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

[rongo]

39 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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?

I agree that gay members are in a really tough spot when they a) want to remain active and worthy, and b) also want to physically express their homosexuality. I personally don't think you can do both a) and b) --- I think something's got to give, one way or another. 

We keep being told that sexuality is a spectrum, is fluid, etc. If, and where, and to what extent that is the case, then many can absolutely "get closer to eternal marriage as defined by the proclamation." And this should continue to be encouraged, without people feeling pressured to marry as a "cure" for it. I personally agree with the current default setting of discouraging gay dating for those who want to remain active and worthy.

How does gay dating lead away from eternal marriage? I think, by making it far less likely that people will see the need for fulfilling that part of their purpose on earth (eternal marriage as defined by the proclamation). Many will see their emotional, physical, sexual, etc. needs being met by that and see no need to repent and change. For some, a clear line lets them know in no uncertain terms where they are at and what they still need to overcome/accomplish. I think gay dating really blurs that line for them. 

[Fether]

41 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.

 

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

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. 

I would say the church tolerates NCMO, not “allows” it. It’s not a question of right or wrong, it’s a question of punishment. A heterosexual NCMO is bad just as a homosexual NCMO is bad a homosexual just has an added element. 

[MrShorty]

2 minutes ago, Fether said:

A heterosexual NCMO is bad just as a homosexual NCMO is bad a homosexual just has an added element. 

Which seems to contradict the idea that the law of chastity applies equally to both opposite sex and same sex couples. Should homosexual NCMO have an added element, or should be it "tolerated" the same as heterosexual NCMO? Why or why not? (sounds like an essay prompt from school)

[bluebell]

50 minutes ago, Fether said:

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?”

 

I don't think that's what's being asked.  I think what's being asked is "is it a sin for a man to hold hands with another man that he has romantic feelings for"?  Is it a sin for gays and lesbians to date?

 

[bluebell]

44 minutes ago, Fether said:

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.

If "is it ok to hold hands?” is akin to “is it ok to steal a candy bar?" then why is it ok for heterosexual couples to steal candy bars?

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, rongo said:

 

How does gay dating lead away from eternal marriage? I think, by making it far less likely that people will see the need for fulfilling that part of their purpose on earth (eternal marriage as defined by the proclamation). Many will see their emotional, physical, sexual, etc. needs being met by that and see no need to repent and change. For some, a clear line lets them know in no uncertain terms where they are at and what they still need to overcome/accomplish. I think gay dating really blurs that line for them. 

How is a gay person supposed to repent and change from being gay?  

[Fether]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If "is it ok to hold hands?” is akin to “is it ok to steal a candy bar?" then why is it ok for heterosexual couples to steal candy bars?

It’s about the direction it is heading in. If I hold hands with a girl while I’m high school or college, it is an innocent sign of affection that I am acting on. The issue with homosexuals is not “lustful hand holding”, it’s the direction these two homosexuals are actively choosing to go in. 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

.....................

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

Interesting article, but misses some important distinctions along the way.  At one point Wilcox was quoted:

Quote

Wilcox said. “It’s ‘immoral.’ And the church still considers all homosexual behavior immoral.”

I think that is false, and for two reasons: (1) Wilcox is foolishly substituting some PR or imagined stance he found among LDS sources, and identifies that with "the church" -- without citing his source.  This is done repeatedly in the article, and is completely unacceptable (the pathetic fallacy).  (2) What is "homosexual behavior"?  If one sees two gals or two guys walking somewhere arm in arm, or one of them with an arm around the other, how is one to know whether they are simply buddies?  With no sexual overtones.  Just camaraderie.  Why wasn't that issue addressed?

[Fether]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think that's what's being asked.  I think what's being asked is "is it a sin for a man to hold hands with another man that he has romantic feelings for"?  Is it a sin for gays and lesbians to date?

 

I answered this in the other response, but it’s about the trajectory one is going on. That hand holding is being done with the intention that it will lead to something else. On a heterosexual situation, it is fine. In a homosexual situations the trajectory is such that it leads to something sinful. Making it in itself, a sin.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How is a gay person supposed to repent and change from being gay?  

The only option appears to be celibacy, such as the monastic chastity of Roman Catholic or Orthodox monks and priests.  It is a specific lifestyle.

[CV75]

3 hours 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?

To me, this is an interesting question of individual and communal responsibility. As individuals, we typically take responsibility for moral limits, and the standards in For the Strength of Youth / the Honor Code inform these. As adults taking part in a larger community, we need to take responsibility for preserving how our behaviors, as chaste as they may be to the pure in heart, translate into messages about marriage, and this is informed by doctrine. Behavior may vary from culture to culture, but the doctrine of marriage does not.

The increasing emphasis of individual over societal preservation over the past few decades has, I think, led to the current tendency for wards to eye each other as progressive or conservative units of a stake, and this slicing and dicing is antithetical to community and culture.

Edited January 10, 2022 by CV75

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, Fether said:

I answered this in the other response, but it’s about the trajectory one is going on. That hand holding is being done with the intention that it will lead to something else. On a heterosexual situation, it is fine. In a homosexual situations the trajectory is such that it leads to something sinful. Making it in itself, a sin.

I don't buy that at all.  Suddenly all non-sexual affection becomes a sin?

[bluebell]

Just now, Robert F. Smith said:

The only option appears to be celibacy, such as the monastic chastity of Roman Catholic or Orthodox monks and priests.  It is a specific lifestyle.

I agree that appears to be the only option, and if it is then so be it.  But teaching the assumption as the only option without actually verifying if it is, is probably not going to work well for the church in the long run.

Especially not when you have very sincere stalwart members like Archuleta essentially publically bearing testimony that the assumption isn't true for everyone.

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How is a gay person supposed to repent and change from being gay?  

I'm talking about those who are dating. The obvious thing to start with would be to stop dating. For those who a) say they want to remain active and worthy, but b) don't want to give up dating (I'm assuming non-platonic, not hanging out with friends) . . . I don't think that works. That's what Elder Johnson was saying --- persisting with dating leads away from and does not lead towards where they need to be. So long as that persists, they will be separated and not approaching the goal. 

The goal can be reached in a limited way (i.e., not the highest levels of eternal marriage) by celibacy if "straight" dating is out of the question. 

It's an incredibly hard ask (not dating or showing physical affection), but I don't think it can or should be avoided. I think the Church is going to face increasing pressure in coming years over this, as the article illustrates. 

[Fether]

14 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Which seems to contradict the idea that the law of chastity applies equally to both opposite sex and same sex couples. Should homosexual NCMO have an added element, or should be it "tolerated" the same as heterosexual NCMO? Why or why not? (sounds like an essay prompt from school)

I did love writings persuasive essays in school!

The law of chastity applies to all equally. It is just harder for some than others. If I have a heterosexual NCMO, I am Toying with the line of having sex. This is playing with sin. If I have a homosexual NCMO, I am both toying with the line of having sex, and indulging my homosexual feelings, which is also not in line with God.

NCMOs are bad and always have been. But have never required any sort of discipline, nor do I think they should. Should a homosexual NCMO be treated with more seriousness than a heterosexual NCMO? I think so. Why do I think this? 🤷🏻‍♂️ Perhaps it’s just a little homophobia coming out, or perhaps the added factor of indulging one’s homosexual desires is what pushes that over.

 

I also get the feeling that there is a deeply flawed school of thought here:

“All bad things need a corporal punishment. Anything that doesn’t have such a punishment is not bad”.

This is false and flies in the face of what our purpose on Earth is.

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Fether said:

It’s about the direction it is heading in. If I hold hands with a girl while I’m high school or college, it is an innocent sign of affection that I am acting on. The issue with homosexuals is not “lustful hand holding”, it’s the direction these two homosexuals are actively choosing to go in. 

That doesn't make any sense to me given your previous analogy.  Is it about the direction it's going or is it just another way to ask how close can I get to sex?  It seems like you've moved the goal posts a bit.

 

[rongo]

11 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

(2) What is "homosexual behavior"?  If one sees two gals or two guys walking somewhere arm in arm, or one of them with an arm around the other, how is one to know whether they are simply buddies?  With no sexual overtones.  Just camaraderie.  Why wasn't that issue addressed?

In many cultures, things like that that we would consider to be sexual are not (hand holding, kissing, hugging, etc.). 

Let's be honest, though. In North American culture, it usually is, and for gay members looking for official sanction to date and show physical affection, this is not about "simply being buddies." It is the exact same thing as boys and girls dating. 

[Ragerunner]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

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.

I think the challenge is you potentially leave decision making up to local leaders. And we know how that can vary wildly on issues at times. Based on opinions and politics of a local leader.

Imagine if your bishop would ask you in your temple recommend interview if you and your wife had oral sex and if you had you could not have a recommend. 
Something tells me many would tell the bishop to mind his own business (which is why the church changed course and stopped asking it.)

Without clarity a bishop could do the same to a gay member. He sees an active gay member out at the theater holding another persons hand or kissing. He could decide that is inappropriate and not in harmony with a temple recommend.
 

Yet another bishop might say those actions don’t break the law of chastity, move on.

Edited January 10, 2022 by Ragerunner

[Fether]

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't buy that at all.  Suddenly all non-sexual affection becomes a sin?

I would say “all affection driven by homosexual desires is a sin.”

I don’t think there should be some sort of organization punishment, but let’s not forget what sin is.

To commit sin is to willfully disobey God’s commandments or to fail to act righteously despite a knowledge of the truth (see James 4:17).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/sin

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm talking about those who are dating. The obvious thing to start with would be to stop dating. For those who a) say they want to remain active and worthy, but b) don't want to give up dating (I'm assuming non-platonic, not hanging out with friends) . . . I don't think that works. That's what Elder Johnson was saying --- persisting with dating leads away from and does not lead towards where they need to be. So long as that persists, they will be separated and not approaching the goal. 

The goal can be reached in a limited way (i.e., not the highest levels of eternal marriage) by celibacy if "straight" dating is out of the question. 

It's an incredibly hard ask (not dating or showing physical affection), but I don't think it can or should be avoided. I think the Church is going to face increasing pressure in coming years over this, as the article illustrates. 

It is an incredibly hard task, and it makes sense that people want to make sure it's what God actually requires rather than assuming it is just because you can use our doctrine to argue it's reasonable.

We've already got a history of having to backpedal on teachings that were extrapolated from doctrine that turned out to be a bunch of crap.  We should be wary of the habit.

Edited January 10, 2022 by bluebell

[Fether]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That doesn't make any sense to me given your previous analogy.  Is it about the direction it's going or is it just another way to ask how close can I get to sex?  It seems like you've moved the goal posts a bit.

 

NCMO is about how close can I get to sex. 
 

Acting in homosexual desires is about the direction you are choosing to walk.

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It is an incredibly hard task, and it makes sense that people want to make sure it's what God actually requires rather than assuming it is because you can use our doctrine to argue it's reasonable.

We've already got a history of having to backpedal on teachings that were extrapolated from doctrine that turned out to be a bunch of crap.  We should be wary of the habit.

I'm sure you're referring to the priesthood ban, which I'm sure you know I have a different opinion on.  I'm curious what other examples there actually are, though. Despite the strong feelings of some about polygamy, I don't think most would agree that it was "extrapolated from doctrine that turned out to be a bunch of crap." What other examples can you think of?

I think we should be careful about assuming things that just aren't so, but I think we're on pretty firm ground with the law of chastity --- including that acting on homosexuality leads away and does not lead towards our purpose for being here and beyond. 

I would love for there to be concrete, direct guidance and insight from the key-holders on this (and other issues). 

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Fether said:

NCMO is about how close can I get to sex. 

Maybe.  But certainly not every time or for everyone.  There are plenty of kids in student wards who might participate in NCMO who have no desire to get close to that sex line at all.  We've got to be careful about painting with broad brush strokes.  Just because we see something a specific way doesn't mean that everyone else sees it the same.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm sure you're referring to the priesthood ban, which I'm sure you know I have a different opinion on.  I'm curious what other examples there actually are, though. Despite the strong feelings of some about polygamy, I don't think most would agree that it was "extrapolated from doctrine that turned out to be a bunch of crap." What other examples can you think of?

I think we should be careful about assuming things that just aren't so, but I think we're on pretty firm ground with the law of chastity --- including that acting on homosexuality leads away and does not lead towards our purpose for being here and beyond. 

I would love for there to be concrete, direct guidance and insight from the key-holders on this (and other issues). 

I honestly didn't know that you don't believe the racist stuff (blacks were fence sitters in the pre-existence, etc. etc.) that was taught over the pulpit due to the priesthood ban is crap.  

Some of the other stuff that we've had to backpedal on have to do with women in the church.  We've got some stuff on science that was taught over pulpit that turned out not to be as doctrinal as we thought it was.  Some teachings around our history that we had to go "oops, didn't understand that as well as we claimed we did".  That kind of stuff.

Most of it is stuff that it's not huge deal to get wrong and is just an aspect of growing line upon line.  But it's a good reminder that sometimes we draw lines in the sand that God doesn't agree with.  

If God's ways really and truly are higher and different than our's, and if we actually do see through a glass darkly, we should stop assuming that we can always use our reason to come to His conclusions.

[sunstoned]

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

Agreed.  According to the policy stated in the family proclamation, 

Quote

Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

So if gender is eternal, and God created all of us, including our LGBTQ friends, then the church needs to come up with an updated policy to include them in a way that they can have a fulfilled life.  If the church wants to prosper as a 21st century organization. Then we need to choose inclusion not exclusion. 

Edited January 11, 2022 by sunstoned