tacenda on this point.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

 

Deleted. 

Edited December 14, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree with Tacenda on this point.

Thanks,

-Smac

Perhaps MacGyver was referring to the behavior, not the orientation, when he identified it as a sin. 

[MacGyver]

57 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The Church distinguishes between same-sex attraction and homosexual behavior.

Believe it or not, I knew about this. 🙂

Which is why I said that homosexuality is a weakness or a sin. Having same-sex attraction is a weakness or temptation. People who struggle with same-sex attraction aren't any less worthy than anyone else struggling with weakness and temptation. Homosexual behavior is yielding to this temptation and that is most definitely a sin. 

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin and does not prohibit one from participating in the Church, holding callings, or attending the temple.

I wish the church would stick to calling it "experiencing same-sex attraction," not identifying as gay, lesbian,  or bisexual. I don't think we should be defining ourselves by our weakness and temptation or even our sexual attractions and desires.  But I understand that those who experience same-sex attraction often identify as one of these labels and the church doesn't want to drive these people away over a label. 

[MacGyver]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I see a little contradiction here. On one hand you don't think it is possible to be openly LGBTQ and a saint, but on the other you acknowledge that some still pursue the life of a saint over a sexually active LGBTQ lifestyle.

The Church gives us the tools and teaches us how to be saints: actively cultivate the companionship of the Holy Ghost. When the Church administers legitimate ordinances and covenants and teaches correct principles, it doesn't have to focus on changing sexual orientation: the saints simply govern themselves.

The Church certainly adopts and applies the latest science of the day in good faith and as part of "all we can do." So attempts to change sexual orientation have been supported in the past. But the science changes, certain theories and methods are proven unhelpful, and that is OK. The Church moves on to other methods for members dealing with their desire to keep the covenants. One of those methods has not proven to be "use the Holy Ghost to change your orientation," though some may have discovered this works -- for them -- as they govern themselves.

Everybody can use the Holy Ghost to change their behavior to align with the covenants.

In my opinion when someone openly identifies as LGBTQ rather than saying that they are experiencing same-sex attraction and trying to overcome it, they are defining themselves by their weakness and temptation. I believe that identifying yourself by your temptation and weakness and telling yourself that there is nothing wrong with having these unnatural sexual desires leads to acting out on them. 

Which is why I wish the church would stick to calling it "same-sex attraction" and continue to try and help members who struggle with this to overcome it.