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

[Teancum]

14 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

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.

So you know it all apparently?

 

This is an example of why I agree more and more with Christopher Hitchens. Religion poisons everything.

[Mark Beesley]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

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

Christ taught the Nephites what the Gospel was, that He came into the world to do the will of the Father because His Father sent Him. Thus, the Gospel of each of us is to learn and do the will of the Father because He also sent us.  Christ goes on to explain to the Nephite the will of the Father concerning His mission.

I does not good for me to relate to you the will of the Lord.  You need to find that out for yourself.  If you do not know how to do that, I can share with you the process I followed, but I imagine your starting point will be somewhat different from my own. But rather than relate a bunch of steps that you may or may not need, I will share the last and most important step.  If you can learn to take this step in the beginning, it could be a first step and save a lot missteps along the way.  In any event, after all is said and done, when you have suffered through the blood, sweat and tears of mortality and spent countless hours in study, meditation and prayer, if you still find yourself unable to take this step, you will be endlessly frustrated.  It is the step the Lord sets up in the very beginning when He sent us here to see if we would do whatsoever the Lord would command.

The first, last and most important step is surrender. We have to divorce ourselves of our ego, surrender to God the agency He gave us, and resolve to do His Will.

Thus, I know what the Lord's Will is by virtue of total and absolute surrender to Him. When my ego gets in the way, His Will is not so apparent.

Hope this helps.

[Mark Beesley]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So you know it all apparently?

Not at all. But with regard to this particular topic, there is nothing more to be said.

[Teancum]

11 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

Christ taught the Nephites what the Gospel was, that He came into the world to do the will of the Father because His Father sent Him. Thus, the Gospel of each of us is to learn and do the will of the Father because He also sent us.  Christ goes on to explain to the Nephite the will of the Father concerning His mission.

I does not good for me to relate to you the will of the Lord.  You need to find that out for yourself.  If you do not know how to do that, I can share with you the process I followed, but I imagine your starting point will be somewhat different from my own. But rather than relate a bunch of steps that you may or may not need, I will share the last and most important step.  If you can learn to take this step in the beginning, it could be a first step and save a lot missteps along the way.  In any event, after all is said and done, when you have suffered through the blood, sweat and tears of mortality and spent countless hours in study, meditation and prayer, if you still find yourself unable to take this step, you will be endlessly frustrated.  It is the step the Lord sets up in the very beginning when He sent us here to see if we would do whatsoever the Lord would command.

The first, last and most important step is surrender. We have to divorce ourselves of our ego, surrender to God the agency He gave us, and resolve to do His Will.

Thus, I know what the Lord's Will is by virtue of total and absolute surrender to Him. When my ego gets in the way, His Will is not so apparent.

Hope this helps.

I know the steps.  I was an active full believing Latter day Saint for 57 years.  I think the steps are flawed and do not produce reliable results as many use similar methods and receive conflicting answers and conclusions.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

Not at all. But with regard to this particular topic, there is nothing more to be said.

As noted, more and more I think religion really does poison everything.  When people think they really know what God's will is and anything outside of that person's particular conclusion is wrong, evil and abomination, etc, well that is a problem.  The topic of this thread is a fine example  I feel great sympathy for homosexual LDS.  Those who want to try to make it work usually have a long a sorrowful road and most are not successful. All because some religion thinks they know what God thinks about this.

Edited November 17, 2021 by Teancum

[CV75]

16 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I know the steps.  I was an active full believing Latter day Saint for 57 years.  I think the steps are flawed and do not produce reliable results as many use similar methods and receive conflicting answers and conclusions.

What were the steps you took for being an active full believing Latter day Saint for 57 years?

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, The Great Pretender said:

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.

Oh, I forget that. Have you heard of Elizabeth Smart? She was kidnapped in Utah, and it was known worldwide. They are an LDS family and prominent in Utah. He came out two years ago and now is with his partner. I felt bad for his wife, but I guess after so many years it finally got to be too much. I feel like you and him, could be very much a like. But maybe he lost some faith in the church or ? and that was the breaking point. I haven't listened to this video below, but maybe he goes into that. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/ed-smart-dad-kidnapping-survivor-elizabeth-smart-says-there-s-n1099151

[Teancum]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

What were the steps you took for being an active full believing Latter day Saint for 57 years?

I have no need to outline it for you. Similar I am sure to what most/all believing LDS are taught to do and believe. Maybe I am feeling a bit cynical these days but you ask a lot of questions like this and they at times feel like a trap being laid.  If I read you wrong I apologize.  But why ask a question like this?  Is it a test of some sort?

[MrShorty]

@smac97 I am familiar with Ashe's 4 legged stool, as well as several others with varying number of legs. I generally see two problems with these kinds of discernment frameworks:

1) As @Teancum noted, different people using the same framework come to different conclusions. These types of frameworks never seem to offer a solid idea for deciding who/what is right when different people come to different conclusions.

2) Unless, as you do, the framework relies on the combined voice of the Q15 to resolve the discrepancies. In that case, they tend, as you do, to assume that the combined voice of the Q15 is sufficiently reliable as a source of truth without discussing some of the examples (like the now disavowed reasons for the priesthood and temple ban) where the combined voice of the Q15 (over decades/generations) seems to be in error.

Until these kinds of frameworks can provide a reliable (maybe infallible) means of resolving differences between "legs" and between different people applying the same methodology, the question of whether or not there is a single, eternal truth that man can know seems unanswered, and we are left, as @CV75 suggests, to muddle along individually as best we can.

[CV75]

34 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I have no need to outline it for you. Similar I am sure to what most/all believing LDS are taught to do and believe. Maybe I am feeling a bit cynical these days but you ask a lot of questions like this and they at times feel like a trap being laid.  If I read you wrong I apologize.  But why ask a question like this?  Is it a test of some sort?

I ask a lot of questions like these because I am looking for facts from my interlocutor's perspective. For example, when someone says the steps are flawed, I would like to know what steps they are referring to. Certainly not a test or a trap, and they do often go unanswered.

[CV75]

48 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

@smac97 I am familiar with Ashe's 4 legged stool, as well as several others with varying number of legs. I generally see two problems with these kinds of discernment frameworks:

1) As @Teancum noted, different people using the same framework come to different conclusions. These types of frameworks never seem to offer a solid idea for deciding who/what is right when different people come to different conclusions.

2) Unless, as you do, the framework relies on the combined voice of the Q15 to resolve the discrepancies. In that case, they tend, as you do, to assume that the combined voice of the Q15 is sufficiently reliable as a source of truth without discussing some of the examples (like the now disavowed reasons for the priesthood and temple ban) where the combined voice of the Q15 (over decades/generations) seems to be in error.

Until these kinds of frameworks can provide a reliable (maybe infallible) means of resolving differences between "legs" and between different people applying the same methodology, the question of whether or not there is a single, eternal truth that man can know seems unanswered, and we are left, as @CV75 suggests, to muddle along individually as best we can.

We accept in good faith the reports that different people come up with different conclusions for the same sincere prayers of faith, steps, etc.; but how would we know what is in anyone’s mind? This is why the only reality (the “single, eternal truth that man can know”) we can live with in this life is what our brains process for us, including spiritual experiences as manifest in mental states. Thus many alternative paths that people of a common mindset, time and place in mortality are drawn into.

The combined voice of those with the keys is bound to change over time for many reasons that still keep the “fundamental principles of our religion” and its “appendages*” at the forefront. They apply the science of their day the best way they can, while ensuring that the practical effects of the fundamentals and the appendages take root on both sides of the veil. Germane to this thread, that would include marriage unless an alternate plan is defined for members who no longer feel comfortable with the Church but still hold to the ideal of not being lost to God (anyone still working on that?).

* “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it. But in connection with these, we believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost, the power of faith, the enjoyment of the spiritual gifts according to the will of God, the restoration of the house of Israel, and the final triumph of truth.” (Joseph Smith)

Edited November 17, 2021 by CV75

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

but the whole alphabet designation I find rather offensive.

Why?  How does it effective you? 

[smac97]

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

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.

In a sense, yes.  The Church is, in the eyes of some, in a "lose lose" situation.  The Church can either A) maintain its teachings about the Law of Chastity (particularly as pertaining to same-sex attraction), and incur the resentments of those who find nothing wrong in homosexual behavior, or B) capitulate on these teachings, and in doing so apparently undermine the substance of the Proclamation.

I don't think the Church went looking for this dilemma, or placed itself between  Scylla and Charybdis.  Sociocultural trends did that.

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

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.

I think the Church would dispute that its doctrines are a violation of human rights.  And I think it would be correct. 

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

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.

How is "only when they act on them" not a red line?

I understand your concern here, but I think the distinction is a reasonable one.

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

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 would disagree.  But it appears we are not arguing that point.

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

I don't actually want my attractions. I didn't choose them.

But isn't that congruent with what the Church teaches?  How can it be a "sin" to feel an attraction you have done nothing to foster?

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

I believe they were foisted upon me by circumstance and social programming.

I respect that.  I have a dear friend who has said almost the exact same thing.  But there are others for whom the attraction seems to be genuinely innate.  

The Church's position is . . . that it has no position as to the cause of same-sex attraction:

Quote

What causes same-sex attraction?

The Church has no position

 

The Church does not take a position on the cause of same-sex attraction. In 2006, Elder Dallin H. Oaks stated:

“The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction” (Interview With Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Lance B. Wickman: “Same-Gender Attraction,” 2006).

Absent definitive revelation on the matter, the Church is left to go with the best available data.  That data seems to be inconclusive as to causation.  For some, the attraction may well be - as you put it - "foisted upon {them} by circumstance and social programming," whereas others may well and truly feel they were "born that way."

In the end, however, we are left with the Church drawing a distinction between feelings/attractions/orientation and actual behavior.  That seems like the best way to go.  If you disagree, what better way would you propose?

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

By insisting that everyone is welcome, the Church is entirely disregarding the anguish felt by individuals possessing these attractions.

I don't think that's what the Church is doing.  The Church is trying to be kind and welcoming.  

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

It already tried and failed to cure people with the Evergreen programme (conversion therapy).

Well, more or less:

Quote

Evergreen International, Inc. was a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization located in Salt Lake City, Utah, whose stated mission was to assist "people who want to diminish same-sex attractions and overcome homosexual behavior". It adhered to Christian and particularly LDS teaching and supported the doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). The organization stated this task could be accomplished with the help of the Lord and, in some cases, psychological counseling. Evergreen was founded in 1989 as a grassroots organization by men who were seeking to deal with their homosexual feelings in ways congruent to the teachings of the LDS Church.
...
"Evergreen does not advocate any particular form of therapy"^[11] but did provide suggestions on how to choose a therapist and information on individual and group therapy. Evergreen stated that some people had lessened their same sex attractions by using the following therapies: gender wholeness, reparative, reorientation, and re-education.^[12] The website referenced the works of Joseph Nicolosi who says reparative therapy can help people "explore the source of their problem, develop nonerotic same-sex relationships that diminish the sexual attraction they feel toward men, become more secure in their gender-identity, and enjoy heterosexual relationships." The therapy is based on the view that homosexual attractions develop because of incomplete gender-identity development and defensive detachment from other males.^[13]

While some of these therapies offered to reduce same-sex attractions, Evergreen made clear that "therapy will likely not be a cure in the sense of erasing all homosexual feelings," but would "strengthen masculine identification" for men.^[12] The LDS Church has stated that it does not have a position on "scientific questions" such as the cause of homosexuality.^[14] Evergreen followed this stance.
...
Participants in Evergreen programs claimed success in diminishing same-sex attractions and overcoming homosexual behavior.^[22][23] As many as 40% of Evergreen members were in heterosexual marriages.^[24] Warren Throckmorton reviewed Understanding the meaning of change for married Latter-Day Saint men with histories of homosexual activity by J. W. Robinson. Robinson interviewed seven heterosexually married men who had been through Evergreen and previously identified as gay. They believed that they had a spiritual transformation which changed their orientation. They also stated that they were no longer troubled by feeling different or rejected by heterosexual men, emotional attraction to men, sexual attraction to men, feeling bad about same-sex desires, social isolation, or compulsive sexual thoughts and behaviors. Robinson found that their change came from a new understanding that prior same-sex attractions did not require them to be gay.^[25]
...
In January 2014, Evergreen International announced it would merge with North Star.

Neither Evergreen nor North Star are directed or controlled by the Church.

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

Instead, it now acknowledges that individuals are broken, yet it simply leaves them to their brokenness.

I don't understand.  AFAICS the Church never uses such risible terms as "broken," nor does it "acknowledge" such a thing.

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

What should the Church do? It should support affected individuals in addressing the underlying drivers of their attractions.

In what way?  The Church is not a mental health or therapeutic organization.  It is not situated to directly provide such diagnostic/treatment services.  The Church can provide assistance in the form of helping pay for therapy.  And North Star seems to be an option.

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

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.

Well, aren't those reasonable concerns? 

I have been involved in other conversations about how the Church should handle allegations of sexual abuse.  There are some who propose/demand that the Church establish some sort of private, "in-house" investigative agency, apparently as an auxilliary to (or even replacement for) law enforcement (see, e.g., here).  This, we are told, is what the Church "should" do.  The goal is noble, to be sure.  But I think the proposal creates more problems than it solves.

Might that not also happen with the Church trying to intervene "therapeutically" in the lives of its members?  Might that create more problems than it solves?  And in any event, would the Church taking on such a "therapeutic" role fall within its divine mandates?  

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

"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.

I think "pander" is much too strong.  I think the Church is bending over backwards to accommodate members who sincerely and in good faith struggle to reconcile SSA with the Restored Gospel.  But I don't think the Church is moving toward capitulation at all.  And capitulation is what "activist, minority groups" want.

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

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.

I don't think that's a fair characterization.  I think the Church is genuine in welcoming everyone.  But the standards of behavior, particularly as to matters of sexuality, are being maintained.  The Lord worked with people who were sinning in various ways.  We are, I think, mandated to emulate His behavior in this regard: 

Quote

30 But their scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples, saying, Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners?
31 And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.
32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

And here (emphases added) :

Quote

“We recognize that same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States and some other countries and that people have the right, if they choose, to enter into those, and we understand that. But that is not a right that exists in the Church. That’s the clarification.”

Further, he said, in the United States and in other countries around the world there needed to be some distinction between “what may be legal and what may be the law of the Church and the law of the Lord.”

“It’s a matter of being clear; it’s a matter of understanding right and wrong; it’s a matter of a firm policy that doesn’t allow for question or doubt,” Elder Christofferson explained. “We think it’s possible and mandatory, incumbent upon us as disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, to yield no ground in the matter of love and sympathy and help and brotherhood and serving in doing all we can for anybody; at the same time maintaining the standards He maintained.

“That was the Savior’s pattern. He always was firm in what was right and wrong. He never excused or winked at sin. He never redefined it. He never changed His mind. It was what it was and is what it is and that’s where we are, but His compassion, of course, was unexcelled and His desire and willingness and proactive efforts to minister, to heal, to bless, to lift, and to bring people toward the path that leads to happiness never ceased.”

Elder Christofferson said Church leaders will not yield on their efforts to help all people find what brings happiness, “but we know sin does not.”

“There’s no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ,” he said.

The Church will not capitulate on the Law of Chastity.  I really believe that.

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

"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.

Not really.  There are all sorts of people who are, for example, not aware of the "Gospel Topics" essays, but who then encounter questions about this or that (Mountain Meadows, the Priesthood Ban, etc.), and are surprised to find that the Church has already addressed these topics.  These folks were previously not "in the market" for these materials, but once they are the materials are there.

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

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.

I am sorry, but I do not know what you mean by "look another way" and "keep this stuff under wraps."  I am not sure what you are referencing here.

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

We should be teaching our congregations in fifth-Sunday lessons to increase understanding and generate open dialogue.

Okay.  Could you elaborate about that?  The Church already has a variety of materials about this topic:

Same-Gender Attraction (published in 1995)

When a Loved One Struggles with Same-Sex Attraction (published in 1999)

Same-Sex Attraction

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction

Same-Sex Attraction: Kindness, Inclusion, and Respect for All of God’s Children

Individuals

Quote

Does God love me?

God loves you completely

 

 

God gave His Son for you

 

 

Do I belong as a member of the Church?

There is a place for you

 

 

We want you here

 

 

How can I participate?

 

 

Lifting others

 

 

Everyone has gifts

 

 

What causes same-sex attraction?

The Church has no position

 

 

Is feeling same-sex attraction a sin?

Attraction itself is not sin

 

 

How do I know if I’m gay?

Things to think about

 

 

Should I come out or tell others?

Things to think about

 

 

How can I talk to my parents or bishop about same-sex attraction?

A few helpful tips

 

 

If I’m faithful enough, will my same-sex attraction go away?

Faithfulness and attraction

 

 

Does the Savior really understand what I’m going through?

The Savior understands you

 

 

The Savior has divine empathy

 

 

Who am I?

You are a child of God

 

 

Identity and labels

 

 

Are God’s promised blessings available to gay people?

God’s blessings are available to everyone

 

 

Does the plan of salvation apply to gay people?

God has a plan for your happiness

 

 

What is the Atonement of Jesus Christ and how does it help me?

Why we need the Atonement of Jesus Christ

 

 

The healing and strengthening power of Jesus Christ

 

 

Changing hearts

 

 

Why isn’t God answering my prayers?

God hears your prayers

 

 

What should I do if I am depressed, anxious, or have suicidal thoughts?

Crisis helplines

 

 

Depression and suicide

 

 

Feelings are real

 

 

Talk to someone you trust

 

 

Compassion is key

 

 

Does the law of chastity apply to those who experience same-sex attraction?

Chastity applies to everyone

 

 

Chastity and pornography

 

 

Repentance

Family and Friends

Quote

My loved one is gay. What should I do?

Start with love

 

 

Seek spiritual guidance

 

 

Build understanding

 

 

Balancing love and law

 

 

Talking about depression and suicide

 

 

What are the best ways to show Christlike love?

Lifting others

 

 

Serving and loving your neighbor

 

 

Respecting differences

 

 

How do I understand and use the terms and words associated with the LGBTQ community?

Terminology

 

 

Sexual orientation and gender identity

Leaders

Quote

What do I need to understand about same-sex attraction?

Frequently asked questions

 

 

What causes same-sex attraction?

No official position

 

 

Is same-sex attraction a sin?

Feelings are not sinful

 

 

I have an appointment with a member who identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or experiences same-sex attraction. What should I do or say?

Show patience and love

 

 

Validate the reality of feelings

 

 

How can I include or reach out to those who experience same-sex attraction in my ward or stake?

Lead by example

 

 

Express love, compassion, and outreach

 

 

How can I help those in my ward or stake feel that they are loved, valued, and needed?

People need to feel needed

 

 

How do I minister to the “one” in the case of LGBTQ members?

Lift and strengthen

 

 

Foster a relationship with Christ

 

 

Will the Church ever change its doctrine and sanction same-sex marriage?

Doctrine of marriage is eternal

 

 

Communicate doctrine with love

 

 

How can I help members who identify as gay or experience same-sex attraction feel loved, welcomed, and inspired at church?

Allow for growth and responsibility

 

 

Should I recommend professional counseling to gay members and/or their families?

Therapy can strengthen healthy patterns of living

 

 

How do I help members who experience gender dysphoria or identify as transgender?

Inclusion and kindness

 

 

How can I support members and their families who may be experiencing depression or thoughts of suicide?

Compassion and trust

 

 

Tools and resources

 

 

Are there restrictions on Church participation for members who identify as gay or experience same-sex attraction?

Church participation

 

 

Why shouldn’t leaders encourage heterosexual marriage for those who experience same-sex attraction or identify as gay?

Marriage is not a remedy

 

 

What is the counsel about acting on sexual impulses?

Living a chaste life

 

 

Parents have the primary responsibility

 

 

Experimentation outside of marriage

Member Stories

Quote

Laurie’s Story

 

Laurie’s Husband, Dallas

 

Laurie’s Friend

 

Laurie’s Bishop

 

Ricardo

Ricardo’s Story

 

Ricardo’s Wife, Elizabeth

 

Ricardo’s Bishop

 

Ricardo’s Friend and Coworker

 

Mackintosh Family

The Mackintosh Family’s Story

 

Scott’s Story

 

Tonya

Tonya’s Story

 

Tonya’s Son

 

Tonya’s Bishop

Videos

Quote

Purpose of This Website

Let Us Be at the Forefront

The Gospel Is a Gospel of Hope

No Blessings Denied the Faithful

The Savior Understands Me

Focus on the One

Is There a Place for Me?

LGBT People Who Live God’s Laws Can Fully Participate in the Church

The Savior’s Grace

Love and Law

Lifting Others

Feelings Are Real and Authentic

God Loveth His Children

Impact on Families

Being an Agent to Act

What Needs to Change

Tonya’s Story

Ricardo’s Story

The Mackintosh’s Story

Laurie’s Story

Elizabeth’s Take on Love and Understanding

Ricardo’s Journey through His Art

About

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

This website is an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on same-sex attraction.

What is the purpose of this website?

 

 

Why does the site use the term same-sex attraction?

 

 

Why does the website not discuss gender dysphoria or transgender issues?

 

 

What resources are available in other languages?

Are you saying that these materials are insufficient?  If so, in what way?  

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

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.

Well, this is a fair point.  Perhaps more Fifth Sunday lessons should be devoted to this topic.

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

"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.

Okay.  I don't think that's a fair characterization.  I think the Church is trying hard to be both candid and empathetic.  

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

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.

How is that a problem?  If they have improved and refined their understanding and perspective on such things, isn't that good?  Why condemn them for it?

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

They may as well say, "You may join us if you leave your sins at the door." It's not that simple.

You've lost me here.  I really don't understand what you are saying here.

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

You can't leave your identity at the door.  Issues of identity need to be addressed rather than fudged or conveniently sidestepped.

So sexual orientation is, in your view, an "identity?"  What if that is not the only way to look at it?  Consider this:

Quote

Who am I?

You are a child of God

 

How you define yourself may change throughout your life, but first and most important, you are a beloved child of God. He is the Father of your spirit (see Numbers 16:22; 27:16; Hebrews 12:9).

In our mortal lives, we may be given or assign ourselves many labels. Some labels may describe affiliations or a stage of life, and other labels may reflect physical characteristics like tall, short, brunette, bald, or redheaded.

Labels have power. In an October 1983 general conference address, then Elder Thomas S. Monson described his firsthand experience with the power of labels:

“Sometimes cities and nations bear special labels of identity. Such was a cold and very old city in eastern Canada. The missionaries called it ‘Stony Kingston.’ There had been but one convert to the Church in six years, even though missionaries had been continuously assigned there during the entire interval. No one baptized in Kingston. …

“While I was praying about and pondering this sad dilemma, for my responsibility then as a mission president required that I pray and ponder about such things, my wife called to my attention an excerpt from the book, A Child’s Story of the Prophet Brigham Young, by Deta Petersen Neeley (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1959, p. 36). She read aloud that Brigham Young entered Kingston, Ontario, on a cold and snow-filled day. He labored there about thirty days and baptized forty-five souls. Here was the answer. If the missionary Brigham Young could accomplish this harvest, so could the missionaries of today.

“Without providing an explanation, I withdrew the missionaries from Kingston, that the cycle of defeat might be broken. Then the carefully circulated word: ‘Soon a new city will be opened for missionary work, even the city where Brigham Young proselyted and baptized forty-five persons in thirty days.’ The missionaries speculated as to the location. Their weekly letters pleaded for the assignment to this Shangri-la. More time passed. Then four carefully selected missionaries—two of them new, two of them experienced—were chosen for this high adventure. The members of the small branch pledged their support. The missionaries pledged their lives. The Lord honored both.

“In the space of three months, Kingston became the most productive city of the Canadian Mission. The grey limestone buildings still stood, the city had not altered its appearance, the population remained constant. The change was one of attitude. The label of doubt yielded to the label of faith” (“Labels,” Oct. 1983 general conference).

Throughout our lives, aspects of our identities change. We inevitably change from young to old. Our views may change, and, along with those views, we may change our affiliations.

Our identity may be in flux, but there is one aspect of who we are that is eternally fixed. We will always be children of God.

Identity and labels

 

We should exercise care in how we label ourselves. Labels should be used thoughtfully and with the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Labels can affect how we think about ourselves and how others treat us and may expand or limit our ability to follow God’s plan for our happiness. Labels may impact our goals, sense of identity, and the people we call friends. If labels get in the way of our eternal progress, we can choose to change them. Elder Dallin H. Oaks explained in a 2006 interview:

“I think it is an accurate statement to say that some people consider feelings of same-gender attraction to be the defining fact of their existence. … We have the agency to choose which characteristics will define us; those choices are not thrust upon us.

“The ultimate defining fact for all of us is that we are children of Heavenly Parents, born on this earth for a purpose, and born with a divine destiny. Whenever any of those other notions, whatever they may be, gets in the way of that ultimate defining fact, then it is destructive and it leads us down the wrong path” (Interview With Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Lance B. Wickman: “Same-Gender Attraction,” 2006).

If one experiences same-sex attraction, he or she can choose whether to use a sexual identity label. Identifying oneself as gay or lesbian is not against Church policy or doctrine; however, it may have undesired consequences in the way one is treated. No true follower of Christ is justified in withholding love because you decide to identify in this way.

President Russell M. Nelson reminded us: “One day you will be asked if you took upon yourself the name of Christ and if you were faithful to that covenant” (“Identity, Priority, and Blessings,” Ensign, Aug. 2001, 10).

As Paul expressed it: “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:27–28).

One day, at the end of this short mortal journey, we will return to the presence of our Heavenly Parents. One day, all other labels will be swallowed up in our eternal identity as children of God.

Are God’s promised blessings available to gay people?

God’s blessings are available to everyone

 

Elder Gary E. Stevenson:

“All of us look at our lives sometimes and try to evaluate where are we; where am I in my life? I’ve always said that when you begin to compare yourself one with another, it either leads to discouragement or it leads to pride. Neither of those are good, but that’s often what happens when people began comparing. They start to think, ‘My lot in life is better, or my lot in life is much worse.’ And so it’s not a constructive exercise for us to try to compare our circumstance to another. Blessings come in the near term; blessings come in the long term. Sometimes blessings are in store for us, I believe, after we pass through the veil, in our post-mortal existence. And so we’re in a very finite space right now, and in this finite space, it’s just not beneficial to try to compare adversity that we’ve had or to try to compare the blessings that we have.

“We remember when Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden, one of the things that was introduced when they left was thorns and thistles, and we all have them in our lives. But, we can have confidence that all of those can be overcome, whatever those might be that are placed in front of us. The Lord tells us that there’s going to be adversity along the way, and he even suggests to us that our afflictions will be consecrated for our gain. Now sometimes we have to wait some years for this, but, ultimately, we can be assured that the promise of eternal life is for everyone. Everyone will be rewarded for their faithfulness equally. If you endure to the end, you’ll be blessed. It might be hard today and tomorrow and next month, but it will not always be hard. You can do this.

“As you exercise your faith in Jesus Christ in His Atonement, there will be sometimes adversity and trials that will come to us that seem like they’re almost too hard to bear. But then he says, “Nevertheless, be of good cheer for I will lead you along.’ That’s a promise from the Lord. Be of good cheer in the midst of your adversity; be of good cheer for I will lead you along. And I bear testimony that Jesus Christ will lead you along in any adversity that you have.”

Does the plan of salvation apply to gay people?

God has a plan for your happiness

 

God’s plan is perfect, even if our current understanding of His plan is not. Through the Savior Jesus Christ, we can find hope and healing despite life’s many challenges.

God has a plan for our happiness. He sent us to earth to learn from our circumstances. He sent us here to make choices.

We lived with God before we were born. We knew Him, and He knows us. He knows our strengths and weaknesses, our dreams and our fears. Mortal life is our personal journey of getting to know God again. He knows our great potential and who we can become. More than anything, God loves us. (See 2 Nephi 2:25.)

We may have forgotten the time we spent with God, but He hasn’t forgotten us. He calls prophets to remind us why we’re here and how to become like Him. (See Luke 11:49.)

We are here for a wise purpose. God sent us to this time and place. He knew the challenges we would face, the choices we would be required to make. God will not force any of His children to obey His laws. He wants us to choose for ourselves, whatever our circumstances, to learn from experience and to become as He is. But God won’t force us to obey Him (see 2 Nephi 2:16).

As followers of Jesus Christ, we learn to listen to the Spirit and walk in the light of Christ. We can discern what is right or wrong, despite physical appetites and temptations that are contrary to true principles. And by choosing right, we grow stronger. At times it may seem we are at war with ourselves, but overcoming opposition is part of the plan to make us stronger. Opposition is not comfortable, but it is necessary.

“For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, … righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad” (2 Nephi 2:11).

When we sin—and we all do—we can repent. The process of repentance helps cleanse our souls and allows us to grow closer to God. Repentance is not a punishment. It is a gift, purchased in Gethsemane and on Golgotha by our Savior Jesus Christ.

“But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed” (Isaiah 53:5).

The sacrifice of our Savior—which we call the Atonement of Jesus Christ—is more than payment for our sins. We can turn to the Savior to heal our heart, to strengthen our spirit, to find peace. We can lay our burdens at His feet, and He will take them up. He is our Redeemer. He knows us.

“And he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities” (Alma 7:12).

This seems quite at odds with what you seem to be accusing the Church of doing (or not doing).

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

"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.

Which is fine.  But pejorative terms can give offense.  We can avoid that risk by not using them.  There are plenty of neutral/benign alternatives.

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

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.

That can well be true for you and your stewardship.  But there seem to be plenty of people who are outside of your stewardship who do feel that their SSA is something they were "born with."  

Genetics.  Hormones.  Environmental factors.  Sociocultural factors ("social programming" as you put it).  Family dynamics.  Personal choices.  One, some or all of these may combine in different ways for different people.  

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

"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.

Okay.  How is that distinguishable from, say, expecting a single person to constrain their sexual behavior?  Or expecting a married person to be faithful to his wife?

I think the Church wants us all to "{put} off the natural man" however it manifests, and "{become} a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father."  (Mosiah 3:19.)

I have never felt "same-sex attracted."  However, I have plenty of sins, temptations, flaws, weaknesses, foibles, and so on.  I believe the Lord and His Church wants me to control these, to overcome them, to repent of them, to avoid repeating them.    Isn't that a good thing?

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

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.

That's wonderful to hear.  But how does that work out to be a basis for faulting the Church?  It sounds like you are fulfilling the instruction given in D&C 58:

Quote

26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.
27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;
28 For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.

Has the Church worked against you in these endeavors?  Punished you for doing these things?  Discouraged you from doing them?  

Or are you upset that the Church has not adopted and implemented these things as a formal programme in the Church?

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

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 don't think that's fair.  I think most active and observant members of the Church are far too busy being . . . far too busy.  We can and ought to do what you have done.  

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

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.

That's not quite "pretending to be perfect."

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

"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.

That's an understandable point.  

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

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.

What is it that you which to "say in the matter" that imperils your membership?

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

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.

I don't follow.  Are you saying that the Church should be more strident in denouncing/condemning these "unpleasant feelings"?

I really appreciate you taking time to formulate your thoughts.  I hope I have not given offense.  I feel I am learning from you.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 17, 2021 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

@smac97 I am familiar with Ashe's 4 legged stool, as well as several others with varying number of legs. I generally see two problems with these kinds of discernment frameworks:

1) As @Teancum noted, different people using the same framework come to different conclusions.

Sure.  But I think the likelihood is considerably lower.  A four-legged stool is going to be much more stable than a stool with one, two or three legs.

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

These types of frameworks never seem to offer a solid idea for deciding who/what is right when different people come to different conclusions.

I think it does.  Look for "outliers."  If what you are concluding is incompatible with the counsel given from living prophets and apostles, then that's a pretty good indicator that your personal moral compass is askew.

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

2) Unless, as you do, the framework relies on the combined voice of the Q15 to resolve the discrepancies. In that case, they tend, as you do, to assume that the combined voice of the Q15 is sufficiently reliable as a source of truth without discussing some of the examples (like the now disavowed reasons for the priesthood and temple ban) where the combined voice of the Q15 (over decades/generations) seems to be in error.

The exception that proves the rule, IMO.  I don't accept or reject a rule by looking to irregularities at its margins.  

If we dispense with the notion of infallibility, then following the Brethren becomes markedly easier.

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

Until these kinds of frameworks can provide a reliable (maybe infallible) means of resolving differences between "legs" and between different people applying the same methodology, the question of whether or not there is a single, eternal truth that man can know seems unanswered, and we are left, as @CV75 suggests, to muddle along individually as best we can.

I think the four-legged stool helps quite a bit in the muddling.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I ask a lot of questions like these because I am looking for facts from my interlocutor's perspective. For example, when someone says the steps are flawed, I would like to know what steps they are referring to. Certainly not a test or a trap, and they do often go unanswered.

Ok I will try to answer in a bit.  But let's start with Alma 32 and Moroni 10:3-5.  Certainly those were at the crux of my search for a testimony of the LDS Truth cliams.

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Ok I will try to answer in a bit.  But let's start with Alma 32 and Moroni 10:3-5.  Certainly those were at the crux of my search for a testimony of the LDS Truth cliams.

And where were they flawed?

[Olmec Donald]

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

I'm assuming the thought experiment allows the Church to still have the keys and ordinances to exalt the children of God.

I assume so too.

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

The thought experiment also seems to be exclusive to LGBTQ experience.

My basic assumption is that God is good, God is fair, and God is no respecter of persons.  So, no special treatment that anyone else wouldn't get.

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

There are many others being prayerfully led out of the Church, so what is the exalting plan for each cohort?

I don't know, but that doesn't mean God doesn't know.  My basic outlook on the exalting plan might be described as "long-path free-will universalist". 

Let me provide an example of God having figured out a solution to a multitude-damning dilemma long before any of us did:

Up until September of 1842 the Christian world had no "plan B" for the millions who died without baptism, who would therefore be denied entry into the Kingdom of God and condemned to an eternity in hell.  They had no choice but to worship a God who was obviously fundamentally unfair, or be a heretic.  Then along came Joseph Smith's teachings about baptism for the dead and proxy temple ordinances.  Well okay Joseph's still a heretic to many, but his teachings on the subject change everything, revealing that God was NOT fundamentally unfair when it comes to baptism being the requirement for entry into His kingdom.  There is a way provided such that nobody gets cheated out of salvation, and proxy exaltation ordinances are included. This new paradigm (plan B, ordinance work for the dead) saves Christianity from being fundamentally unjust.  And the coming forth of a corresponding paradigm shift is what I believe, or at least hope, will be the case on the topic of LGBTQ members.  And I think the highly intelligent Good Shepherd has whatever plans He might need for anyone else as well. 

Since the LDS church has an open canon, it is arguably in a very good position to be where new paradigms are introduced (as was the case with baptism for the dead).  But imo it is worthwhile to acknowledge the possibility implied by the story of Balaam's donkey:  The donkey was right about which direction to go, and was beaten for it three times (by the prophet himself), when actually the prophet was wrong all along.  That was arguably limited-scope bottom-up revelation, in a situation where the prophet's eyes were not opened (for what reason is unclear to me).  Apparently it all ended with Balaam and donkey reconciled.  That'll do, donkey.  That'll do. 

Edited November 17, 2021 by Olmec Donald

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

So you know it all apparently?

 

This is an example of why I agree more and more with Christopher Hitchens. Religion poisons everything.

From Daniel Peterson's blog:

Quote

For your “Christopher Hitchens Memorial ‘How Religion Poisons Everything’ File”

 APRIL 29, 2020 BY DAN PETERSON

I offer just a bit more from Paul McFate, 52 Good Reasons to Go to Church, Besides the Obvious Ones (Chicago: ACTA Publications, 2004).  Like those in the previous entry that draws from Paul McFate’s book, these scientifically-supported benefits of church attendance are excellent materials for those who want to keep their Christopher Hitchens Memorial “How Religion Poisons Everything” Files growing at a healthy pace:

• Improved Self-Image (19).  One study surveyed the residents of four 200-bed nursing homes in New York City.  Contrasting public religious participation with “intrinsic religiosity” — that is considering oneself religious without any actual participation in religious actitities — they found that the former had a distinctly positive effect upon how people felt about themselves in their senior years.  [M. C. Commerford and M. Reznikoff, “Relationship of Religion and Perceived Social Support to Self-Esteem and Depression in Nursing Home Residents,” Journal of Psychology 130 (1996): 35-50.]
• Higher Self-Esteem Among Teens (24).  A study of nearly two thousand Catholic teenagers in North America and Europe found that those who had grown up attending church had a higher level of self-esteem than those did who lacked such a religious commitment.  [C. B. Smith, A. J. Weigert, and D. L. Thomas, “Self-Esteem and Religiosity: An Analysis of Catholic Adolescents from Five Cultures,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 18 (1979): 51-60.]
• Boosted Immune System (20).  Curiously, according to one study, the incidence of tuberculosis was higher among those who didn’t attend church than among those who did.  Consistent with an earlier study, “the more frequent the attendance, the more pronounced the effect.”  [G. W. Comstock, H. Abbey, and F. E. Lundin, “The Non-Official Census as a Basic Tool for Epidemiologic Observations in Washington County, Maryland,” in The Community as an Epidemiologic Laboratory: A Casebook of Community Studies (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1970), 73-97.]
• Improved Personal Satisfaction and Happiness (21).  A 1976 article compared the personal satisfaction and happiness of 830 people in sixteen different kinds of voluntary association, including but not limited to churches.  Only church affiliation proved a reliable predictor of happiness and satisfaction.  [S. J. Cutler, “Memberships in Different Types of Voluntary Associations and Psychological Well-Being,” The Gerontologist 16 (1976): 335-339.]
• Reduced Stress (22).  Several large studies indicate that committed religious people handle stress better, on the whole, than do those without a religious commitment, with great religious commitment showing a greater effect.  One 1991 article contends that “new stressful life events and health problems have a negative impact on mental health that is buffered among frequent church attenders.”  [R. W. Williams, D. B. Larson, R. E. Buckler, R. C. Hackman, and C. M. Pale, “Religion and Psychological Stress in a Community Sample,” Social Science Medicine 32 (1991): 1257-1262.]
• Decreased Juvenile Delinquency (23).  Using a national survey of 1,799 young men below the age of eighteen, R. Stark, L. Kent, and D. P. Doyle found that the more religious the young men were, the less likely they were to become delinquents.  “The effect was notably stronger in communities where religious commitment was more prevalent, suggesting that where there is a critical mass of church attendance in a community, the likelihood of juvenile delinquency is reduced.”  [R. Stark, L. Kent, and D. P. Doyle, “Religion and Delinquency: The Ecology of a ‘Lost’ Relationship,” Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency 19 (1982): 4-24.]

And: “Religion poisons everything” (1)

Quote

Christopher Hitchens famously and repeatedly claimed that “religion poisons everything.”

 

His claim was and is false beyond any reasonable dispute.

 

Here, for example, is one of the stained glass windows from the magnificent Cathedral Basilica of Our Lady of Chartres in France (the Basilique Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Chartres).

 

Religion didn’t poison this marvelous piece of art.  Religious faith created it:

 

“Religion poisons everything” (2)

Quote

It’s difficult to imagine John Milton’s Paradise Lost (or his Paradise Regained) without religion.

Perhaps, some atheist apologist might respond, Milton might have created a great secular poem, instead.  But a secular Paradise Lost is also quite difficult to imagine.

And, pray tell, how exactly did religion poison the Paradise Lost that we do have?

Yet, if Christopher Hitchens had been right that religion poisons everything, it must, logically, have poisoned Paradise Lost — which is generally regarded as one of the great works of literature in the English language.

“Religion poisons everything” (4)

Quote

Those who’re interested in evaluating the claim advanced by the late Christopher Hitchens that “religion poisons everything” might want to take a look, if they haven’t already, at the remarkable 2006 film Amazing Grace:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0454776/

It will offer them an occasion to consider how his Christianity poisoned William Wilberforce and how religion poisoned the British parliamentary fight over ending Britain’s involvement in the slave trade.

And on and on and on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

And where were they flawed?

Moroni assumes that the book is true and if you get a negative answer you apparently do not have enough faith and did not ask with sincere intent.

Alma 32 is better but it is similar to methods others use to determine truth and it results in conflicting results. Also it is not testable and unique to the individual.

[Teancum]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From Daniel Peterson's blog:

And: “Religion poisons everything” (1)

“Religion poisons everything” (2)

“Religion poisons everything” (4)

And on and on and on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Question is whether the trade offs are worth it and whether humans would be better off without it especially as we mature as a species.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Question is whether the trade offs are worth it

"Religion poisons everything" seems to to not contemplate "trade offs."  No acknowledgement of the merits of religion.

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

and whether humans would be better off without it especially as we mature as a species.

Right.  Atheism has a much better track record.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kevin Christensen]

On 11/16/2021 at 12:51 PM, MrShorty said:

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.

The way to properly diagnose sex addiction involves reading the best science and experience to actually understand where and when and how the tool applies and therefore, where and where it can be helpful.  When properly diagnosed, the problem can be treated. "When we obtain any blessing from God it is by obedience to the law upon which the blessing is predicated."  That means, if I have a broken leg, confirmed by experienced symptoms, close examination, verified x-rays, rather than speculated about by amateurs online, and I want it to heal, I have to set it, cast it to immobilize it, and expect at least six weeks of lifestyle limitations.  If I just try to ignore it or treat it with pain killers, or claim that diagnosis of the causes of pain by angry spouses has proven unreliable, nothing will change in my leg, except for the worse.  There are people who still believe that COVID is a hoax, and that the vaccines are unproven and are a greater risk than catching (let alone passing on) a potentially life threatening disease.  Some nurses report being raged at by dying patients who insist that what is happening cannot be real.  Some seek safety denial or in rumors about horse dewormer as protection.  The solution is not just to consult people who are talking the issues but to consult those who really know what they are talking about. Seek out of the best books, words of wisdom, not seek from the internet, speculation and opinion.

Rather than arguing in Internet room, and selecting a few anecdotes from which to generalize about a complex subject which has been carefully studied, and lived through, and recovered from, by thousands.  I recommend books like Don't Call it Love by Patrick Carnes, Facing the Shadow by Patrick Carnes, Hope and Freedom for Sexual Addicts and Their Partners by Milton Magness, Real Hope and True Freedom: Understanding and Coping with Sex Addiction by Milton Magness and Marsha Means, and for partners of addicts, Barbara Steffens and Marsha Means, Your Sexually Addicted Spouse, which offers the Trauma model (rather than codepence), and a path to healing.

The following criteria have been established as indicators of sex addiction.  
1. Loss of Control —Recurrent failure to resist sexual impulses.  
2. Compulsive Behavior—More extensive/longer sexual acting out than intended.  
3. Efforts to Stop—Ongoing, but unsuccessful, efforts to stop, reduce, or control behavior. 
4. Loss of Time—Inordinate time spent obtaining sex, being sexual, or recovering from sexual experiences. 
5. Preoccupation—Feeling preoccupied with sexual behavior and/or preparatory activities. 
6. Inability to Fulfill Obligations—Acting out takes significant time away from obligations: occupational, academic, domestic, or social. 
7. Continuance—Continuation of behavior despite consequences: Risk of VD, Abortions/unwanted pregnancies,  Lost partner or had marital problems, Career problems,  Lost rights to be with children, Risk arrest
8. Escalation—Tolerance - More frequency or intensity of behavior is needed over time to obtain the desired result. 
9. Losses—Deliberately limiting social, occupational, or recreational activities to keep time open for acting out. 
10. Withdrawal—Distress, restlessness, or irritability if unable to do behavior (withdrawal) 

In Emily Pearson's Dancing with Crazy, she reports on a fight that she had with Stephen, just before he left the family, to go to New York City.

Quote

The night he left, we finally had our first really big fight. It started over something stupid but opened the floodgates to years of resentment and pain. While I always practiced denial and avoidance, Steven was a master in the art of a particular brand of verbal combat that I had never encountered. Before we got married I had absolutely no experience with it, and it had never once left me standing on my feet. I’d cowered emotionally from him during our marriage, and this night was no exception. He’d been trained to open his mouth and go for the jugular, which he did masterfully. He ripped everything about me to shreds – up one side and down the other. He was cruel and he was thorough. It was my fault. All of it. If only I wasn’t such a failure, if only everyone I knew didn’t think I was pitiful and pathetic, if only I’d worn lingerie, if only, if only, if only… If only I’d worn lingerie? Seriously? If he hadn’t been gay I wouldhave worn lingerie. I had tried. I had done the very best I could. And you know what? So had he. Unfortunately, the very best we could do had sucked. I stared into his red face, into his bulging, bloodshot eyes, and I saw it. Underneath the blame, underneath the rage, Steven was terrified. I hadn’t forgiven him and chosen to stay married like he’d expected, and he’d lost everything. He said that I’d known this was a possibility when we got married and now I was bailing at the first sign of trouble. But this was more accurately the millionth sign of trouble, and while, yes, I had known it was a possibility before we got married, I had still trusted him not to do what he had done. And it wasn’t like he had cheated on me once or twice, the actual number was staggering. Besides,he was gay! We had absolutely no business being married anymore. Neither of us would survive it. As he screamed at me almost incoherently, about how he was a gay man and I wouldn’t let him be a gay man and his children didn’t know who he really was and I was the one who really broke our temple covenants by divorcing him, I became aware that he was screaming at something so much bigger than just me alone. I think he was also screaming at his parents, his church, his society, his God, his life… He screamed until I thought he was going to have a stroke. And then he left. It was finally over. And I was left completely alone with two children, a mortgage, and no idea what the hell I was going to do.

That particular incident is not recounted in Stephen's Confessions of a Mormon Boy, published in Sunstone.  Not something he chose to confess.  Not part of "a searching and fearless moral inventory," (Step 4) removing the beams from his own eye.  Notably the blaming of his wife, the "if only I'd worn lingerie" moment despite his being gay.  He does report that as he signed the divorce papers and left to become a male escort, that he said, "Nothing I do will come to close loving you."   Stephen is clearly gay.  But even so, it is easy to map his behavior in both his account and Emily's to these 10 criteria for sex addiction.  I quoted these accounts in my Square Two essay.

Quote

 First consider Steven’s account of the crucial disclosures of his sexual acting-out during his marriage to Emily.  As Steven tells the story in his Confessions, Emily saw him typing on the computer and asked him whom he was writing. [11]

“No one.”

“Are you having an affair?

I couldn’t lie anymore. “Yes.”

“With whom?

“Several.”

“How many men?”

“Twenty.”

“It’s over Steven, it’s over.”
Emily reports the same events in Dancing with Crazy, but with more detail. After Emily confronts Steven--and displaying far more personality and feeling than he reports--he finally confesses:

“Last fall, in October, I kind of went on a six-month sex binge. I haven’t done anything for the last few months because…” he looked at the floor, “well because I lost my cell phone service.”

I stared at him. “What do you mean a sex binge?”

“I contacted men on the Internet and we hooked up. Em, it didn’t mean anything. I’m not in love with anyone or anything. But it was a lot.”

“How many?”

“At least twenty.”
Emily mentally does the math on that six-month binge and considers the implications based on different estimates of frequency.  Then she asks:
 
“Were you at least careful?”

“Most of the time. Em, I didn’t even have sex with them all. Some of it was just… I don’t know… fooling around.”

My brain was stuck back on his “most of the time” response.  Most of the time? There is no f---ing most of the time! All it takes is once.  One time! My dad and sister both died of AIDS and he actually had the nerve to tell me “most of the time?” [12]
These relevant details, among many others, are missing from Confessions of a Mormon Boy.   Why?  Drama is based on conflict, and this report is rich in dramatic tension. Why not use it in the play? Fales’s self-interest is conspicuous in both the omissions here and elsewhere, as well as in the stories of failed therapy and of an unsympathetic church court that he selects for detailed inclusion.  It seems to me that for all its frankness and disclosure, Confessions is not so much an admission of guilt and an acceptance of responsibility as it is a declaration of innocence, displacing the guilt and pain of his actions to societal causes. He depicts LDS cultural conditioning as the root cause of his conflicted behavior before and during his marriage. He puts that social conditioning in an irreconcilable and irredeemable conflict with what he considers his God-given sexual nature. 

Being gay does not mean one cannot also be a sex addict.  I know people who have adopted the life that do not strike me that way at all.  But becoming a male escort does not strike me as a good way to treat that addicted aspect of his sexuality. It was not about love, being with a special life partner.  Shortly after my mission, I was browsing in the basement of the Cosmic Airplane bookstore in SLC, looking at old issues of Dialogue, when a young man, shorter than I was, approached me and put his hand on my crotch and said, "Excuse me," and gazed into my eyes.  I said, "I certainly hope so," and he abruptly left.  At the time, I was rather bewildered by this.  He was clearly gay, but nowadays, I do not think that being gay was why he approached me in that place and in that way.  Why not hang out at the Sun Tavern, for instance? There is a substantial gay culture even in SLC.  Or why not go to San Francisco?  He did not know me, did not see me as his potential soul mate, did not want to get to know me as a person, but was clearly looking to hook up with someone, perhaps anyone.  Now, after spending many years in recovery, and personally knowing a great many other addicts in recovery, I think he there, making that approach as sex addicted, which was why he was engaging in a high risk, clearly compulsive behavior.  In recovery groups, I have heard a great many life stories with all sorts of other examples of high risk compulsive behavior, as well as preoccupation, failure to stop, etc.  I have my own experiences in that vein, which is why I recognized myself in the diagnostic criteria when I read Carnes for the first time.

An excellent DVD on addiction in general (see Pleasure Unwoven: An Explanation of the Brain Disease of Addiction, 2010) makes this case for the disease model:

Organ + Damage = Symptoms
For example, Bone + Fracture = Pain
Heal the Damage to remove the Symptoms

What happens to the Damage if you only attack the symptoms, let alone if you just decide that the symptoms are just "the way I am?"

Regarding 10 times a year, and conflict between higher desire and lesser desire spouses, that sort of thing can have lots of causes, circumstances, and therefore lots of solutions.  I know intimately about morning sickness, migraines, and undiagnosed endymitriosis, knee problems, cramps, and exhaustion and absence from the bedroom due to 12 night shifts at a hospital and the demands of having children in the house, and all sorts of health and emotional issues.  Those things are not the source of sex addiction.  Obviously.  They may be part of the environment for couples and individuals, which they must navigate, but that is not the same thing.  And single LDS men and women who strive to keep their temple covenants do not see just 10 times a year as a viable option in their present lives.  I've been without for over a year several times during recovery and have discovered that abstenance can be an essential part of healing early on, and not an intolerable and unjust burden after recovery.  If a person decides to look at the future as an unending whole, feeling the weight of eternity on the present, like the burden of Atlas, "I carry that which cannot be carried, and in my body my heart would like to break," or, with a radically different experience of the same moments, as merely "One day at a time."  "Thine afflictions are but a small moment,... the son of Man hath descended below them all..." Almost twenty years ago, I could have taken a different path, the road not taken offering a lot more frequency with a different but more HDS.  But I chose recovery, to do "Whatever it takes" to recover and make things work in my marriage, to be a better choice when my wife considered me, and one of the consequences of that choice is that a few weeks ago, I baptized and confirmed a granddaughter. There is much else on the path not chosen that would not have happened on my current path.  

What would I sacrifice for that moment with a granddaughter, let alone being in the temple for my daughter's marriage, and in the circle when she was blessed, and much else?  And what if the sacrifice is accepting such a path to involves healing, so that the sacrifice is not of the self, but of a disease that wears its sufferers like a mask? My burden is light, says Jesus.  But to feel that lightness, you have to take on the burden and walk the path.

What happens to the Damage from a disease if you only attack the symptoms, let alone if you just decide that the symptoms are just "the way I am?"  What happens to the progress of a disease in a society, or an individual if you decide it doesn't exist? Would it look anything like a pandemic of the unvaccinated, where people take their chances on consequences, and some suffer because they did not lift their eyes and look because they did not believe it would heal them?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited November 17, 2021 by Kevin Christensen

[MrShorty]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

If what you are concluding is incompatible with the counsel given from living prophets and apostles, then that's a pretty good indicator that your personal moral compass is askew.

Why assume that my moral compass is askew and not theirs? Or, perhaps more important to this thread, why assume that moral compass of those LDS LGBT who leave the Church (shall we assume it is a vast majority as @kimpearson claims?) is askew? After all, as a solidly cis-hetero man, I have no real skin in this game, so I maybe shouldn't trust my own moral compass on this. If the OP is correct that a vast majority of LDS LGBT+ people believe that God is leading them away from the Church, then I feel it appropriate to wonder whose moral compass is really askew.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

If we dispense with the notion of infallibility, then following the Brethren becomes markedly easier.

This is venturing further down the tangent to the main idea of the thread, but I wonder exactly how you see this working for you? For me, I can see one way that dispensing with infallibility helps follow the brethren -- it makes it easier to pick and choose which practices and beliefs I accept (easier to be a cafeteria Mormon). There are often various social pressures -- entering a homoromantic relationship will cause many members to look askance at you and, subject to the whims of leadership roulette, may lead to a place of partial fellowship. And, if an LDS LGBT person decides the brethren are wrong about SSM and they choose to marry, they will almost certainly be pushed into a place of partial fellowship (or even full withdrawal of membership).

[MrShorty]

@Kevin Christensen It is a significant tangent -- I'm not sure how far to pursue this away from the main thrust of the thread. In addition to those you list who promote a sexual addiction model, what do you make of those experts who argue against a sexual addiction model? Does "following the science" require one to accept a sexual addiction model, or is there a way to understand the science that does not lead to an addiction model?

To illustrate how I think the sex addiction model does a poor job of distinguishing between normal and pathological behavior, I could compare myself (as a cis-hetero man in a sexless marriage) and easily check 6 or 7 of those 10 criteria. If I tried hard enough, I could probably argue myself into checking all 10. I don't think that makes me a sex addict. It makes me a normal human being with a less than satisfied libido. Are LGB people addicts or are they normal people with libidos who are trying to figure out what their moral compass tells them about their libido (having dealt with some "good-boy syndrome" in the past, I think I kind of understand how difficult that part can be, too)?

[Chum]

7 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

what do you make of those experts who argue against a sexual addiction model?

I think anger is an addiction. I imagine those experts would disagree.