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

[Olmec Donald]

19 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I haven't heard a good explanation for same-sex marriage in the context of the Church's teachings. Moses 6: 63 seems to disallow it: all living things have their likeness, and also bear record of the Only Begotten Son. They were created physically before they were naturally upon the earth (Moses 3:5). Adam and Eve had their spiritual and natural likeness as man and woman, husband and wife with their attendant responsibility to multiply and replenish the earth.

You seem to have given this complicated topic a lot of serious thought, so I hope you don't mind if ask your opinion about something.

One of my adult children is in a committed long-term relationship with someone who has the endocrine system of one biological sex and the physical form of the other.  My understanding is that a small percentage of people fall into this category.  Do they fit into "the plan"?  I presume so, in which case, do you have any thoughts on "where" they fit in? 

Edited November 15, 2021 by Olmec Donald

[CV75]

18 hours ago, kimpearson said:

I would ask you how many LGTBQ members you personally know that have achieved the peace you have and how many haven't?  I would also ask are you single or married?  If married are you sexually satisfied in that relationship?  If single how old are you?  Have you always kept the law of chastity?  You might feel I am invading your privacy but I have heard your exact words many times by those younger than their 40's but never from anyone past their 40's that didn't have a time in their life when they had a gay relationship that was deeply committed for awhile.  I have heard your words expressed by a number of married men who say they are gay but when questioned about their sexual attraction to their wife they have all confirmed a healthy sex life with physical attraction to their wife thus by definition they were actually bisexual.  I have never met a married or formerly married man who was truly gay who shared with me that they enjoyed sex with their wife and felt fulfilled.  These gay men were always deeply scared by their marriage to the opposite sex.  Again, I am speaking form a place of having personally listened to 3 or 4 thousand stories of LGTBQ members and maybe these stories aren't representative although I doubt that.   One last question have you always been open with everyone around you about your attraction?  If not, why not?

If your solution is the best solution for every LGTBQ member, then why doesn't it appear to be happening to so many who have tried so hard to do everything you mention in your post.  I have talked to many LGTBQ members and former members who have tried all the things you outline and the most common story I have heard is they felt spiritual confirmation that God loves them just the way they are and they should leave the Church and look for a committed loving relationship.  They bear a testimony to this with all the same feeling you do.   The next most common story that covers pretty much all the rest is they felt nothing from God and after working so hard decided the very promises you make are false and they leave the Church and God.

RE: your second paragraph: Many are called but few are chosen. On a more positive note, "Some blessings come soon, some come late, and some don’t come until heaven; but for those who embrace the gospel of Jesus Christ, they come." https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1999/10/an-high-priest-of-good-things-to-come?lang=eng&abVersion=V03&abName=GLOB88 I would say that goes even for those who are not chosen, or who have concluded they are not chosen, for the unfortunate time being.

Also, I think people use the spiritual language of their faith community or culture to convey those decisions that significantly impact their spiritual and emotional ties to others within that community and culture. How else are they going to explain what they are feeling, and justify what they are doing, in the most impactful way?

It does appear that despite your claims of extensive study, it doesn't seem to be, from what I've seen from prior experience in other areas, nearly as thorough as what the Church does for research on the topic.

[CV75]

49 minutes ago, Olmec Donald said:

You seem to have given this complicated topic a lot of serious thought, so I hope you don't mind if ask your opinion about something.

One of my adult children is in a committed long-term relationship with someone who has the endocrine system of one biological sex and the physical form of the other.  My understanding is that a small percentage of people fall into this category.  Do they fit into "the plan"?  I presume so, in which case, do you have any thoughts on "where" they fit in? 

My opinion is that any of these kinds of syndromes and disorders of the sex chromosome are perplexing to us but the Lord will sort things out on His timetable. People have to act in good faith with the information they have at the time and do the best they can. This can be especially difficult as new information arises. If they have questions about entering the Church covenants, they should talk with the bishop who may refer them higher. The same if they already have the gift of the Holy Ghost, for that matter.

Theoretically, while God can make a woman out of someone with XY chromosomes, and a man out of someone with XX chromosomes, we may decide to call that a disorder of the sex chromosome, spoil the Lord's intent, and contribute to a serious identity crisis. Still, I think the above would apply in settling that issue.

[BlueDreams]

I haven’t read as thoroughly as I’d like to, but I wanted to respond to a couple ideas first while I still have time (something I seem to perpetually not have) 

 

1. This board, as much as I’m endeared to it, is by no means a great representation of active members. Just the demographics alone steer older (I think I’m one of the youngest still and I’m in my early 30’s), whiter, and from a limited number of countries. 
2. I don’t believe in a single narrative around this. I have, by no means, read as many stories as you have stated you have. I’ve tried to openly read/listen when someone presents their story/experiences to me. Including many that push my degree of comfort. Right now I’m working through a podcast I’m liking called “questions from the closet” that discusses this very intersection. The narratives around this have been in substantial flux both in the church, society as a whole, and queer communities in general. And it still is. So often the narratives for people are likely to depend on several variables coming together. Were they born in the 2000’s or 1970’s, did they have a supportive family or negative one, were their regional communities more open/accepting, were their local church community open/accepting, what’s their relationship with (non)conformity, what’s their tolerance to not fitting in, what’s their personal spiritual experiences if any, what’s their tendency and social experiences towards black and white thinking, what’s their orientation, etc. Some stories are likely permanently out of reach to most of us. If there are people who are comfortable with their life, have the capacity to form a healthy straight marriage or healthy Single life, and don’t have a need to actively participate in LGBT-LDS circles then most won’t hear from them. That may not seem like many, but I know one right now who could fit that. Two more if I count a couple who lean straight but show some capacity to for same-sex interests or desires. This likely could include many bi people and some gay/lesbian people. Online communities track toward people who have a want or a need for outreach/expression. Many people, particularly in older generations, may not fit that. Or people who feel out of place in, say, more white circles….which many of these communities skew towards. 
3. You mentioned a lot about emotional pain/turmoil. Again this is only from my limited view into a community i don’t have a direct link to and personal experiences on race/gender that I see some overlap. The first thought is the narratives people are given or focus on can develop dissonance. A gender example. When I was a teen I got my patriarchal blessing, which I deeply valued…but was also a little confused by. So many of the words and expressions used were more common cultural attributes of men. Within the church people have also been given narratives around their sexuality or what it looks like to participate in a ward. this can lead to emotional or at least mental conflict. There’s also narratives on “the other side” where there is an expected assumption of what it means to be authentic to oneself that can be inadvertently exclusionary (or at least struggle to incorporate) certain spiritual based experiences. So for those who end up somewhere in the middle, there often is a need for centering to allow them to be comfortable with stories that many in the communities they participate in may not be comfortable with. It is not emotionally easy to live a story that communities struggle to incorporate in. It is near impossible IMO, without that centering. What it does is that each time there is push back or a poor comment about faith or sexuality in said communities, it’s more likely to cause not just pain but destabilization with where they are. In a church context i think it looks a lot like what Gillebre, in the sense that there’s a more stable and firm understanding of God, it’s positive in nature, and it often fuels their inevitable acceptance of their sexual orientation and guides what their church participation looks like. It may not look like gillebre’s but it is more comfortably maintained than those I’ve seen without a centering spiritual relationship with Deity guiding them. 
4. Just as the narratives are still in flux i would note i don’t know what the end narrative within the church especially will be (or even in society). I have personal inclinations and puzzle pieces that I haven’t figured out where they go. I’m okay with that. It’s life. It’s messy. It often has few answers than we’d like. 
    

ran out of time…

With luv, 

BD 

[The Great Pretender]

Hi. I have just stumbled upon this site by accident. I was searching for something entirely unrelated when a link to this thread appeared in my Google search results.

I will take time to read all the posts in due course, but even without doing so I feel qualified and compelled to assert that the Church's current position on individuals who experience differing attractions (call them LGBTQ+ if you wish) is essentially unethical and immoral. I sustain authorities of the Church in their mandate to lead and direct, but I am deeply troubled (almost to the point of capitulation) by the cynical mess I find at every turn.

If the Church's direction is the result of advice from so-called LGBTQ individuals, I resent them for it.

Outwardly, I am a stereotypical, active church member: Seminary graduate; returned missionary; university graduate; sealed for time and eternity; serving on the stake high council; married for 25 years—and a father to four children.

Behind my palatable façade, however, I am also same-sex attracted. This is something I only began to address honestly in my early fifties on account of a random Church email alerting me to the old mormonandgay.lds.org website. Until that day in 2015, I had no idea there were any such resources.

Back in the 1970s and 80s when I first realised there was something disturbingly wrong with me, I read enough condemning statements for a lifetime. I was informed by Church material that my attractions came directly from Satan and should be suppressed to overcome them—regardless of the personal cost. In the temple, I covenanted with God to eschew everything I was informed was a corruption of morality. And the result? Mental illness. Despair. Imposter syndrome. And more besides.

Since 2015, I have attempted to right some wrongs. This has involved discreetly engaging with Church leadership up to the presidency of the Seventy (I know one of them), LDS Family Services, Church counsellors, local area Seventies, my Area Presidency, my stake president (and other stake presidents with whom I have personal history), and a bunch of others. The list is too long.

The problem as I see it, is that the Church is trying to placate the wrong people in the wrong ways. 

Personally, I don't wish to be a homo, and I don't believe I was born that way. Through introspection, I am convinced that my attractions are the result of biological misfortune forming a catalyst for negative cultural imprinting—beginning with family and extending to church and wider society.

The Church doesn't need to tell me that I am loved and included, and I don't need anyone to attempt to reprogram what can't be changed. What I do need, however, is to address my same-sex emotional needs in healthy ways, but the Church has no appetite for such matters. The Church simply wants to avoid lawsuits.

Consequently, I am left with emptiness, unresolved resentment, disenfranchisement, and disillusion. Even though I still have a testimony of the restored gospel, I am ready to quit.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, The Great Pretender said:

Hi. I have just stumbled upon this site by accident. I was searching for something entirely unrelated when a link to this thread appeared in my Google search results.

I will take time to read all the posts in due course, but even without doing so I feel qualified and compelled to assert that the Church's current position on individuals who experience differing attractions (call them LGBTQ+ if you wish) is essentially unethical and immoral. I sustain authorities of the Church in their mandate to lead and direct, but I am deeply troubled (almost to the point of capitulation) by the cynical mess I find at every turn.

If the Church's direction is the result of advice from so-called LGBTQ individuals, I resent them for it.

Outwardly, I am a stereotypical, active church member: Seminary graduate; returned missionary; university graduate; sealed for time and eternity; serving on the stake high council; married for 25 years—and a father to four children.

Behind my palatable façade, however, I am also same-sex attracted. This is something I only began to address honestly in my early fifties on account of a random Church email alerting me to the old mormonandgay.lds.org website. Until that day in 2015, I had no idea there were any such resources.

Back in the 1970s and 80s when I first realised there was something disturbingly wrong with me, I read enough condemning statements for a lifetime. I was informed by Church material that my attractions came directly from Satan and should be suppressed to overcome them—regardless of the personal cost. In the temple, I covenanted with God to eschew everything I was informed was a corruption of morality. And the result? Mental illness. Despair. Imposter syndrome. And more besides.

Since 2015, I have attempted to right some wrongs. This has involved discreetly engaging with Church leadership up to the presidency of the Seventy (I know one of them), LDS Family Services, Church counsellors, local area Seventies, my Area Presidency, my stake president (and other stake presidents with whom I have personal history), and a bunch of others. The list is too long.

The problem as I see it, is that the Church is trying to placate the wrong people in the wrong ways. 

Personally, I don't wish to be a homo, and I don't believe I was born that way. Through introspection, I am convinced that my attractions are the result of biological misfortune forming a catalyst for negative cultural imprinting—beginning with family and extending to church and wider society.

The Church doesn't need to tell me that I am loved and included, and I don't need anyone to attempt to reprogram what can't be changed. What I do need, however, is to address my same-sex emotional needs in healthy ways, but the Church has no appetite for such matters. The Church simply wants to avoid lawsuits.

Consequently, I am left with emptiness, unresolved resentment, disenfranchisement, and disillusion. Even though I still have a testimony of the restored gospel, I am ready to quit.

Given our beliefs and using them to alleviate our suffering, I would suggest that addressing emotional needs in healthy ways begins with addressing the needs of the spirit. This often requires an expansion of our paradigm to see ourselves as God does, so that the suffering or needs at hand get swallowed up, not only in the expanded scope of view, but by the deeply intimate power of the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

There is an emotional resilience course offered through the Church that might be useful, and which I think covers  some of the "how-to" for the above.

Edited November 15, 2021 by CV75

[california boy]

18 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Given our beliefs and using them to alleviate our suffering, I would suggest that addressing emotional needs in healthy ways begins with addressing the needs of the spirit. This often requires an expansion of our paradigm to see ourselves as God does, so that the suffering or needs at hand get swallowed up, not only in the expanded scope of view, but by the deeply intimate power of the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

There is an emotional resilience course offered through the Church that might be useful, and which I think covers  some of the "how-to" for the above.

It really is incredibly insulting to assume that a faithful member of the Church has NOT tried every conceivable way to try to Spiritually resolve being attracted to the same sex.  This is an issue that no matter how much one prays, no matter how much one fasts, no matter how faithful one is in fulfilling all that is asked of them, no matter how long meeting with Church leaders looking for help, no matter how bloody their knees get in pleading to the Lord to rectify these feelings and feel whole, for most, that emptiness, unresolved resentment, disenfranchisement, and disillusion remains.

For me, those empty feeling only got healed by Christ by leaving the Church and coming to understand that despite teachings by the Church that one would fall into the grips of Satan.  If one turns to the trust of God and seeks what those God given feelings lead one to is where after decades of toucher,  I found peace and the embracing through Christ.  Maybe it was a test to me to see if I would trust in Christ rather than men. Whatever God's plan, what I do know is that I am on the path that finally draws me closer to God since leaving the Church.  In the end, our relationship with Christ comes from directly accessing Him in our lives and not through any institution no matter how good that institution may be.

[smac97]

On 11/13/2021 at 8:27 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

So did a lot of black folks

This is a horrible statement even for you.

It's a factual statement.  And there's nothing "horrible" about it.

On 11/13/2021 at 8:27 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

A lot of religiously conservative people (including black religious conservatives) opposed gay marriage.

That's my point.  It takes a fair measure of moral cowardice for a person to endlessly rail against Latter-day Saints who voted according to their conscience while never uttering a peep about black folks voting according to theirs.

See, e.g., here:

Quote

The black vote, as it happens, was far from insignificant—it made up 10% of the vote in California.

In fact, according to exit polls, 70% of blacks voted for Prop 8, 51% of whites voted against, 53% of Latinos voted for, and 51% of Asians voted against. 10% of voters were black. Had the black pro-Prop-8 vote been closer to 50% - or 20% less than it was - that would have meant a 2% overall change in the vote (20% of 10% is 2%). How much did we lose by? A little over 2% (there was a 4 point spread, so that means if we gain 2%, the bad guys lose 2%).

See also here:

Quote

Seven in 10 black voters and more than half of Latino voters backed Prop. 8, Associated Press exit polls showed.

This article suggests that the figure was "more likely about 58 percent," but that "support among blacks is still well above the 52 percent Prop. 8 received from all voters in the Nov. 4 election," and that gay rights groups "we clearly have work to do with, within and for African American communities, particularly the black church."

Huh.  Latter-day Saints come nowhere near comprising 52% of the vote in California, let alone the 50% or so of Hispanic 58-70% of black voters who supported Prop 8.

And yet you and yours reserve your anger and vituperation for the Latter-day Saints alone.

Again, selective outrage has its perqs.  

On 11/13/2021 at 8:27 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It has nothing to do with their skin color. Give me a break. 

I agree.  It has to do with things like personal belief and conviction, and with choosing to exercise a constitutional right to vote in a particular way on whether or not to radically re-define marriage.

The Latter-day Saints opposed this, and you, CB and others endlessly vilify us for it.

Plenty of black and Hispanic folks did too, but years after the fact you and yours say . . . nothing against them.

Huh.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 15, 2021 by smac97

[smac97]

On 11/13/2021 at 8:30 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

still express ongoing hostility and resentment for the Church and its members exercising their constitutional right to vote is, frankly, weird.

You vote to remove someone’s constitutional guaranteed freedom one time and they just can’t let it go. Cry me a river. 

And your continued vilification of Blacks and Hispanics, and the 52% of Californials who also voted in favor of Prop 8 is . . . where?

Selective outrage.  Mighty convenient, that.

-Smac

[smac97]

On 11/14/2021 at 3:14 AM, california boy said:

You accuse me of spewing venom and vilifying the Church.  

Endlessly.  For years.  

On 11/14/2021 at 3:14 AM, california boy said:

What have I said that is not absolutely true?  

Dodge.

I was commenting on your selective outrage.  No venom and bile for the huge numbers of Blacks and Hispanics who also voted in favor of Prop 8 (along with 52% of Californians overall).

I've never seen you rail against these minority communities for voting according to their preferences.  Your outrage is might selective, brah.

On 11/14/2021 at 3:14 AM, california boy said:

And if every word I said is true, then isn’t really the actions of the church what you consider to be vile?

Nope.  I see nothing wrong with people voting according to their conscience and preferences.

Supporting Prop 8 is only bad when the Latter-day Saints do it.  You have nothing to say about the huge numbers of Black and Hispanic voters who voted for it also.  Just . . . crickets.  Chirping.  

And your still seething about this years after the fact.  That's weird, too.  We and ours lost.  You and yours won.  Is it not within you to be a gracious winner?  Can you find a way to stop being angry at the Latter-day Saints (and Blacks, and Hispanics) who dared to disagree with you about Prop 8?  Or are you going to resent these folks forever?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[LoudmouthMormon]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We and ours lost.  You and yours won.  Is it not within you to be a gracious winner? 

You forget, it's not enough to win, we must be obliterated.  They're coming for our children, remember?

[smac97]

On 11/14/2021 at 3:32 AM, california boy said:

Quote

Name just ONE thing the Church has done to encourage its members to commit fornication or adultery.

You wrote a lengthy post about  some gay couples not being in a monogamous marriage.  

Not really.  First, most of my post was quotations, so my comments weren't particularly "lengthy."

Second, I was responding to your specious suggestion that eye-wateringly elevated percentages of promiscuity/infidelity amongst gays is somehow to be blamed on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

You said:

Quote

To some extent, many former gay members feel like it doesn't make a difference how many sex partners they have since according to the Church, even just one person that they are committed to is still breaking the LOC.
...
They aren't going to the Celestial Kingdom anyway, so why worry about something like monogamy.  

I responded: 

Quote

Some heterosexual former members likewise adopt an "In for a penny..." attitude relative to extramarital sexual activity.
...
Not "worry{ing} about something like monogamy" is apparently not restricted to former Latter-day Saints.  See, e.g., here:
...
These attitudes transcend the relatively tiny subset of the gay community comprised of former Latter-day Saints.

The Law of Chastity is, these days, viewed as a stringent standard in terms of sexual ethics.  There are some standards that are even more so (lifelong celibacy for Catholic priests, for example).

Some who reject the Restored Gospel, will likewise reject its constraints on sexual behavior.  I think most will end up crafting their own moral standard that still contemplates some substantial constraints on behavior, but others take an "in for a penny, in for a pound," "riotous living" approach.  My point, though, is that A) plenty of heterosexuals do this, too, and B) heightened levels of infidelity/promiscuity appears to be quite common throughout the gay community, not just the subset of it comprised of former Latter-day Saints.  So your "Gay promiscuity/infidelity is all the Church's fault!" schtick doesn't really work.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 15, 2021 by smac97

[smac97]

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

Hi. I have just stumbled upon this site by accident. I was searching for something entirely unrelated when a link to this thread appeared in my Google search results.

I will take time to read all the posts in due course, but even without doing so I feel qualified and compelled to assert that the Church's current position on individuals who experience differing attractions (call them LGBTQ+ if you wish) is essentially unethical and immoral.

Okay.  Would you lay our your reasoning here?  What is it that the Church is doing wrong, in your view?  What should it do instead?

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

I sustain authorities of the Church in their mandate to lead and direct, but I am deeply troubled (almost to the point of capitulation) by the cynical mess I find at every turn.

If the Church's direction is the result of advice from so-called LGBTQ individuals, I resent them for it.

What "direction" are you referencing here?

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

Outwardly, I am a stereotypical, active church member: Seminary graduate; returned missionary; university graduate; sealed for time and eternity; serving on the stake high council; married for 25 years—and a father to four children.

Behind my palatable façade, however, I am also same-sex attracted. This is something I only began to address honestly in my early fifties on account of a random Church email alerting me to the old mormonandgay.lds.org website. Until that day in 2015, I had no idea there were any such resources.

If you were not "in the market" for such resources, it would not be surprising that you were not aware of them.

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

Back in the 1970s and 80s when I first realised there was something disturbingly wrong with me, I read enough condemning statements for a lifetime. I was informed by Church material that my attractions came directly from Satan and should be suppressed to overcome them—regardless of the personal cost. In the temple, I covenanted with God to eschew everything I was informed was a corruption of morality. And the result? Mental illness. Despair. Imposter syndrome. And more besides.

Since 2015, I have attempted to right some wrongs. This has involved discreetly engaging with Church leadership up to the presidency of the Seventy (I know one of them), LDS Family Services, Church counsellors, local area Seventies, my Area Presidency, my stake president (and other stake presidents with whom I have personal history), and a bunch of others. The list is too long.

The problem as I see it, is that the Church is trying to placate the wrong people in the wrong ways. 

Could you elaborate on what yoiu mean here?  I'm not quite understanding your position.

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

Personally, I don't wish to be a homo, and I don't believe I was born that way.  Through introspection, I am convinced that my attractions are the result of biological misfortune forming a catalyst for negative cultural imprinting—beginning with family and extending to church and wider society.
 

First, I ask that you refrain from pejorative terms like "homo."

Second, the Church has, for many years now, acknowledged that same-sex attraction is "a highly complex subject on which scientific knowledge is still in its infancy" (this was stated in 1996).  So it sounds like the Church is trying to listen to the best scientific and medical evidence available.  Meanwhile, "The Church does not take a position on the cause of same-sex attraction. In 2006, Elder Dallin H. Oaks said, 'The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction.'"

Third, I have had friends and acquaintances who have said that they were "born that way," while others attribute their attraction to environmental (sociological) influences and their individual choices.  Overall I think there is no "one size fits all" explanation.

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

The Church doesn't need to tell me that I am loved and included, and I don't need anyone to attempt to reprogram what can't be changed. What I do need, however, is to address my same-sex emotional needs in healthy ways, but the Church has no appetite for such matters. The Church simply wants to avoid lawsuits.

I really don't understand what you are saying here.  What sorts of "healthy ways" do you have in mind?  What is it that you think the Church should do about this that it is not currently doing?

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

Consequently, I am left with emptiness, unresolved resentment, disenfranchisement, and disillusion. Even though I still have a testimony of the restored gospel, I am ready to quit.

I hope you persevere.  This is, for some, a very difficult topic.  Others struggle in the Church in other ways about other matters.  But varies social / political / cultural issues are always going to be with us.  They should not overshadow the fundamental claims of the Restored Gospel.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 15, 2021 by smac97

[CV75]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

It really is incredibly insulting to assume that a faithful member of the Church has NOT tried every conceivable way to try to Spiritually resolve being attracted to the same sex.  This is an issue that no matter how much one prays, no matter how much one fasts, no matter how faithful one is in fulfilling all that is asked of them, no matter how long meeting with Church leaders looking for help, no matter how bloody their knees get in pleading to the Lord to rectify these feelings and feel whole, for most, that emptiness, unresolved resentment, disenfranchisement, and disillusion remains.

For me, those empty feeling only got healed by Christ by leaving the Church and coming to understand that despite teachings by the Church that one would fall into the grips of Satan.  If one turns to the trust of God and seeks what those God given feelings lead one to is where after decades of toucher,  I found peace and the embracing through Christ.  Maybe it was a test to me to see if I would trust in Christ rather than men. Whatever God's plan, what I do know is that I am on the path that finally draws me closer to God since leaving the Church.  In the end, our relationship with Christ comes from directly accessing Him in our lives and not through any institution no matter how good that institution may be.

Yes, that would be an insulting assumption, especially if such an assumption was expressed, and neither is the case here.

Yes, there are countless ways Christ alleviates suffering and promotes peace and joy for anyone. The context here is about how Church teachings and programs help in that regard, for those who believe in them, or would like to.

[california boy]

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not really.  First, most of my post was quotations, so my comments weren't particularly "lengthy."

Second, I was responding to your specious suggestion that eye-wateringly elevated percentages of promiscuity/infidelity amongst gays is somehow to be blamed on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

You said:

I responded: 

The Law of Chastity is, these days, viewed as a stringent standard in terms of sexual ethics.  There are some standards that are even more so (lifelong celibacy for Catholic priests, for example).

Some who reject the Restored Gospel, will likewise reject its constraints on sexual behavior.  I think most will end up crafting their own moral standard that still contemplates some substantial constraints on behavior, but others take an "in for a penny, in for a pound," "riotous living" approach.  My point, though, is that A) plenty of heterosexuals do this, too, and B) heightened levels of infidelity/promiscuity appears to be quite common throughout the gay community, not just the subset of it comprised of former Latter-day Saints.  So your "Gay promiscuity/infidelity is all the Church's fault!" schtick doesn't really work.

Thanks,

-Smac

Only problem is, I never said that promiscuity/infidelity is all the Church's fault. 

But then I also never spewed venom or vilified the Church, but that didn't stop you from falsely accusing me of that did it.  When in. doubt, you always go for the personal attacks without any evidence.  When asked for such evidence, you ignore the post.

 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Endlessly.  For years.  

Dodge.

I was commenting on your selective outrage.  No venom and bile for the huge numbers of Blacks and Hispanics who also voted in favor of Prop 8 (along with 52% of Californians overall).

I've never seen you rail against these minority communities for voting according to their preferences.  Your outrage is might selective, brah.

This is not a forum about Blacks and Hispanics, this is a Mormon forum addressing Mormon issues.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

Nope.  I see nothing wrong with people voting according to their conscience and preferences.

Nor do I.  CFR where I have ever had a problem with how people voted.  You know darn well I was talking about the 40 million dollars and the majority of manpower church member spent on Prop 8

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Supporting Prop 8 is only bad when the Latter-day Saints do it.  You have nothing to say about the huge numbers of Black and Hispanic voters who voted for it also.  Just . . . crickets.  Chirping.  

Once again, This is not a forum about Blacks and Hispanics, this is a Mormon forum addressing Mormon issues.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And your still seething about this years after the fact.  That's weird, too.  We and ours lost.  You and yours won.  Is it not within you to be a gracious winner?  Can you find a way to stop being angry at the Latter-day Saints (and Blacks, and Hispanics) who dared to disagree with you about Prop 8?  Or are you going to resent these folks forever?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I am not seething.  Nor am I angry.  You need to quit projecting your own assumptions.  What I am doing is correcting revisionist history such as your claims that black churches and Hispanics campaigned in any comparable way to what your Church did in passing Prop 8

[LoudmouthMormon]

52 minutes ago, california boy said:

What I am doing is correcting revisionist history such as your claims that black churches and Hispanics campaigned in any comparable way to what your Church did in passing Prop 8

So, 70% of blacks voting for prop 8 was ok, but only as long as 70% of black churches didn't have anything to do with it?

I don't understand the reasoning...

[smac97]

3 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

So, 70% of blacks voting for prop 8 was ok, but only as long as 70% of black churches didn't have anything to do with it?

I don't understand the reasoning...

Imagine if CaliforniaBoy publicly declared: "The vast majority of gay guys grew up and lived most of their lives not being even able to marry the person they love.  Something {a substantial majority of Black voters, and about half of Hispanic voters} did everything they could to prevent them from doing."

Imagine if "SeekingUnderstanding" publicly declared: "{A substantial majority of Black voters, and about half of Hispanic citizens voted} to remove someone’s constitutional guaranteed freedom one time and they just can’t let it go. Cry me a river."

See, publicly disparaging Blacks and Hispanics for presuming to exercise their right to vote would come across . . . badly. Publicly denigrating the votes of Blacks and Hispanics as intended "to remove someone's constitutional guaranteed freedom" would also come across badly.  Doing this many years after the fact would also come across badly.

So . . . they don't do it.  They instead target a minority that they can feel free to publicly vilify for daring to vote: members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

It's okay when huge numbers of Blacks and Hispanics - as CB characterized it - "prevent{ed}" gays from "being even able to marry the person they love." 

It's okay when huge numbers of Blacks and Hispanics - as "SeekingUnderstanding" characterized it - "{voted} to remove someone’s constitutional guaranteed freedom one time."

I mean, I assume it was okay because, well, CB and "SeekingUnderstanding" have - AFAICS - never publicly disparaged these folks for how they voted.

The inconsistency is . . . strong.

-Smac

 

Edited November 15, 2021 by smac97

[california boy]

4 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

So, 70% of blacks voting for prop 8 was ok, but only as long as 70% of black churches didn't have anything to do with it?

I don't understand the reasoning...

Black churches did not contribute 40 million dollars and 70% of the labor force to pass Prop 8.  In fact, I have never heard of any dollars or labor black churches provided.  

Do you seriously have no idea what part the Church played in passing Prop 8???  Maybe you should watch the movie/documentary on this. Prop 8,  The Mormon Proposition

To pretend that the Church played no organizational effort to pass Prop 8 is really astounding.  It is not like it is some big secret.

So YES, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints played the biggest role in taking away the constitutional right for gay couples to marry.  And to address the point I made in my post, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has actively tried to prevent gay couples to enter a committed married relationship.  Jeeze, at this point in history, it shouldn't be something anyone doesn't understand unless the actively are trying to change the truth of what actually happened.

To my knowledge, no one has ever had a problem with how Church members voted or anyone voted including black churches.  THAT is a red herring..  Many both in the Church and outside the Church do have a major problem with the role that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints played in the campaign. 

[kimpearson]

Thanks for all the varied responses.  As I have said, I am very interested in how people think and how they support their views when faced with difficult questions.  Anyone reading the responses will see how varied human thought will be.  I just hope there continues to be discussion and wrestling by all of us on issues like this as I believe most people are basically good and as good people we slowly get to answers that work.  I do worry when some seem to feel like the purpose of boards like this are to win the argument at all costs or leave.  In my opinion that the worlds biggest problem right now.  If you feel like your views are in the minority, please keep participating.  If your views are in the majority, please don't that the view that you have won because you haven't really won anything especially if your attitude just shuts other people up.  Do you really want an echo chamber?  Don't differing views get your blood pumping a bit and the old brain working?  I say yes to different views.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Imagine if CaliforniaBoy publicly declared: "The vast majority of gay guys grew up and lived most of their lives not being even able to marry the person they love.  Something {a substantial majority of Black voters, and about half of Hispanic voters} did everything they could to prevent them from doing."

Imagine if "SeekingUnderstanding" publicly declared: "{A substantial majority of Black voters, and about half of Hispanic citizens voted} to remove someone’s constitutional guaranteed freedom one time and they just can’t let it go. Cry me a river."

See, publicly disparaging Blacks and Hispanics for presuming to exercise their right to vote would come across . . . badly. Publicly denigrating the votes of Blacks and Hispanics as intended "to remove someone's constitutional guaranteed freedom" would also come across badly.  Doing this many years after the fact would also come across badly.

So . . . they don't do it.  They instead target a minority that they can feel free to publicly vilify for daring to vote: members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

It's okay when huge numbers of Blacks and Hispanics - as CB characterized it - "prevent{ed}" gays from "being even able to marry the person they love." 

It's okay when huge numbers of Blacks and Hispanics - as "SeekingUnderstanding" characterized it - "{voted} to remove someone’s constitutional guaranteed freedom one time."

I mean, I assume it was okay because, well, CB and "SeekingUnderstanding" have - AFAICS - never publicly disparaged these folks for how they voted.

The inconsistency is . . . strong.

-Smac

 

ROLLS EYES.  You know darn well how people voted is not the issue that many have with the role the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints voted.  Quit trying to make this a racial issue.  It IS NOT.  And knock off  the personal attacks and address the points we are discussing.  

Edited November 15, 2021 by california boy

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The inconsistency is . . . strong.

This is not a board that focuses on racial behaviour.  The inconsistency is built in, just like we don’t discuss hip hop (at least its roots are in minority communities, mainstream now) or Juneteenth…edited: had a brain glitch there (certainly not only relevant to blacks, but the context is emancipation) or natural hair products that much…though I can see some subjects of typically more interest to racial minority groups might benefit the board if we did talk more about them.

Nor is this a Prop 8 focused board, where that subject is discussed and dissected in full ranged detail. 

Edited November 15, 2021 by Calm

[Nemesis]

Let’s be careful of the race baiting.  In fact let’s stay clear of it.

 

Nemesis

[Kevin Christensen]

Then there is this issue, which is typically ignored since it is not the one of the dominant narratives that people use on public forums and spaces.  Here I make a suggestion that sex addiction can be a factor in behavior, and compare the science to some famous LDS accounts by Carol Lynn Pearson, Emily Pearson, and Stephan Fales that are notable for not even imagining that addiction could have been a factor.

https://www.squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleChristensenRashomon.html

Here is a crucial bit of scientific information:

Quote

One potent argument against describing sexual behavior as addiction has always been that drug addiction involves putting foreign substances into the body whereas sexuality is natural. This overlooks the importance of naturally occurring chemicals in the brain, such as the endorphins, (which are natural opiates chemically resembling heroin and morphine), serotonin, and dopamine. Donald Hilton explains:

In the brainstem, a chemical called dopamine is produced in the ventral tegmental area (VTA), which has been found to be important in the brain’s pleasure and reward system. When activated by a pleasurable stimulus, the VTA causes dopamine to be released in an area of the thalamus called the nucleus accumbens. Other chemicals such as the brain’s natural opioids, the endorphins, also stimulate the nucleus accumbens. It may be that dopamine is more important in wanting pleasure, whereas the endorphins are more important in liking pleasure. These pathways are important because without them we would not value appropriate pleasures. An area of the cerebral cortex called the frontal lobe helps control the amount and context of the pleasure. It also helps us weigh the benefits and risks of a pleasurable stimulus. For instance, uncontrolled eating may be pleasurable, but it is unhealthy. Unrestrained sexuality may be pleasurable, but it destroys relationships and spiritual power and insight. It is the frontal lobe that tells us to judge these risks and benefits.

When we overuse pleasure centers, the cells that produce dopamine are overworked, and in what may be a defensive reaction, the brain decreases the amount of dopamine available for use and also causes shrinkage in the cells that produce the dopamine and in the frontal control areas. Paradoxically, the pleasure cells in the nucleus accumbens may actually enlarge in the addicted state because they have less dopamine available for pleasure and are seeking to extract every possible molecule. These physical changes in the brain have been called long-term potentiation and long-term depression. Thus, in addiction, normal pleasures are not enough to alleviate the craving for dopamine, and this craving in the newly reset pleasure thermostat in the brain is likely key in the desire to relapse. The shrinkage in the frontal control areas also contributes to the compulsivity and impulsivity seen in addiction. Interestingly, as neurosurgeons, we see these same characteristics in frontal lobe shrinkage from traumatic brain injury, and this has been recognized by addiction scientists. Sexual addiction obviously involves other neurotransmitters, two of which may be oxytocin and vasopressin. Oxytocin is important in bonding and increases trust in humans, and vasopressin may be important in sexual bonding, particularly in males. [42]
So sex addiction not only involves behavior but potent drugs that the addict carries in their own body.  In Hope and Freedom for Sex Addicts and their Partners, Dr. Milton Magness reports that crack cocaine addicts have consistently reported that recovery from sex addiction is much harder to manage than recovery from drug addiction. [43]   I recently heard the lament of a man who had managed a year of sobriety from his alcohol and narcotics addictions, but couldn’t manage a week of sobriety from sex.  The addictive behavior--in whatever form--is not an end in itself but a means to access that internal drug supply. 

[T]he sexual high comes from the neurochemical release that is found in the compulsive sexual behavior. Even if the addict finds a partner whose appetites are similar to his own, continued sex with the same person over a period of time results in more normalized neurochemical levels. What some call the ‘adrenaline rush’ or more accurately an increased level of dopamine, cortizol, norepinephrine, and other neurotransmitters diminishes. The lower level of chemical reinforcement does not satisfy the addiction.” [44]
So the addict eventually goes elsewhere to satisfy the addiction.  For this reason, marriage is not a cure for sex addiction in either heterosexuals or homosexuals. [45]   Steven’s disclosure, for example, came in a period of what Carnes describes as “de-escalation,” when he is not binging, but is still guarding the secret world:

The addict makes every effort to make life manageable and to live an honorable life. …there is a rapid de-escalation to safe or acceptable behavior…They continue to guard their secret world, either to hide their obsession (which convinces them they are not curable) or to keep intact the web of lies they wove during the time they were acting out. Thus de-escalation is not recovery. Honesty with oneself and others, self-acceptance that includes one’s illness, and support for change by people who know the addiction’s power to delude are prime determinants for recovery. [46]  
In addiction the brain is tricked into treating the object of addiction as equivalent to survival. [47]   Subsequent cravings and impeded judgments reflect that distortion of values. Something that should be optional or, worse, taboo and/or dangerous, feels necessary. The distortion of values leads to impaired choices, aptly described in recovery literature and experience as “bargains with chaos.” Addiction in this model is not a moral issue to be addressed by either shaming or punitive approaches directed at symptoms. It is not a matter of a “true self” to be nurtured by an enabling society that strives to protect people from the consequences of their impaired choices.  Compulsive acting out accompanied by impaired judgment is a symptom of addiction, not the disease itself.  I see aversion/reparative therapy as an attempt to re-direct the symptoms while failing to recognize and treat the actual damage.

I think it is also interesting that one main diagnostic characteristics of sex addiction is the subjective conviction that "sex is my most important need."  Needs are, by definition, non-negotiable.  One of the key elements of a dominant narrative in contemporary society is whatever way we are, we are born that way and cannot change, that we have non-negotiable sexual needs One of the key elements of a recovery-from-addiction narrative is that the addiction is not something I am, but something I have, and that through recovery I can change.  The change brought by recovery is that sex becomes optional, something a person may desire, but can easily do without on a day to day basis.  A person with options, rather than needs, is, by definition free, compared to a person with non-negotiable needs.  So there is a conflict in the narratives about the possibility of change. The last thing an addict needs is to be told that is "this is just the way you are, you cannot change, and for anyone to insist that you can constitutes abuse."  Notice that I am not equating same sex attraction with sex addiction.  I am just pointing out the possibility that a person with same sex attraction could also be sex addicted, that the presence of addiction would be a factor in behavior worth knowing about.  Indeed, I attended recovery meetings for over a decade, and about a 1/4 to 1/3 of the attendees reported that same sex attraction was part of their experience.  As addicts in the meetings, we saw ourselves with the same essential problem, not fundamentally different problems.  Such people went into recovery, not to change their orientation, but to change their obsession, to gain options, to become free.

Another diagnostic for addiction is the dependence of the addict on grievance narratives for self-justification.  From the SA Handbook, 55.

Quote

There is an increasing inability to see ourselves and we really are and others as they really are. The alcoholics call this pride blindness. How sharply we become attuned to the defects of others.  Our ability to detect hypocrisy in others seemed to increase in direct proportion to our own self-blindness, as though we had to sharpen our own critical spirit the more to keep from looking inward. Often our judgement took on great heat as we raged against people, places, and things. We could not see that we were a half a dimension off, that the reality within us had shifted. We would never know the real truth about ourselves or others until we had a change of heart.

We were particularly blind to the perception of our addiction. Even though a part of us knew the habit controlled us, it was often the one thing in our lives we thought we were controlling. This made letting go of the habit more difficult.

...

The deterioration goes ever inward. Thus, many of us appeared to be normal, healthy speciments, with simply an emotional problem or two. We even fooled the professionals. No wonder so many of us thought of suicide. The gnawing realization of dying in the inside left us with nothing to resort to by the more of the same tsick thinking and behavior.

It is of interest that not only do addicts rely on personal grievance for a sense of entitlement and self-justification, but that grievance itself is addictive. From a recent, very enlightening essay:

Quote

 Recently, I’ve been researching the way grievances affect the brain, and it turns out that your brain on grievance looks a lot like your brain on drugs. In fact, brain imaging studies show that harboring a grievance (a perceived wrong or injustice, real or imagined) activates the same neural reward circuitry as narcotics.

This isn’t a metaphor; it’s brain biology. Scientists have found that in substance addiction, environmental cues such as being in a place where drugs are taken or meeting another person who takes drugs cause sharp surges of dopamine in crucial reward and habit regions of the brain, specifically, the nucleus accumbens and dorsal striatum. This triggers cravings in anticipation of experiencing pleasure and relief through intoxication. Recent studies show that similarly, cues such as experiencing or being reminded of a perceived wrong or injustice — a grievance — activate these same reward and habit regions of the brain, triggering cravings in anticipation of experiencing pleasure and relief through retaliation. To be clear, the retaliation doesn’t need to be physically violent—an unkind word, or tweet, can also be very gratifying.

Although these are new findings and the research in this area is not yet settled, what this suggests is that similar to the way people become addicted to drugs or gambling, people may also become addicted to seeking retribution against their enemies—revenge addiction. This may help explain why some people just can’t let go of their grievances long after others feel they should have moved on—and why some people resort to violence.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/12/12/trump-grievance-addiction-444570 

Together, these two insights, that addicts consider their addiction to be there "most important need" and that they rely on grievance as a means of self justification to fuel a sense of entitlement, suggests to me that if there is a community characterized by lots of rhetoric about how important and essential their sexuality is, and also by continual voicing of grievance, that might be an indication that something else might be going on, not universal perhaps, but contributing significantly in defining that community.  Incels come to mind, as do others.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[MrShorty]

I'm not buying that, @Kevin Christensen. Another potent argument against sex addiction models is that they tend to do a very poor job of distinguishing between normal behavior and pathological behavior. In this case, I think I could (not that I would) take these same arguments into the internet rooms I frequent consisting of heterosexual spouses in opposite-sex sexless marriages, and tell the higher desire spouses (HDS) that their problem is an addiction to sex. If they could just break free of their sex addiction, then they, too, could be perfectly happy to have sex fewer than 10 times per year for the rest of their married lives. I just don't think that is true for opposite sex couples, and I just don't think it fits for homosexual couples as well.

Which is not to say that there aren't problems with "sex is my most important need" and other entitled attitudes, or other ways that HDS contribute to the problem of sexless marriages, but I don't think that addiction models actually help these reconcile, and I don't think the addiction model helps LGB members reconcile their sexual and spiritual natures. I think there are better ways to understand our sexuality than through an addiction lens.