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

[Mark Beesley]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Meaning you don’t do it or you both accept that it is okay to be selfish and carnal?  Or something else?

I think the statement speaks for itself.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

I think the statement speaks for itself.

Not to me.  But I will drop it.  

Edited November 18, 2021 by Calm

[CV75]

18 hours ago, The Nehor said:

There area a couple of key differences between this struggle and those that involve other sins.

• The desire for other sins often does lessen when the gospel is applied. This rarely happens with sexual desire.
• Until the last few years there was nothing to do but hide it. Confessing the struggle to others was more likely to get you labeled than helped.
• The desire hits at the very core of the gospel. If I am unable to go on a mission I may feel sorrow but that can be overcome. If I struggle with greed or fear or spite or whatever I can fight it and feel like I am striving to serve God. If I want exaltation marriage is not optional. Single people can put it off to the next life if (for whatever reason) they are unable to find anyone or are incapable of being a spouse or parent. It is a direct stab at the crowning ordinance of the gospel on Earth. It makes you cease to desire it, desire it but with changes, or just leads to despair.

 

Those are three possible conclusions and I empathize with those who have made them.

But!

Ideally, every member desires exaltation. A lot is said about the entire schema for it not having been revealed, and one false assumption some make concerning that fact is that, if they cannot in good faith enter the marriage covenant in this life, they will not be exalted. So, naturally they enter the crucible of despair. I think what often goes unnoticed by those standing outside of the purifying crucible is that is where we find the fuller relationship with Christ that grants our hope for exaltation. Leaving the crucible with this hope, do we always know how exaltation will come? (No). Do we come to know that there is always redemption from our misery? (Yes).

I wonder two things: 1) how many having received and kept all the ordinances have not yet entered the crucible and found Christ to an exalting degree; 2) will they, like their more disobedient forbearers, only find that opportunity in the next life?

[Mark Beesley]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not to me.  But I will drop it.  

I didn't mean to be snarky.  Let me clarify.  You asked about sex in an ideal marriage, and subsequently edited your question to include God in the ideal marriage.  The edit was unnecessary.

In my opinion . . . Sex in the ideal marriage is whatever the couple want it to be. In an LDS marriage, it is whatever the couple does in harmony with the Will of the Lord. So, it is specific to the couple. My beliefs are irrelevant.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

I didn't mean to be snarky.  Let me clarify.  You asked about sex in an ideal marriage, and subsequently edited your question to include God in the ideal marriage.  The edit was unnecessary.

In my opinion . . . Sex in the ideal marriage is whatever the couple want it to be. In an LDS marriage, it is whatever the couple does in harmony with the Will of the Lord. So, it is specific to the couple. My beliefs are irrelevant.

Thank you, that context makes more sense to me.  

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I feel like this needs to be challenged. A multitude of LDS and Christian sources talk about sexuality as also being God-given. I'd venture to say that so much of the "good-girl/boy syndrome" that we inflict on ourselves as Latter-day Saints and Christians comes from this idea that sexuality and spirituality are in opposition and do not mix. I think that kind of thing is a mistake, and we need to do better at recognizing that sexuality and spirituality can and should exist in harmony within ourselves. Of course, relating that to the OP, I think this is particularly challenging for LGBT people, and why I think one of the most important things we can do as we craft a "current narrative" for LGBT people is to help them figure out how to integrate their sexuality and spirituality.

I think that integrating sexuality (as all other qualities and conditions we possess, and even talents) and spirituality is not something that can be accomplished without grace, and it cannot even be fully accomplished with grace without the gift and companionship of the Holy Ghost. To whom much is given much is required, so those of us who have and know better by virtue of the Restoration are more accountable than those who do not have the fullness of the Gospel. Grace can be accessed in conjunction with the gift and companionship of the Holy Ghost by putting Christ first and following His example, and of course not get discouraged by having to repent and keep trying because we are only human. But we hear this all the time in Church.

I think so few people have mastered this access to grace that they cannot discern how to teach it to others, which is most effective (in my opinion) one on one and not programmatically (except perhaps in the case of the Church's emotional resilience classes, which are very heavily concentrated on the Atonement of Christ) and teach these same things.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Ideally, every member desires exaltation.

Exaltation in the celestial kingdom used to be something that I really wanted. But the church has made that so unattractive to me I no longer have that as a goal. 
The only place I want to be after I die is in the same kingdom as my partner. I don’t care about eternal sex. I don’t care about creating planets or populating those planets. None of that seems important without my partner next to me

[Kevin Christensen]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

@Kevin Christensen I, too, have followed Natasha Helfer's blog and other stuff for a long time. I am glad that you found success in an addiction recovery program. From numbers that I have seen, 12 step recovery programs actually have fairly low success rates at treating addictions, with many addiction counselors preferring other therapy types even for chemical addictions 9where there is less controversy over the addictive nature of the substance). I also anecdotally see many alleged sex addicts who claim that they saw much more improvement when they got out of sexual addiction treatment. Does the idea of sex as addiction help some people? As with a lot of things in the psychological/social sciences, it seems that there are few methods/paradigms that have a 0 success rate, so sex as addiction models almost certainly help some people. What I am seeing (as a lay person) is that it seems that more people are helped by using something other than an addiction model than are helped by an addiction model.

I have long term observations with a great many individuals over many years.  Personal research and experience.  12 Step Recovery, which is supported in the Book of Mormon, is quite simply how any repentence is to be done.  And in attending groups for many years, and watching what happened to individuals, it became quite obvious that recovery is a path to take, with personal work to do, not just a vaccine or a pill that should or ought to do everything for you. I saw very clearly that the people who were helped by the meetings were the ones who committed and did the real work involved away from the meetings, who read, wrote, took counsel and counseling, and followed up, who made the necessary life changes, set boundaries, and persisted.  If addiction is "cunning, baffling, and powerful," it requires an intelligent, resourceful, and strong response.  Those who did not benefit were not doing the work outside of meetings.  They might show up and hope, but there was never any mystery why such a difference in outcomes for any person I saw, scores of people observed over many years.  Some, I saw, drift ineffectually for years, and then, finally made the internal change, something as simple as calling and asking for help when a threat came up. (A voice on my phone once said, "I just put a DVD in my player... what should I do?"  Then, after that, things changed, and meaningful progress came.  So I question the notion of "fairly low success rates" if that aspect of participation is not mentioned explcitly in statistics.  I question whether those who do not specifically mention such factors are measuring such factors.  Those I saw who did the work, who committed, and made personal changes, (rather that expected to be painlessly fixed without conscientious effort), always saw improvements in every aspect of their lives, personal relationships, economic well-being, and spirituality.  At the end of every meeting, we chant, "It works if you work it."  One of the best books on addiction recovery, 30 days to Hope and Freedom to Recovery from Sex Addiction by Magness, includes a score sheet of specific behaviors to perform in aid of recovery.  Reading, writing, studying, praying, attending meetings, setting relevant boundaries, addressing underlying causes, reporting to accountability partners, prayer, spirituality.  Those who scored high do not have serious or frequent lapses, and things get easier and better.   Those who scored low could, of course, claim, "It doesn't work for me," can blame the program, and put on the cloak of victimhood, and embrace the numbing drug of grievance.

[CV75]

48 minutes ago, california boy said:

Exaltation in the celestial kingdom used to be something that I really wanted. But the church has made that so unattractive to me I no longer have that as a goal. 
The only place I want to be after I die is in the same kingdom as my partner. I don’t care about eternal sex. I don’t care about creating planets or populating those planets. None of that seems important without my partner next to me

I think people who conceptualize exaltation, and to narrow it down, Church members who conceptualize it, do so in various ways, each of them probably incomplete which is OK. Then, if you were to ask them the #1 feature of exaltation, one person, like yourself, might say being with their life partner. Another with the Lord. Another with their family. Another in a beautiful place, another being free of care and woe, another doing their avocation. I suppose it's all of these, and more, equally. I'm not sure how the Church can make any of these "pros" unattractive enough for a member to leave, but I understand how they can become unattractive enough to tip in favor of the "cons" of discipleship.

People do find marriage unattainable or intolerable for many reasons, and when intolerable they leave the covenant and find love with another person, the finding and leaving (or entering-experiencing-leaving-experiencing, and back again) cycle not always in that particular order.

Wherever you end up -- and it may well be exaltation when all is said and done, given the redemption of the dead and the justice of God-- I am confident you will love it there on agreeable terms between you and God.

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think people who conceptualize exaltation, and to narrow it down, Church members who conceptualize it, do so in various ways, each of them probably incomplete which is OK. Then, if you were to ask them the #1 feature of exaltation, one person, like yourself, might say being with their life partner. Another with the Lord. Another with their family. Another in a beautiful place, another being free of care and woe, another doing their avocation. I suppose it's all of these, and more, equally. I'm not sure how the Church can make any of these "pros" unattractive enough for a member to leave, but I understand how they can become unattractive enough to tip in favor of the "cons" of discipleship.

People do find marriage unattainable or intolerable for many reasons, and when intolerable they leave the covenant and find love with another person, the finding and leaving (or entering-experiencing-leaving-experiencing, and back again) cycle not always in that particular order.

Wherever you end up -- and it may well be exaltation when all is said and done, given the redemption of the dead and the justice of God-- I am confident you will love it there on agreeable terms between you and God.

Ultimately this one issue became probably the biggest reason for me to no longer want to be a member of the Church. The Church offered no hope for a place in the CK if you are gay.  It only offered an eternity with a woman.  When I said that I really had no desire to spend eternity with a woman, then they said that I would magically no longer be gay.  Well I already fell for that promise when they told me to just get married and I would become straight.  I am not inclined to trust their promises.  Nor do I want to become straight.  So there was no real reason for me to stay in the Church.  

In the end, I learned to just trust God.  I too am confident He will put me where I belong, wherever that is.  So I am no longer worried about it.  

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Those I saw who did the work, who committed, and made personal changes, (rather that expected to be painlessly fixed without conscientious effort),

While I think this is an important factor, this does not address the needs of those who are unable to make such commitment to do the work, for example someone who has to be dependent on others due to health, age, or money reasons.  I think we are highly benefitted through research that can allow people to fix things with less effort, though too many get trapped with false promises.

[The Great Pretender]

On 11/17/2021 at 8:05 PM, smac97 said:

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

Hey, Smac. I now see how these threads develop like three-dimensional fractals. Ask a straightforward question, and suddenly it turns into a hundred quotes of quotes of quotes that trip and skip over each other and what everyone else is saying. 😆

I appreciate your dissection of my responses, and I fully understand your perspective. It is certainly appropriate to approach comments such as mine with suspicion.

I'd just like to jump back to the issue of being born a certain way. In the North Star groups, I have come across several individuals who assert that they were born gay after being gay in the pre-Earth life—and that they will be gay in the next life. I counterassert that this is simply because they can't imagine feeling any other way. To me, however, that view is as ridiculous as suggesting they were born to speak English and that they spoke English in the pre-Earth life—simply because they can't imagine speaking and thinking in Mongolian, Urdu, or anything else. Language skills develop long before self-awareness. The same applies to many characteristics of our personalities—as any parent will confirm.

My earliest memories are from a reasonably young age. I have several from when I was aged two. I even have a couple of specific memories relating to my paternal grandfather in my grandparents' home—and he died shortly before my second birthday.

My earliest memories linked to same-sex attraction date back to when I was four. These were in no way "sexual" incidents, and I believe sexual desire only begins to formulate with the onset of puberty—hard wiring and forming sexual associations with whatever has been imprinted up to that point. That should be the opposite sex, but if you expose a young child to abuse in its many forms, there's no telling what worldview will be constructed in that child's mind.

I don't believe I am a homosexual. I suspect that is simply how the world is understood by the individuals concerned. However, logic and my spiritual compass both tell me that I don't want to engage in sexual activity with other men. But I also know that the act of sexual congress is the most intimate and intensely pleasurable of the human experience—and gay men seek intimacy, gratification, and validation. It seems to me that the huge tragedy in all this is that innocent children are negatively conditioned to believe things about themselves from an early age—and when they turn into the hated thing that society has convinced them they are, they find themselves subject to lifelong victimisation. I pin my hopes on the infinite Atonement.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Great Pretender said:

My earliest memories linked to same-sex attraction date back to when I was four.

Memories about events are not fixed in our brain likes books or photos to access when needed. They are changed by the retrieval. Therefore you could be said to be remembering a memory as well, not the actual event. This makes it very difficult to know if what we are remembering actually happened or is a combination of experience at that time, later experiences including being told about something or looking at pictures, and/or imagination. I have a very vivid memory of hearing about the Priesthood ban in high school, only problem is it happened when I was a junior in college.  I was shocked the first time I looked up the date of the removal of the ban and put that together…but that high school class was the only time I was ever singled out to talk about my faith in a class…at least that I can recall, I got gently teased a few times and offered beer once on a class sponsored rafting trip but just so I wouldn’t feel left out, so I am thinking I hooked the Priesthood ban experience on to some comment about the church and blacks in that class. 

So unless you have some record from that time, there is no way to be certain you had those feelings at that time. Not saying this means you did not and since you have to live with the paradigm that is in your head, it may not matter even if you convince yourself there is doubt.  Just making the observation about the reality of memories because I am into how the mind works. 
 

Should provide a link to document my claim, but a quick Google was unsatisfying, so will spend more effort only if you ask.  

Edited November 19, 2021 by Calm

[CV75]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Ultimately this one issue became probably the biggest reason for me to no longer want to be a member of the Church. The Church offered no hope for a place in the CK if you are gay.  It only offered an eternity with a woman.  When I said that I really had no desire to spend eternity with a woman, then they said that I would magically no longer be gay.  Well I already fell for that promise when they told me to just get married and I would become straight.  I am not inclined to trust their promises.  Nor do I want to become straight.  So there was no real reason for me to stay in the Church.  

In the end, I learned to just trust God.  I too am confident He will put me where I belong, wherever that is.  So I am no longer worried about it.  

This is why I think it is good, for the purposes of this thread topic, to evaluate the facts as they stand today, differentiating between a summarized, highly editorial personal narrative and an improved understanding of the Church doctrines. No one can refute your story; I have one too that can be said to be just as biased, depending on what I’ve chosen to emphasize and represent. This is no different than when we explain how we got our testimonies; these too are summarized, highly editorial personal narratives. But when discussing Church doctrine, I think it best to go by our understanding of Church doctrine today, and not our personal narratives alone.

Having stayed with the Church, my understanding of doctrine grew, irrespective of any less-than ideal interactions with priesthood leaders along the way. I forgive them; my relationship with Christ is stronger. I have also learned that, where two or three are gathered in His name, each participant is responsible for how much the companionship of the Holy Ghost can help them individually and help them help the others involved. And oftentimes the member helps the leader more than the other way around, or even mutually.

I can understand why, having left the faith (20+?) years ago, your understanding of the Church doctrine hasn’t changed in all that time, and what “lives” is a crystalized, justifying narrative and a happy life in another path. You may yet profit from seeing how others understand the Church doctrine today. I think the narratives of LGBTQ people leaving the Church today are a bit different than yours, and still it is best to discuss the doctrine while it is still fresh in their minds.

Edited November 19, 2021 by CV75

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Great Pretender said:

To me, however, that view is as ridiculous as suggesting they were born to speak English and that they spoke English in the pre-Earth life—simply because they can't imagine speaking and thinking in Mongolian, Urdu, or anything else. Language skills develop long before self-awareness. The same applies to many characteristics of our personalities—as any parent will confirm.

Your own idea or did you pick it up from others?  My brother in law, Jeff Robinson who specializes in this area, sees sexuality as something very much like language, part instinct (almost every human learns a language, but not the same one), part learned from environment even if not chosen (a child does not choose to learn a language, they just do and they don’t forget the first language they learn though they may be able in some cases to even replace it in their speech and thought with another).

Edited November 19, 2021 by Calm

[california boy]

17 minutes ago, CV75 said:

This is why I think it is good, for the purposes of this thread topic, to evaluate the facts as they stand today, differentiating between a summarized, highly editorial personal narrative and an improved understanding of the Church doctrines. No one can refute your story; I have one too that can be said to be just as biased, depending on what I’ve chosen to emphasize and represent. This is no different than when we explain how we got our testimonies; these too are summarized, highly editorial personal narratives. But when discussing Church doctrine, I think it best to go by our understanding of Church doctrine today, and not our personal narratives alone.

Having stayed with the Church, my understanding of doctrine grew, irrespective of any less-than ideal interactions with priesthood leaders along the way. I forgive them; my relationship with Christ is stronger. I have also learned that, where two or three are gathered in His name, each participant is responsible for how much the companionship of the Holy Ghost can help them individually and help them help the others involved. And oftentimes the member helps the leader more than the other way around, or even mutually.

I can understand why, having left the faith (20+?) years ago, your understanding of the Church doctrine hasn’t changed in all that time, and what “lives” is a crystalized, justifying narrative and a happy life in another path. You may yet profit from seeing how others understand the Church doctrine today. I think the narratives of LGBTQ people leaving the Church today are a bit different than yours, and still it is best to discuss the doctrine while it is still fresh in their minds.

Are you suggesting that doctrine has changed on this issue and that there actually is a chance that I could live in the CK with my partner???

[The Great Pretender]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Memories about events are not fixed in our brain likes books or photos to access when needed. They are changed by the retrieval. Therefore you could be said to be remembering a memory as well, not the actual event. This makes it very difficult to know if what we are remembering actually happened or is a combination of experience at that time, later experiences including being told about something or looking at pictures, and/or imagination. I have a very vivid memory of hearing about the Priesthood ban in high school, only problem is it happened when I was a junior in college.  I was shocked the first time I looked up the date of the removal of the ban and put that together…but that high school class was the only time I was ever singled out to talk about my faith in a class…at least that I can recall, I got gently teased a few times and offered beer once on a class sponsored rafting trip but just so I wouldn’t feel left out, so I am thinking I hooked the Priesthood ban experience on to some comment about the church and blacks in that class. 

So unless you have some record from that time, there is no way to be certain you had those feelings at that time. Not saying this means you did not and since you have to live with the paradigm that is in your head, it may not matter even if you convince yourself there is doubt.  Just making the observation about the reality of memories because I am into how the mind works. 
 

Should provide a link to document my claim, but a quick Google was unsatisfying, so will spend more effort only if you ask.  

Hi Calm. I accept the validity of your comments, and I recognise that I didn't qualify my statement.

I mentioned that my earliest "experiences" weren't sexual because children have no comprehension of such matters unless they involve abuse inflicted by another individual. I am happy to qualify it now—for whatever sordid worth it has.

Shortly before I turned five, my family moved home. I have many memories from our old house, including breaking my thumb when I trapped it in the hinge side of the front door while closing it. I also remember being titillated by a surprising dream in which two male TV personalities (from the cowboy/western series Alias Smith and Jones) were standing in the large tree just behind my house. One of them lassoed me (yes, really), so he could take me captive or something (sorry, it sounds rather sordid in the retelling, but I was only four). I was thrilled by the idea of someone paying me attention and abducting me (to take me away from the unpleasant relationships with my father and an abusive older brother). It was so bizarre and unsettling that I have never forgotten it. Could I have backdated that dream? Sure, it's possible, but it made such an impression on me at the time (like the impact of breaking my thumb) that it has been cemented in my mind since that occasion.

[The Great Pretender]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Your own idea or did you pick it up from others?  My brother in law, Jeff Robinson who specializes in this area, sees sexuality as something very much like language, part instinct (almost every human learns a language, but not the same one), part learned from environment even if not chosen (a child does not choose to learn a language, they just do and they don’t forget the first language they learn though they may be able in some cases to even replace it in their speech and thought with another).

My own idea. Sorry if that devalues it.

As a father of four children, I have read plenty about the early development of language. I also studied German, Spanish, Russian, and Japanese. More than these, I spent the greatest amount of time studying French (from the age of 10 until the second year of my university degree). While working in Paris for three months in 1985, I was fully able to process all my thoughts in French.

In my formative years, I believed in a magical concept of Adam and Eve. I no longer do. My gospel understanding and education now lead me to accept evolution as part of the extraordinary plan of mortality. No contrived shortcuts. Billions of years in the making. That sure sounds like heresy to many members. Whatever. I think they are foolish to believe in a God of magic and chaos (and a respecter of persons). I believe in a God of science and order.

Consequently, I believe humans still inherit certain animal instincts, including the instinct to suck, swallow, and blink—and seek sexual partners when the associated hormones kick in. In organised society, however, some of those instincts are at least partially controlled by societal programming.

The only thing that makes sense to me in respect of sexuality is that we arrive on Earth largely as a blank slate—and society shapes us according to convention and the whims of those who exert particular influence. For most, the process is relatively straightforward. A few, however, are systematically shamed and ostracised—whether for issues relating to their body, their temperament, their sensitivities, or a bunch of other factors. The net result is that they fail to identify properly with their gender/sexual binary—and when puberty kicks in to hard-wires things, the die is cast.

[The Great Pretender]

11 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think the narratives of LGBTQ people leaving the Church today are a bit different than yours, and still it is best to discuss the doctrine while it is still fresh in their minds.

You make a valid point. As an individual who spent decades hiding (in plain sight) from his same-sex attraction, I find myself unable to relate to young people in Church-oriented online groups (in which I now participate) who don't see their attractions as a source of shame. I see no way to rid myself of it, personally—compounded as it has been over decades.

If you really want to get some idea of the distress experienced by older individuals with differing attractions, read the entries from the 1950s to the 1970s on the following Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_LGBT_Mormon_history_in_the_20th_century

None of the content is fiction. I consider myself to be relatively level-headed, but some entries are enough to bring me to tears.

Caveat: the author(s) of the content are in no way impartial. I added a verifiable entry relating to a constructive British resource introduced in 2017, and it was subsequently removed without comment. I can only conclude that it failed to align with the antagonistic gist of the other content.

[CV75]

13 hours ago, california boy said:

Are you suggesting that doctrine has changed on this issue and that there actually is a chance that I could live in the CK with my partner???

Not at all. I'm saying that despite the tendency to hold onto ingrained narratives, it is good to keep an open mind on troubling doctrinal points connected to those narratives so that the gift and companionship of the Holy Ghost (for members) or the light of Christ (for non-members) can moderate and even diminish the negative conflict, confusion and contention around the subject. Assuming they want to feel better about their involvement with the Church, which is what I take this discussion to be about.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

You make a valid point. As an individual who spent decades hiding (in plain sight) from his same-sex attraction, I find myself unable to relate to young people in Church-oriented online groups (in which I now participate) who don't see their attractions as a source of shame. I see no way to rid myself of it, personally—compounded as it has been over decades.

If you really want to get some idea of the distress experienced by older individuals with differing attractions, read the entries from the 1950s to the 1970s on the following Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_LGBT_Mormon_history_in_the_20th_century

None of the content is fiction. I consider myself to be relatively level-headed, but some entries are enough to bring me to tears.

Caveat: the author(s) of the content are in no way impartial. I added a verifiable entry relating to a constructive British resource introduced in 2017, and it was subsequently removed without comment. I can only conclude that it failed to align with the antagonistic gist of the other content.

How might we apply the doctrine to healing the deep-rooted shame felt by some (which you point out as representative of generally older members), and the feelings of fear, rejection, betrayal, offense, anger and protest expressed more broadly today?

This gets back to my earlier request for you to summarize the Church’s position on LGBTQ members. I think that once we can identify the point of doctrine that is getting attention, we can begin to discuss ways to apply it.

[MrShorty]

14 hours ago, california boy said:

Are you suggesting that doctrine has changed on this issue and that there actually is a chance that I could live in the CK with my partner???

I wonder if it is less about changing doctrine and more about doctrine being less important to our salvation/exaltation. For example, I believe that the eternally true doctrine around slavery is that slavery is immoral. But scriptural history suggests that God was not all that worried about whether or not His people believed this doctrine. Either my perception of doctrine is wrong, or Biblical authors' perceptions of doctrine were wrong. In either case, we are all confident (and God Himself seems to promise) that we can all be saved and exalted regardless of our beliefs (and the behaviors informed by those beliefs) on slavery. I wonder if the same thing is true about LGBT issues. I cannot say whether or not cis-hetero is the law in the CK or whether there will be same sex couples and gender transitioned individuals in the CK. Maybe it doesn't matter what we believe because God, through Christ, can save and exalt people who believe both doctrines -- whichever view is closer to the eternally true doctrine.

Perhaps, it is more a question of whether "cis-hetero heaven" is a doctrine that belongs in our truth cart?

[CV75]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I wonder if it is less about changing doctrine and more about doctrine being less important to our salvation/exaltation. For example, I believe that the eternally true doctrine around slavery is that slavery is immoral. But scriptural history suggests that God was not all that worried about whether or not His people believed this doctrine. Either my perception of doctrine is wrong, or Biblical authors' perceptions of doctrine were wrong. In either case, we are all confident (and God Himself seems to promise) that we can all be saved and exalted regardless of our beliefs (and the behaviors informed by those beliefs) on slavery. I wonder if the same thing is true about LGBT issues. I cannot say whether or not cis-hetero is the law in the CK or whether there will be same sex couples and gender transitioned individuals in the CK. Maybe it doesn't matter what we believe because God, through Christ, can save and exalt people who believe both doctrines -- whichever view is closer to the eternally true doctrine.

Perhaps, it is more a question of whether "cis-hetero heaven" is a doctrine that belongs in our truth cart?

I think “cis-hetero” heaven is as inaccurate a description of exaltation as the kind of love @california boy describes for his partner as “LBBTQ-heaven”. This is why I think we need to look at the doctrine and how/why the covenants are structured as they are in relation to that. I think it inaccurate to describe our doctrine as teaching  “cis-hetero” heaven; it goes beyond our social constructs. The same sociality that exists there has more to do with the Zion society and covenant relationships therein.

I'm not so sure we are saved on our beliefs but on our actions in relation to them and in relation to the light and knowledge we receive, including the light of Christ (which I described in another thread as manifesting in part as "charity"). I've c/p that comment below for reference. But we are accountable, and all fall short of receiving a fulness of the light of Christ (as Christ Himself obviously did), and therefore fall short of charity, knowledge and correct beliefs. "No man is saved in ignorance," to me, means basically, "No man is saved incrementally rejecting the light of Christ over a lifetime"

This is why it takes faith to accept the Restoration and apply the doctrines and ordinances that have been revealed, despite our socially-imprinted beliefs.

 

C/P:

I was just reading Moroni 7 this morning, and was impressed with the relationship between faith, hope and charity, and the light of Christ. I typically thought of faith lending to hope, and hope leading to charity, but this chapter sets forth that the light of Christ is given to us all, and this light is manifest as charity (the pure love of Christ draws us to choose all good things), which gives us hope, which gives us faith which leads to repentance (obedience) and grace (power).

Now I suppose there isn't a strict succession or order of development, but rather a similar dynamic as that between belief, faith and knowledge (Alma 32). A desire to believe leads to faith, which leads to knowledge, which is the substrate for further desire to believe, faith, experimentation and so on. This is why I often conceptualize faith and knowledge as the same thing (e.g. faith is foreknowledge and knowledge is faith in the results), but we need to break it down in this telestial world to learn it. Thank goodness for prophets! 

Everyone can live the beatitudes that Christ taught on the Sermon on the Mount; the light of Christ enables that. That is the best the telestial kingdom can offer, which isn't bad. The terrestrial kingdom (let's say that is the kingdom of God on earth) offers a bit more.

 

Edited November 19, 2021 by CV75

[CV75]

@Olmec Donald, more fun with Balaam’s donkey(s): the assumption is that many LGBTQ+ people are hearing God’s voice for the leaders to ask about same-sex marriage, to institute same-sex-marriage, to remove gender from the concept of sealing and exaltation, etc., and the Church leaders are not picking up on that same wavelength. I think Balaam’s and his donkey’s demeanors were instructive: how do saints behave when following the Spirit (members and leaders) and acting in the name of the Lord (leaders)?

Owner-beast relationships aside, the donkey and Balaam were not at odds over where they were going or how; but the angel and Balaam were at odds over where they were going; the donkey had constraints on moving forward; Balaam was abusively at odds with the donkey’s inability to move; the donkey was only pained by Balaam’s treatment, not the angel blocking him.

So, a related question is, how does the Balaam-and-his-donkey story apply when the leaders and members with revelations agree on where they are going, but not how (e.g., same-sex marriage), or whether they can go (e.g., marriage not an option in this life)?

Given everyone’s fallibility, and God’s grace in attending that, some would suggest the council method as described in the D&C to review topical matters concerning Church doctrine and policy.

[The Great Pretender]

On 11/19/2021 at 2:30 PM, CV75 said:

How might we apply the doctrine to healing the deep-rooted shame felt by some (which you point out as representative of generally older members), and the feelings of fear, rejection, betrayal, offense, anger and protest expressed more broadly today?

This gets back to my earlier request for you to summarize the Church’s position on LGBTQ members. I think that once we can identify the point of doctrine that is getting attention, we can begin to discuss ways to apply it.

The Church position is that LGBTQ issues are a legitimate experience but not an innate identity. Because stating this position publicly would be tantamount to a hate crime in modern secular society, the Church softens its stance without acknowledging or realising that it is actually contributing to the problem. It says that all the contributing factors are too complex, so people may identify how they see fit (as long as they don't act on anything that is contrary to the Family Proclamation)—while remembering that our primary identity is as a child of God.

This is pandering—and it will satisfy no one in the long run. Only today, I have been in contact with a sister whose husband identifies as gay and who has reached the end of the marital road after 24 years. She told me that the Spirit had testified to them both that their marriage has run its course because her husband can no longer reconcile his true gayness in a heterosexual marriage. And she insists that she is at peace with it. OK, fine; if you like. I don't believe a word of it, sorry. I don't believe gayness is innate, and I don't care if I'm the only person on God's Earth who believes that.

Sadly, individuals try to reconcile being gay (as they understand it) with their membership in the Church, and sooner or later they find themselves in an intolerable situation.

The Church is now too media-sensitive (or cowardly) to state, "God wants you to do x, y, or z, and this is how you go about it if you experience a, b, or c."