Concrete guidance on gay dating while remaining a member in good standing?

[rongo]

Pretty thought-provoking article:

https://luxchase.com/queer-latter-day-saints-experience-ambiguity-regarding-policies-on-dating-intimacy/

I know what I think/believe (I come down on the conservative side of theology and praxis), but I think this is something that everyone could use concrete guidance from the Brethren on. Especially given the proliferation of self-identified gay Mormons who express a desire in remaining active and worthy. 

The only thing I am aware of from any of the Brethren is Elder Johnson's belated response to the gay dating fiasco in 2020 (gay dating is not encouraged or supported, because it cannot lead people to where they need to be in the eyes of the Church). This, of course, was directed at the Honor Code office and BYU specifically. I'm unaware of general Church-wide guidance. 

As the article points out, there is probably a wide range of leader roulette that gives a wide range of responses/policies/guidance on this, so a uniform policy (and better yet, uniform explanation of the policy) would be a very good thing, in my view.

Thoughts?

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

Pretty thought-provoking article:

https://luxchase.com/queer-latter-day-saints-experience-ambiguity-regarding-policies-on-dating-intimacy/

I know what I think/believe (I come down on the conservative side of theology and praxis), but I think this is something that everyone could use concrete guidance from the Brethren on. Especially given the proliferation of self-identified gay Mormons who express a desire in remaining active and worthy. 

The only thing I am aware of from any of the Brethren is Elder Johnson's belated response to the gay dating fiasco in 2020 (gay dating is not encouraged or supported, because it cannot lead people to where they need to be in the eyes of the Church). This, of course, was directed at the Honor Code office and BYU specifically. I'm unaware of general Church-wide guidance. 

As the article points out, there is probably a wide range of leader roulette that gives a wide range of responses/policies/guidance on this, so a uniform policy (and better yet, uniform explanation of the policy) would be a very good thing, in my view.

Thoughts?

Rongo, maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but the church has been clear on it's doctrine. Marriage is between a man and woman, and if you're gay you cannot live it to the point of having sex. So I would think Elder Johnson represents what the church believes. And that it would be difficult to date someone and have romantic love because it might be difficult to stop what might happen next. 

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

Pretty thought-provoking article:

https://luxchase.com/queer-latter-day-saints-experience-ambiguity-regarding-policies-on-dating-intimacy/

I know what I think/believe (I come down on the conservative side of theology and praxis), but I think this is something that everyone could use concrete guidance from the Brethren on. Especially given the proliferation of self-identified gay Mormons who express a desire in remaining active and worthy. 

The only thing I am aware of from any of the Brethren is Elder Johnson's belated response to the gay dating fiasco in 2020 (gay dating is not encouraged or supported, because it cannot lead people to where they need to be in the eyes of the Church). This, of course, was directed at the Honor Code office and BYU specifically. I'm unaware of general Church-wide guidance. 

As the article points out, there is probably a wide range of leader roulette that gives a wide range of responses/policies/guidance on this, so a uniform policy (and better yet, uniform explanation of the policy) would be a very good thing, in my view.

Thoughts?

I agree.  There needs to be more guidance on the matter. 

I read a couple of weeks ago about Elder Christofferson's brother, who is gay and very active in the church, beginning to date again because he doesn't want to be alone the rest of his life.  He is not backing down from his beliefs or involvement in the church though.  And we have David Archuleta who has basically said that God told him to start dating men (or being open to it), who is also not backing down from his testimony or desire to remain in the church.  I'm sure there are many more gay and lesbian members in the same situation.

I think we are reaching a tipping point where we need more revealed guidance if we are going to be able to move forward from this topic.

[MrShorty]

I (cis-hetero married man) find myself conflicted on wanting more concrete guidance. On the one hand, I can understand the frustrations expressed by many in the article. In a so called high demand religion that often draws boundaries around behaviors (and ties fellowship and participation to those boundaries), it can seem important to know where those boundaries are. This minimizes leadership roulette and other uncertainties.

But, I am also fond of the idea expressed by some in the article (and elsewhere in our Church rhetoric) that exercising and flexing those discernment muscles is an important part of our growth as individuals and as a people. Even Pres. Nelson has recently talked about the importance of learning to receive our own revelation to know right from wrong (though I have long wanted to ask him if that includes situations like this where an individuals personal revelation might seem to contradict revelation through the priesthood line). In my own cis-hetero experience, I found myself starting by deconstructing Pres. Kimball's aversion to oral sex, and I feel quite strongly now that I (and other married couples) need to stop looking to the Church to tell us what is appropriate in my sexual relationship with my wife and make those judgements based on personal choices and revelation. In the same way, I see significant value in letting our LGBT+ members draw and test and modify their own boundaries to find what is appropriate for themselves.

If I want, as quotes by a couple of apostles in the article stated, cis-hetero and LGBT single to be treated by the same standards, then I think a "make your own best judgements through prayer and study" is the best universal standard. I think that means that we must become more comfortable with and tolerant of homo-romantic behaviors (since I do not see us further restricting hetero-romantic behaviors).

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Thoughts?

I can't think of any guidance that leadership might give beyond "don't date" that wouldn't also tacitly endorse dating.

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I can't think of any guidance that leadership might give beyond "don't date" that wouldn't also tacitly endorse dating.

I can't, either, but I think it needs to be concretely addressed because so many are agitating for dating being allowed. 

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

I can't, either, but I think it needs to be concretely addressed because so many are agitating for dating being allowed. 

What's the difference between dating and going somewhere with a friend?  How would the church start to define that? 

[Fether]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Pretty thought-provoking article:

https://luxchase.com/queer-latter-day-saints-experience-ambiguity-regarding-policies-on-dating-intimacy/

I know what I think/believe (I come down on the conservative side of theology and praxis), but I think this is something that everyone could use concrete guidance from the Brethren on. Especially given the proliferation of self-identified gay Mormons who express a desire in remaining active and worthy. 

The only thing I am aware of from any of the Brethren is Elder Johnson's belated response to the gay dating fiasco in 2020 (gay dating is not encouraged or supported, because it cannot lead people to where they need to be in the eyes of the Church). This, of course, was directed at the Honor Code office and BYU specifically. I'm unaware of general Church-wide guidance. 

As the article points out, there is probably a wide range of leader roulette that gives a wide range of responses/policies/guidance on this, so a uniform policy (and better yet, uniform explanation of the policy) would be a very good thing, in my view.

Thoughts?

What more guidance is needed? Gay marriage is wrong in the eyes of God.
 

I find this conversation akin to “Can I look at Sports Illustrated: Swimsuit Edition?” Or “Can I look and Lingerie magazines?”. It isn’t quite “porn”, but that isn’t the point.

If the concern is “whether or not this is ok in the eyes of God” than the answer is clear. NO.

But that doesn’t seem to be the concern. The question people want answered is “How close to gay sex can so get before I get disciplined?” 

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

What's the difference between dating and going somewhere with a friend?  How would the church start to define that? 

Dating is for romantic purposes, unless people want to claim that it's platonic (in which case, it is simply doing something with friends). 

The Schwerpunkt here is hugging, kissing, handholding, and beyond. If the Church says that "chaste" dating is okay for gays, that does lead away from where people need to be, as Elder Johnson stated (eternal marriage as defined by the Proclamation). But, stating this concretely would really upset the apple cart, as would saying that no gay dating is allowed. But, radio silence presents other problems (cf., anecdotes in the article, leader roulette, etc.). 

[rongo]

42 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I (cis-hetero married man) find myself conflicted on wanting more concrete guidance. On the one hand, I can understand the frustrations expressed by many in the article. In a so called high demand religion that often draws boundaries around behaviors (and ties fellowship and participation to those boundaries), it can seem important to know where those boundaries are. This minimizes leadership roulette and other uncertainties.

But, I am also fond of the idea expressed by some in the article (and elsewhere in our Church rhetoric) that exercising and flexing those discernment muscles is an important part of our growth as individuals and as a people. Even Pres. Nelson has recently talked about the importance of learning to receive our own revelation to know right from wrong (though I have long wanted to ask him if that includes situations like this where an individuals personal revelation might seem to contradict revelation through the priesthood line). In my own cis-hetero experience, I found myself starting by deconstructing Pres. Kimball's aversion to oral sex, and I feel quite strongly now that I (and other married couples) need to stop looking to the Church to tell us what is appropriate in my sexual relationship with my wife and make those judgements based on personal choices and revelation. In the same way, I see significant value in letting our LGBT+ members draw and test and modify their own boundaries to find what is appropriate for themselves.

If I want, as quotes by a couple of apostles in the article stated, cis-hetero and LGBT single to be treated by the same standards, then I think a "make your own best judgements through prayer and study" is the best universal standard. I think that means that we must become more comfortable with and tolerant of homo-romantic behaviors (since I do not see us further restricting hetero-romantic behaviors).

That all sounds good, but you still have to have concretely defined lines for when people's personal revelation (or claimed personal revelation) conflicts with Church doctrine or policy. If the Church were to officially embrace laissez faire with respect to gay dating parameters, I think that would be problematic. But, radio silence on matter is problematic, too (as illustrated by the anecdotes in the article).

[Tacenda]

26 minutes ago, rongo said:

I can't, either, but I think it needs to be concretely addressed because so many are agitating for dating being allowed. 

I get leery of anything coming from the leaders during conference for instance, that may start someone to thinking they shouldn't even try and then give up on life. I worry that they can't or will not be able to say anything that promotes dating, because of the end game. I do believe they can say they welcome anyone to attend church even if they're living in a gay relationship sexually. That they are always welcome and that they may not be able to attend the temple but everything else. 

[strappinglad]

20 minutes ago, Fether said:

The question people want answered is “How close to gay sex can so get before I get disciplined?” 

People also ask this about hetero- sex . Students at BYU are inventive at rationalizing behaviors that are clearly not in line with the law of chastity . I could give examples of the latest trends. I demure. 

[rongo]

24 minutes ago, Fether said:

What more guidance is needed? Gay marriage is wrong in the eyes of God.
 

I find this conversation akin to “Can I look at Sports Illustrated: Swimsuit Edition?” Or “Can I look and Lingerie magazines?”. It isn’t quite “porn”, but that isn’t the point.

If the concern is “whether or not this is ok in the eyes of God” than the answer is clear. NO.

But that doesn’t seem to be the concern. The question people want answered is “How close to gay sex can so get before I get disciplined?” 

I think the question many have is something like: "Is handholding, hugging, and kissing only permitted?" That has not been addressed, other than Elder Johnson's response to the gay dating thing at BYU in 2020 (which activists don't regard as binding or authoritative outside of BYU, and often not even at BYU). 

I agree with your last sentence. That's what this is really ultimately about, I think.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Pretty thought-provoking article:

https://luxchase.com/queer-latter-day-saints-experience-ambiguity-regarding-policies-on-dating-intimacy/

I know what I think/believe (I come down on the conservative side of theology and praxis), but I think this is something that everyone could use concrete guidance from the Brethren on. Especially given the proliferation of self-identified gay Mormons who express a desire in remaining active and worthy. 

The only thing I am aware of from any of the Brethren is Elder Johnson's belated response to the gay dating fiasco in 2020 (gay dating is not encouraged or supported, because it cannot lead people to where they need to be in the eyes of the Church). This, of course, was directed at the Honor Code office and BYU specifically. I'm unaware of general Church-wide guidance. 

As the article points out, there is probably a wide range of leader roulette that gives a wide range of responses/policies/guidance on this, so a uniform policy (and better yet, uniform explanation of the policy) would be a very good thing, in my view.

Thoughts?

I think the guidance already exists. Keep the Law of Chastity.

If a leader defines the LoC differently for different groups, that's a problem with the leader.

If the church supports different criteria for keeping the LoC based on the group, then that's a problem with the church.

[strappinglad]

Policy announcements about this topic has been shown to be a " third rail " for leaders. 

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, rongo said:

Dating is for romantic purposes, unless people want to claim that it's platonic (in which case, it is simply doing something with friends). 

The Schwerpunkt here is hugging, kissing, handholding, and beyond. If the Church says that "chaste" dating is okay for gays, that does lead away from where people need to be, as Elder Johnson stated (eternal marriage as defined by the Proclamation). But, stating this concretely would really upset the apple cart, as would saying that no gay dating is allowed. But, radio silence presents other problems (cf., anecdotes in the article, leader roulette, etc.). 

Is there any circumstance in this life where gay and lesbians are going to get closer to eternal marriage as defined by the proclamation though? 

The church has finally stopped telling gays and lesbians to get married and has encouraged them not to do so in most cases because it just creates more collateral damage. 

How does dating (and I'm not advocating for that) among gay and lesbians lead away from eternal marriage when they already have no way of partaking in it even if they don't date?

[CA Steve]

18 minutes ago, rongo said:

I can't, either, but I think it needs to be concretely addressed because so many are agitating for dating being allowed. 

I think the problem with such a direction is that it would also acknowledge that the church treats GLBT people differently than hetero.

[Fether]

This really isn’t a question of can or can’t. The question being asked is “how close to gay sex can I get before I get disciplined?”

The church doesn’t need to make any statement on this same as they don't need to make a statement on whether it is ok to punch someone you don’t like, or if it is against the word of wisdom to eat 2 boxes of pizza and 3 liters of mt dew every day.
 

These things won’t get you disciplined by a church counsel, but it still isn’t ok in the eyes of God.

[Fether]

5 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

People also ask this about hetero- sex . Students at BYU are inventive at rationalizing behaviors that are clearly not in line with the law of chastity . I could give examples of the latest trends. I demure. 

I agree, this too is a rediculius question. The church doesn’t need to make a statement on this.

[MrShorty]

15 minutes ago, rongo said:

The Schwerpunkt here is hugging, kissing, handholding, and beyond.

Agreed. We allow these behaviors in heterosexual dating couples (long before marriage is imminent) -- often up to and including NCMO. If we are really going to hold heterosexual and homosexual couples to the same standard, then it seems we ought to allow these behaviors for homosexual dating couples as well. If we decide it is necessary to restrict these behaviors with homosexual couples, then we need to drop claims that the law of chastity applies equally to heterosexual couples and homosexual couples.

 

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

you still have to have concretely defined lines for when...

Perhaps. I might ask why it is necessary to have concretely defined lines on this issue? I recognize that this is a long running challenge for the Church (a high demand, top down authoritarian community) how to balance individual judgement and discernment against the public top down declarations of the Church, and I'm not entirely certain in 200 years that we have fully found the balance point. Where and when and how to draw boundaries is going to continue to be a challenge for the Church. I wonder if there is real value in looking at how we decide on which concrete boundaries to enforce and which ones to relax.

[Fether]

14 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think the question many have is something like: "Is handholding, hugging, and kissing only permitted?" That has not been addressed, other than Elder Johnson's response to the gay dating thing at BYU in 2020 (which activists don't regard as binding or authoritative outside of BYU, and often not even at BYU). 

I agree with your last sentence. That's what this is really ultimately about, I think.

Here is my understand of this.

hypothetical situation:

There is a law that says if you steal a candy bar, you immediately get executed. Law makers then decide “hey, we shouldn’t be executing these people for stealing a candy bar, let’s change the law so we no longer execute people for this.”

They aren’t saying “stealing candy bars are ok”, they are just removing the mismatching of the punishment from the law. 
 

This whole “is it ok to hold hands?” Thing is akin to a citizen asking “is it ok to steal a candy bar?”. It’s still a “how much can I do and get away with it?” Question. The government is not going to come out and say “you can steal candy bars all you want, we will not put you in prison” (and when they have said that, it lead to mass theft). For this same reason, the church will not say this.

Edited January 10, 2022 by Fether

[Robert J Anderson]

It's tough to square the family proclamation with the wishes of the lgtbq community.  I get it.  Maybe this isn't for them?  Everyone is invited to participate, however, the church doesn't conform to individual wants.  It's the other way around.  Perhaps it'll change in the future, but, the part about marriage between a man and a woman and the following quote seem tough to get around.

Quote

We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world?lang=eng

[rongo]

32 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

People also ask this about hetero- sex . Students at BYU are inventive at rationalizing behaviors that are clearly not in line with the law of chastity . I could give examples of the latest trends. I demure. 

This issue isn't (at least, isn't starting at) about petting --- the question is about handholding, kissing, and other dating activities that aren't frowned on by the Church with straight people. A not insignificant number of Church members think/believe that these same "permitted" activities should be permitted with gay people --- without crossing obvious Law of Chastity red lines.

[rongo]

33 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think the guidance already exists. Keep the Law of Chastity.

If a leader defines the LoC differently for different groups, that's a problem with the leader.

If the church supports different criteria for keeping the LoC based on the group, then that's a problem with the church.

I think a big part of the calculus is going to be how averse to criticism the Brethren are if there is a different standard for gay people than there is for straight people. 

30 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Agreed. We allow these behaviors in heterosexual dating couples (long before marriage is imminent) -- often up to and including NCMO. If we are really going to hold heterosexual and homosexual couples to the same standard, then it seems we ought to allow these behaviors for homosexual dating couples as well. If we decide it is necessary to restrict these behaviors with homosexual couples, then we need to drop claims that the law of chastity applies equally to heterosexual couples and homosexual couples.

I'm comfortable saying that the Church doesn't apply the law of chastity equally to gay and straight people. Whether the Church is or will be willing to be so frank about it and come out and say that is another thing. I would be very surprised (as in, very) if the Church ever formally stated that "innocent" dating activities are okay for gay members. But this brands the Church as intolerant, bigoted, etc. with the world, so there is certainly pressure there. 

[rongo]

33 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Perhaps. I might ask why it is necessary to have concretely defined lines on this issue? I recognize that this is a long running challenge for the Church (a high demand, top down authoritarian community) how to balance individual judgement and discernment against the public top down declarations of the Church, and I'm not entirely certain in 200 years that we have fully found the balance point. Where and when and how to draw boundaries is going to continue to be a challenge for the Church. I wonder if there is real value in looking at how we decide on which concrete boundaries to enforce and which ones to relax.

I think you rightly note that the Church, as an authoritarian, demanding church, has and always will face a challenge balancing libertarian personal revelation with doctrine and policy. If the Church became less authoritarian and less demanding, that would cause different challenges.