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

[Mark Beesley]

If people would spend more time on their knees in sincere prayer seeking to know the Lord's Will with regard to this subject matter than they do in reading and writing about it, there would be fewer questions and more acceptance, by everyone.  The problem, as I see it, is too many people trying to bend the Lord's Will to conform to their own.

Edited November 16, 2021 by Mark Beesley

[MrShorty]

@Mark Beesley I agree that part of the problem is trying to sincerely seek God's will without trying to bend God's will to conform to our own. The problem I have is trying to know who is sincere in seeking God's will and who is bending God's will. I'd like to think that I am a sincere seeker, but, especially on this issue, my efforts to seek God's will seem to lead to different conclusions than what other allegedly sincere seekers come to. How do we decide -- especially on an issue as divisive as this one -- who is sincere and who is bending?

[Mark Beesley]

22 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

@Mark Beesley I agree that part of the problem is trying to sincerely seek God's will without trying to bend God's will to conform to our own. The problem I have is trying to know who is sincere in seeking God's will and who is bending God's will. I'd like to think that I am a sincere seeker, but, especially on this issue, my efforts to seek God's will seem to lead to different conclusions than what other allegedly sincere seekers come to. How do we decide -- especially on an issue as divisive as this one -- who is sincere and who is bending?

While I can empathize with the dilemma posed, for myself it has become rather simple. Quit listening to everyone. Turn off the noise. I do not have a Facebook page.  I don't use Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, or any other social media outlet for information.  It does not matter what anyone else thinks, and that includes the President of the Church.  When it comes to issues like LGBTQIABCDEFG . . . .  I trust in the Lord. That isn't always easy at first, but in the end, it answers a host of questions that begin with WHY.  Of course, it helps tremendously if you have an open channel to the Lord. I don't concern myself with judging who is sincere and who is bending once I have received the Lord's truth, which is why some people think I am a cafeteria Latter-day Saint.

As a Latter-day Saint with a witness from the Lord that President Nelson is a true prophet of God, it becomes a great source of comfort, not that the prophet tells me what to think, but confirms to me that I am on the same page as the Lord. When the Prophet speaks on a topic that I have been pondering and seeking to understand the mind of the Lord on, and his (the Prophet's) words confirm what the whisperings of the Spirit have taught me, well, the world calls it confirmation bias, but only because the world is ignorant of the workings of the Spirit. Confirmation bias does not invoke light and joy like the Spirit does, but I imagine one would have to experience both to be able to distinguish and even then it can be a challenge because of our memories, as I will explain below.

An example of the comfort one can derive from believing in a prophetic voice can be found in the crusade to reclaim the name of the Church.  For most of my life after my mission, which I served from '74 to '76, I resisted being called a Mormon. Discounting the years I spent in Babylon, when people would ask me what Church I belonged to I would reply, as prompted by the Spirit, with the full name of the Church and then help them out with, "But you probably know us as Mormons."  When President Nelson spoke on this topic after he was called to act as the President of the Church, I enjoyed a spiritual confirmation that he was speaking the mind of the Lord. There are two lessons here, for me.

First, trust the promptings of the Spirit and act accordingly.  If the Church, has not yet caught up, be patient.

And Second, let the President of the Church speak for the Lord to the Church.  It was not my place to call the Church to repentance. My place is to trust the Lord and His timetable, and rejoice in the grace He showed me when He inspired me before the Church acted. Be patient and the Church will catch up.  The name of the Church is just one such example. And for me, that is rather exciting . . ..

As alluded to above, In many cases the greatest hinderance to accepting without reservation the Will of the Lord is what I call The Persistence of Memory, apologies to Salvador Dali. Throughout our lives we are creating memories.  Much of our conversion to Jesus Christ consists of trying to overcome behaviors, and the pleasant memories associated therewith, which draw us away from the Savior.  As we go through the conversion process, our memories attempt to remain relevant, like melting clocks in a timeless world.  The memories become a blight on our desires to follow Christ.  My own experiences in the LGBTQ community, and the memories I have, persist in trying and to bend the Lord's Will to my own, and it has been only very recently that I have been able to divorce myself from those memories and focus solely on the Will of the Lord.

So, don't concern yourself with who is sincere and who is bending.  Concern yourself with whether you are being sincere, or whether you are unintentionally trying to bend the Lord's Will to your own. And the only way to do that is on your knees and in quiet meditation. The Lord speaks softly to us as individual.  He does not yell, and He does not compete for Likes.

Edited November 16, 2021 by Mark Beesley

[CV75]

26 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

@Mark Beesley I agree that part of the problem is trying to sincerely seek God's will without trying to bend God's will to conform to our own. The problem I have is trying to know who is sincere in seeking God's will and who is bending God's will. I'd like to think that I am a sincere seeker, but, especially on this issue, my efforts to seek God's will seem to lead to different conclusions than what other allegedly sincere seekers come to. How do we decide -- especially on an issue as divisive as this one -- who is sincere and who is bending?

I would encourage anyone to prayerfully act on what they know in good faith, and the Lord will correct their course if/as necessary, sooner or later (up to Him).

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

When it comes to issues like LGBTQIABCDEFG

I stopped reading at this sentence.  By making fun of LGBT issues you already said all I needed to know.  It would be like saying to you when it comes to Mormon or moron issues,...  Would you really want to know what I had to say?

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

If people would spend more time on their knees in sincere prayer seeking to know the Lord's Will with regard to this subject matter than they do in reading and writing about it, there would be fewer questions and more acceptance, by everyone.  The problem, as I see it, is too many people trying to bend the Lord's Will to conform to their own.

I would argue that the people in the Church who experience sexual desires opposed to those of the Church’s teachings have probably spent about a thousand times as much time on their knees in prayer seeking answers than the person who does not face the issue or have someone they care about who is. Probably more than that actually.

That many do not get answers that help or find themselves unwilling or unable to follow any answers or both is more likely. They are very familiar with prayers of desperation but the whole thing is exhausting. It is draining. It is often the exact opposite of the ‘fruits of the spirit’. I am completely unsurprised that many (most?) leave when they spend years or decades seeking peace and never finding it.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I would argue that the people in the Church who experience sexual desires opposed to those of the Church’s teachings have probably spent about a thousand times as much time on their knees in prayer seeking answers than the person who does not face the issue or have someone they care about who is. Probably more than that actually.

That many do not get answers that help or find themselves unwilling or unable to follow any answers or both is more likely. They are very familiar with prayers of desperation but the whole thing is exhausting. It is draining. It is often the exact opposite of the ‘fruits of the spirit’. I am completely unsurprised that many (most?) leave when they spend years or decades seeking peace and never finding it.

I knew there was a reason I liked you.  No, but for real, thanks for empathizing with so many!

Edited November 17, 2021 by Tacenda

[MrShorty]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

I would encourage anyone to prayerfully act on what they know in good faith, and the Lord will correct their course if/as necessary, sooner or later (up to Him).

I would agree. Perhaps I am reading too deep between the lines of @kimpearson's OP, but one of the things I am taking away from this is that there are a lot (maybe a majority, maybe a vast majority) of LGBT LDS whom God is leading out of the Church. For those who believe that this is Christ's Church (maybe even Christ's only True Church on the Earth today), how do we feel about the possibility that God would be leading a segment of His children away from the Church?

[Olmec Donald]

29 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

..one of the things I am taking away from this is that there are a lot (maybe a majority, maybe a vast majority) of LGBT LDS whom God is leading out of the Church. For those who believe that this is Christ's Church (maybe even Christ's only True Church on the Earth today), how do we feel about the possibility that God would be leading a segment of His children away from the Church?

One possible implication is that the Good Shepherd has completely effective back-up plans, and maybe his "lost sheep" are never really lost. 

[CV75]

9 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I would agree. Perhaps I am reading too deep between the lines of @kimpearson's OP, but one of the things I am taking away from this is that there are a lot (maybe a majority, maybe a vast majority) of LGBT LDS whom God is leading out of the Church. For those who believe that this is Christ's Church (maybe even Christ's only True Church on the Earth today), how do we feel about the possibility that God would be leading a segment of His children away from the Church?

The assumption is that Christ is leading people into two paths certainly offers an interesting thought experiment. The idea that He is leading people away from the one that has gotten all the attention from the beginning compounds the interest.

Personal testimonies aside, how do the scriptures support either proposition? I will look to see what I can find, and it would be great if you can share any findings you may have.

[CV75]

9 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

One possible implication is that the Good Shepherd has completely effective back-up plans, and maybe his "lost sheep" are never really lost. 

I'm assuming the thought experiment allows the Church to still have the keys and ordinances to exalt the children of God. The thought experiment also seems to be exclusive to LGBTQ experience. There are many others being prayerfully led out of the Church, so what is the exalting plan for each cohort?

[MrShorty]

40 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Personal testimonies aside, how do the scriptures support either proposition? I will look to see what I can find, and it would be great if you can share any findings you may have.

Before doing the exercise, I would hypothesize that this will end up looking a lot like the question of universalism vs. exclusivism that has rattled around Christianity for centuries. I our own little corner of Christianity, this same question expresses itself more in the question of whether or not there is progression between kingdoms (which we have a recent thread discussing this:

). I know that some in broader Christianity "accuse" us of being universalists because of our clear doctrines and practices around salvation for the dead. But, we also have a strong tradition of being exclusivists (as with evolution, Elder McConkie figures rather prominently here). I hypothesize that your call for scripture is going to pull up many of the same scriptures that are used to discuss the question of universalism vs exclusivism or progression vs no progression between kingdoms.

[The Great Pretender]

On 11/15/2021 at 2:28 PM, 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.

Thank you for your contribution. My issues are not something I stumbled upon within the past few weeks. I mention that because I had been "managing" them for over 40 years when I finally discovered the Church was offering something other than outright condemnation in this area. As far as I can tell, I have pursued every spiritual avenue available to me in my attempts to overcome my problems.

I first realised I was experiencing difficulty as a 19 year old while serving on my mission. I repeatedly pleaded with the Lord in personal prayer to make me whole and allow me to serve unfettered by unwanted distractions. Nothing changed. I decided to forge ahead with the "fake it 'til you make it" approach. That has been the story of my life. I have remained on the Covenant Path while experiencing a recurring thirst I can never slake. 

In my late twenties, I made a covenant with God in the temple that I would continue to deny, redirect, and entirely put out of my mind any thoughts of attraction if God would help me to stay true and enable me to fulfil the blessings of becoming a husband and father spelled out in my patriarchal blessing. I submitted myself entirely to God's will. I married and became a father, but nothing could fill the void I kept undisclosed and hidden from view. Unaddressed. Unresolved.

In my forties, I even secretly visited a Church member hypnotherapist for several sessions, and, through my tears, expressed my shame and my desires to walk "uprightly before the Lord." Nothing helped.

The problem here is that unless you have experienced an attraction to something you know is unacceptable, you simply cannot grasp how that feels and how it is a cancer. Thoughts don't even need to come into it. Your body tells you when you're attracted. Your mind does things over which you have no control. Your dreams take over, and you're left helpless.

Since the Church has now brought my issues into my waking thoughts (by addressing them in online material when I believed they should never be addressed), I have been forced to consider the emptiness I cannot escape and the damage it has done to my emotional state over the years.

Sadly, the Church's position only goes as far as to say that all are welcome. That falls entirely short of addressing actual needs. As a pseudo-straight member, I never felt unloved or unwelcome. However, I have always felt damaged, and telling me I am welcome at church in no way resolves that.

I don't need therapy. I am responsible, self-reliant, dependable, articulate, have been working in professional capacities for over three decades, and I outwardly appear to be doing just fine. Inside, however, I am smouldering with growing resentment.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

Before doing the exercise, I would hypothesize that this will end up looking a lot like the question of universalism vs. exclusivism that has rattled around Christianity for centuries. I our own little corner of Christianity, this same question expresses itself more in the question of whether or not there is progression between kingdoms (which we have a recent thread discussing this:

). I know that some in broader Christianity "accuse" us of being universalists because of our clear doctrines and practices around salvation for the dead. But, we also have a strong tradition of being exclusivists (as with evolution, Elder McConkie figures rather prominently here). I hypothesize that your call for scripture is going to pull up many of the same scriptures that are used to discuss the question of universalism vs exclusivism or progression vs no progression between kingdoms.

I was thinking more in line of new revelation that changes the course of current events. As with the Restoration, individual personal revelations (including Joseph Smith's), would revolutionize through a movement and then an institution, not matter how loosely "institution" is defined.

On the longer view, I think the scriptures concerning many kingdoms -- none of them are "bad", all of them are "glorious", but only one of them is "exalting" -- addresses the multiple "socialities" people would rather live in. Since all of these have a direct or indirect ministration from Christ and the Father, it could be said that none are lost to them, and I doubt any of them would entail any kind of injury to a fellow inhabitant. Yet in this life, which is God leading them into / out of?

I'm also thinking that universalism and exclusivism can be considered to be alternate paths.

Edited November 17, 2021 by CV75

[CV75]

54 minutes ago, The Great Pretender said:

Thank you for your contribution. My issues are not something I stumbled upon within the past few weeks. I mention that because I had been "managing" them for over 40 years when I finally discovered the Church was offering something other than outright condemnation in this area. As far as I can tell, I have pursued every spiritual avenue available to me in my attempts to overcome my problems.

I first realised I was experiencing difficulty as a 19 year old while serving on my mission. I repeatedly pleaded with the Lord in personal prayer to make me whole and allow me to serve unfettered by unwanted distractions. Nothing changed. I decided to forge ahead with the "fake it 'til you make it" approach. That has been the story of my life. I have remained on the Covenant Path while experiencing a recurring thirst I can never slake. 

In my late twenties, I made a covenant with God in the temple that I would continue to deny, redirect, and entirely put out of my mind any thoughts of attraction if God would help me to stay true and enable me to fulfil the blessings of becoming a husband and father spelled out in my patriarchal blessing. I submitted myself entirely to God's will. I married and became a father, but nothing could fill the void I kept undisclosed and hidden from view. Unaddressed. Unresolved.

In my forties, I even secretly visited a Church member hypnotherapist for several sessions, and, through my tears, expressed my shame and my desires to walk "uprightly before the Lord." Nothing helped.

The problem here is that unless you have experienced an attraction to something you know is unacceptable, you simply cannot grasp how that feels and how it is a cancer. Thoughts don't even need to come into it. Your body tells you when you're attracted. Your mind does things over which you have no control. Your dreams take over, and you're left helpless.

Since the Church has now brought my issues into my waking thoughts (by addressing them in online material when I believed they should never be addressed), I have been forced to consider the emptiness I cannot escape and the damage it has done to my emotional state over the years.

Sadly, the Church's position only goes as far as to say that all are welcome. That falls entirely short of addressing actual needs. As a pseudo-straight member, I never felt unloved or unwelcome. However, I have always felt damaged, and telling me I am welcome at church in no way resolves that.

I don't need therapy. I am responsible, self-reliant, dependable, articulate, have been working in professional capacities for over three decades, and I outwardly appear to be doing just fine. Inside, however, I am smouldering with growing resentment.

I suggest that the Church's position is only part of our spiritual experience. The companionship of the Holy Ghost and relationship with Christ can fill the void, make our suffering lighter, help us endure our suffering, adopt a healthy perspective toward our suffering that doesn't seem to go away, help us find the Lord in the midst of our extremity. Given the personal experience you shared, where on this spectrum would you describe yourself? How would you summarize, without evaluation, the content of the Church's position?

ETA: All of us are damaged in some way, yet grace attends us as we keep trying to do our best with what we've got. I'm not suggesting that every kind of damage carries the same gravitas in every age and culture ("the times... and the bounds"), but I refer to Acts 17: 26-27 to address that. And tehre is certainly an overriding subjective component to concluding or feeling that we are damaged.

Edited November 17, 2021 by CV75

[Tacenda]

52 minutes ago, The Great Pretender said:

Thank you for your contribution. My issues are not something I stumbled upon within the past few weeks. I mention that because I had been "managing" them for over 40 years when I finally discovered the Church was offering something other than outright condemnation in this area. As far as I can tell, I have pursued every spiritual avenue available to me in my attempts to overcome my problems.

I first realised I was experiencing difficulty as a 19 year old while serving on my mission. I repeatedly pleaded with the Lord in personal prayer to make me whole and allow me to serve unfettered by unwanted distractions. Nothing changed. I decided to forge ahead with the "fake it 'til you make it" approach. That has been the story of my life. I have remained on the Covenant Path while experiencing a recurring thirst I can never slake. 

In my late twenties, I made a covenant with God in the temple that I would continue to deny, redirect, and entirely put out of my mind any thoughts of attraction if God would help me to stay true and enable me to fulfil the blessings of becoming a husband and father spelled out in my patriarchal blessing. I submitted myself entirely to God's will. I married and became a father, but nothing could fill the void I kept undisclosed and hidden from view. Unaddressed. Unresolved.

In my forties, I even secretly visited a Church member hypnotherapist for several sessions, and, through my tears, expressed my shame and my desires to walk "uprightly before the Lord." Nothing helped.

The problem here is that unless you have experienced an attraction to something you know is unacceptable, you simply cannot grasp how that feels and how it is a cancer. Thoughts don't even need to come into it. Your body tells you when you're attracted. Your mind does things over which you have no control. Your dreams take over, and you're left helpless.

Since the Church has now brought my issues into my waking thoughts (by addressing them in online material when I believed they should never be addressed), I have been forced to consider the emptiness I cannot escape and the damage it has done to my emotional state over the years.

Sadly, the Church's position only goes as far as to say that all are welcome. That falls entirely short of addressing actual needs. As a pseudo-straight member, I never felt unloved or unwelcome. However, I have always felt damaged, and telling me I am welcome at church in no way resolves that.

I don't need therapy. I am responsible, self-reliant, dependable, articulate, have been working in professional capacities for over three decades, and I outwardly appear to be doing just fine. Inside, however, I am smouldering with growing resentment.

Do you relate somewhat to Ed Smart?

[smac97]

19 hours ago, MrShorty said:

@Mark Beesley I agree that part of the problem is trying to sincerely seek God's will without trying to bend God's will to conform to our own. The problem I have is trying to know who is sincere in seeking God's will and who is bending God's will. I'd like to think that I am a sincere seeker, but, especially on this issue, my efforts to seek God's will seem to lead to different conclusions than what other allegedly sincere seekers come to. How do we decide -- especially on an issue as divisive as this one -- who is sincere and who is bending?

I think the revelatory process espoused by the Church works really well.  Consider these remarks by Michael Ash:

Quote

In a previous installment I explained that Roman Catholics take a three-legged tripod-like approach to determining truth—Scripture, Tradition, and the Pope. I believe that we Latter-day Saints are asked to take a four-legged approach to truth, like the four legs of a stool. These would include: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. By utilizing the methodologies for all four of these tools, we have a better chance of accurately determining what is true.

Two of the "legs" ("Personal Revelation" and "Reason") are unique and specific to the individual, may therefore be more susceptible to "trying to bend God's will to conform to our own."  To some extent, one of the remaining legs ("Scripture") is also susceptible to this bending.  The individual can emphasize or de-emphasize, or ignore scripture, or else resort to eisegesis of the text.  That leaves . . . Living Prophets. 

Consider Elder Andersen's remarks: "There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find."  

Doctrine that is "taught frequently and by many {living prophets and apostles}" is, I think, considerably more difficult to "bend."  Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.”  See also these remarks by Elder Christofferson (emphasis added):

Quote

After Paul, Barnabas, and perhaps others spoke in support of Peter’s declaration, James moved that the decision be implemented by letter to the Church, and the council was united “with one accord” (Acts 15:25; see also verses 12–23). In the letter announcing their decision, the Apostles said, “It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us” (Acts 15:28), or in other words, this decision came by divine revelation through the Holy Spirit.

These same patterns are followed today in the restored Church of Jesus Christ. The President of the Church may announce or interpret doctrines based on revelation to him (see, for example, D&C 138). Doctrinal exposition may also come through the combined council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (see, for example, Official Declaration 2). Council deliberations will often include a weighing of canonized scriptures, the teachings of Church leaders, and past practice. But in the end, just as in the New Testament Church, the objective is not simply consensus among council members but revelation from God. It is a process involving both reason and faith for obtaining the mind and will of the Lord.4

At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church.

I suspect that the early leaders of the Church were pretty new to the whole prophetic/apostolic mantle thing, and so sometimes did not differentiate revealed doctrine from their individual considered opinions.  I even think later "doctrinaire" leaders of the Church were a bit more prone to conflate opinion with doctrine (e.g., Elder McConkie).  However, today's General Authorities have generations of cumulative experience and wisdom to draw on, such that they are generally very prudent and circumspect in terms of differentiating "revelation" and "doctrine" from, as Elder Christofferson put it (see above link), "personal, though well-considered, opinion{s}."

Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason.  Michael Ash's four-legged stool is, for me, a very helpful construct for self-assessment, for sifting and testing my beliefs and sentiments and opinions to ascertain whether I am, as you aptly put it, "sincerely seek{ing} God's will without trying to bend God's will to conform to our own."  This construct is particularly helpful when evaluating controversial topics, including those about which massive social pressures exist.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 17, 2021 by smac97

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

If people would spend more time on their knees in sincere prayer seeking to know the Lord's Will with regard to this subject matter than they do in reading and writing about it, there would be fewer questions and more acceptance, by everyone.  The problem, as I see it, is too many people trying to bend the Lord's Will to conform to their own.

And what is the Lord's will and how do you know it is?

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

As a Latter-day Saint with a witness from the Lord that President Nelson is a true prophet of God, it becomes a great source of comfort, not that the prophet tells me what to think, but confirms to me that I am on the same page as the Lord. When the Prophet speaks on a topic that I have been pondering and seeking to understand the mind of the Lord on, and his (the Prophet's) words confirm what the whisperings of the Spirit have taught me, well, the world calls it confirmation bias, but only because the world is ignorant of the workings of the Spirit. Confirmation bias does not invoke light and joy like the Spirit does, but I imagine one would have to experience both to be able to distinguish and even then it can be a challenge because of our memories, as I will explain below.

What if someone has a witness from God that President Nelson is not a true prophet?

[The Great Pretender]

On 11/15/2021 at 4:08 PM, smac97 said:

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?

What "direction" are you referencing here?

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

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

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.

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?

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

Hi Smac

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

As an active member who has served in leadership positions for over 30 years, I know intimately how the Church functions. The Church currently finds itself stuck between a rock and a hard place on account of the Family Proclamation. Secular society increasingly insists that differing attractions are a matter of inalienable identity and human rights, and the Church naturally wishes to avoid being viewed as an organisation in violation of those human rights. Consequently, its current approach is to deflect attention from its red lines by giving the impression that they don't exist. It no longer tells people they are evil for their attractions—but instead says they are evil only when they act on them. The very idea of experiencing an attraction and having it innocently pass by without any type of reaction is actually a nonsense, but I won't argue that. I don't actually want my attractions. I didn't choose them. I believe they were foisted upon me by circumstance and social programming. By insisting that everyone is welcome, the Church is entirely disregarding the anguish felt by individuals possessing these attractions. It already tried and failed to cure people with the Evergreen programme (conversion therapy). Instead, it now acknowledges that individuals are broken, yet it simply leaves them to their brokenness. What should the Church do? It should support affected individuals in addressing the underlying drivers of their attractions. It doesn't want to do that, however, because such an approach could be seen as conversion therapy or possibly even risk "enabling" individuals to form sinful groups. It's why the AR programme doesn't want people to share what their actual addictions are. The risk of people taking advantage of that is seen as being too great.

"What "direction" are you referencing here?"

In my opinion, the Church is now choosing to pander to activist, minority groups that wish to fight the Church on its policies and doctrine. That is the basis for saying that everyone is welcome (even while the Brethren undoubtedly find such matters unseemly behind closed doors)—but without having to make any further concessions. They may as well say, "Listen, we've told you you're welcome. So, let's drop it and talk about something else." The direction is actually a misdirection.

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

Sorry, but this is a disgraceful idea. I am a product of Church teachings that told me to look another way. And I did. And it has almost convinced me to take my life on multiple occasions—even though I experience no recurring mental instability, paranoia, personality disorders, and so forth. Maybe I will throw in the towel some day. We shouldn't keep this stuff under wraps. We should be teaching our congregations in fifth-Sunday lessons to increase understanding and generate open dialogue. The Church's own "Counseling Resources" recommends this, but Bishops and Stake Presidents are either unaware or reluctant. They already spin too many plates without tackling such complex issues. I don't blame them. The message from the top is wishy-washy.

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

I am of the opinion that the Church's position on matters of attraction is largely disingenuous—as much a political/publicity move as anything. Some of the same leaders who supported Church policy and teachings decades ago about individuals being entrapped by Satan are now publicly offering what appears to be an olive branch to those same people. They may as well say, "You may join us if you leave your sins at the door." It's not that simple. You can't leave your identity at the door. Issues of identity need to be addressed rather than fudged or conveniently sidestepped.

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

That's actually quite funny. For the past 4+ years, I have been a member of some of the North Star LDS Facebook groups with hundreds of other Church members who experience differing attractions. Many of the men use pejorative terms with a view to somehow exerting power over them by adopting them voluntarily. Some even refer to themselves as "MOHOs" (Mormon homosexuals). Personally, I find it distasteful and reject all labels (preferring terms like same-sex attracted), but even that view is considered tainted because many insist they have a Church mandate to label themselves as they choose. My personal testimony supported by logic tells me that no one is born with any attraction at all; that we are all simply products of social programming and hormones.

"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?"

The Church wants me to continue keeping my attractions bottled up and out of sight. After decades of doing this and experiencing ongoing distress, I know this is counterproductive. Over the past four years and with my wife's approval, I have attempted to facilitate groups of men to connect with their masculinity in non-sexual ways. This actually works, but it's too risky for the Church to support or endorse. So I self-medicate, whether that is going hiking with other men or participating in a weekly LGBT sports club. I wish I could find the same fraternity in my Elders Quorum, but most church members are far too busy pretending to be perfect. I even created an Elders Quorum Activity WhatsApp group and arranged activities, but no one wanted to participate. There were already too many meetings to attend, too much ministering to do, too many life events to get in the way.

"Others struggle in the Church in other ways about other matters."

Absolutely. Unwanted attractions aside, I sometimes feel a little resentful about being one of the old faithful reliable guys who gets taken advantage of because I always say yes. But that's a personal matter that isn't specific to the Church or the gospel. Issues relating to my attractions, however, are rooted in the gospel and defined by Church doctrine. I have no say in the matter if I wish to retain my Church membership—which is central to my life. I must accept what I'm told, even though that message has changed over time and still leaves individuals with sufficiently unpleasant feelings that they consider killing themselves to escape the distress. Increasingly, I see the Church's message becoming problematic.

[The Great Pretender]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Do you relate somewhat to Ed Smart?

Sorry, I've only just signed up here (and I'm not in Utah or even in the U.S.). I have never heard of Ed Smart.

[The Great Pretender]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I suggest that the Church's position is only part of our spiritual experience. The companionship of the Holy Ghost and relationship with Christ can fill the void, make our suffering lighter, help us endure our suffering, adopt a healthy perspective toward our suffering that doesn't seem to go away, help us find the Lord in the midst of our extremity. Given the personal experience you shared, where on this spectrum would you describe yourself? How would you summarize, without evaluation, the content of the Church's position?

ETA: All of us are damaged in some way, yet grace attends us as we keep trying to do our best with what we've got. I'm not suggesting that every kind of damage carries the same gravitas in every age and culture ("the times... and the bounds"), but I refer to Acts 17: 26-27 to address that. And tehre is certainly an overriding subjective component to concluding or feeling that we are damaged.

As a relatively seasoned, lifelong Church member (I'm 58), I can appreciate where you're coming from in respect of the Holy Ghost and Christ filling the void. Sadly, it is overly simplistic, verging on fanciful, and possibly irresponsible. Consider for a moment those who have PTSD, are asthmatic, have agoraphobia, or perhaps epileptic seizures. A close relationship with Christ may help put such challenges into perspective, but it is unlikely to diminish in any meaningful way the unpleasantness of the experience.

I'm afraid I don't understand your question about offering a summary of the Church's position. 🙂

[Mark Beesley]

16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I would argue that the people in the Church who experience sexual desires opposed to those of the Church’s teachings have probably spent about a thousand times as much time on their knees in prayer seeking answers than the person who does not face the issue or have someone they care about who is. Probably more than that actually.

That many do not get answers that help or find themselves unwilling or unable to follow any answers or both is more likely. They are very familiar with prayers of desperation but the whole thing is exhausting. It is draining. It is often the exact opposite of the ‘fruits of the spirit’. I am completely unsurprised that many (most?) leave when they spend years or decades seeking peace and never finding it.

I won't argue anything.  I can only postulate based on my own experience. Perhaps the most important word in my previous post was one which I did not highlight, and that word is sincere. Too often we are seeking Lord's approval for our desires, and we spend an inordinate amount of time focused on our challenges.  Sexual attractions should not be a focus of our attention. If we want to follow Christ, we will follow his admonition:  "For whosoever will find his life will lose it; but whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it."  Trying to find oneself is the lock.  Losing oneself in the service of others is the key.

 

 

[Mark Beesley]

17 hours ago, california boy said:

I stopped reading at this sentence.  By making fun of LGBT issues you already said all I needed to know.  It would be like saying to you when it comes to Mormon or moron issues,...  Would you really want to know what I had to say?

It was a calculated risk, but I'm still making room for the Lord to give me more patience and charity . . . but the whole alphabet designation I find rather offensive.

In any case, in response to the question that you end with, if you will take the time to read the rest of the post after the LGBTQIA parody, you will find the answer.  But in the event you do not want to read it, the short answer is, No. Sorry.  If I had some kind of a stewardship for you, I might, but since I don't have any such stewardship, I have no need of knowing what you have to say.  Sounds harsh and arrogant, I know, but I've been to Babylon and back, more than once.  I know the arguments.  I know the attractions. I know the futility of trying to overcome our natural urges. I know the power of Christ. And I know that salvation comes only through trusting Him. Lose yourself in His service and your sexuality will resolve itself.

[CV75]

33 minutes ago, The Great Pretender said:

As a relatively seasoned, lifelong Church member (I'm 58), I can appreciate where you're coming from in respect of the Holy Ghost and Christ filling the void. Sadly, it is overly simplistic, verging on fanciful, and possibly irresponsible. Consider for a moment those who have PTSD, are asthmatic, have agoraphobia, or perhaps epileptic seizures. A close relationship with Christ may help put such challenges into perspective, but it is unlikely to diminish in any meaningful way the unpleasantness of the experience.

I'm afraid I don't understand your question about offering a summary of the Church's position. 🙂

First, that is why I added the other, less dramatic associations with the Holy Ghost: make our suffering lighter, help us endure our suffering, adopt a healthy perspective toward our suffering that doesn't seem to go away, help us find the Lord in the midst of our extremity. Second, you said you don't need therapy and this conversation is between you and me. Third, sometimes we have to wait for a full resolutions of our suffering in this life.

Regarding the Church's position, considering you are a professional with more than 3 decades of experience, you must have a short summary ("elevator pitch") describing what you referred to as the "Church's position", the term you used in the post I replied to, and am seeking a clearer understanding of what you mean by it. You were thorough enough on your lived experience with this position, and described your general evaluation of it.