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

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, Vanguard said:

I don't see in the article where it reports anything to the magnitude of hundreds of thousands of gay members, tens of thousands of transgender members, and tens of thousands of other members who identify as some form of queer as kim has claimed. Where in the article does it even come close to corroborating this? 

Well, this is just in Utah. Think worldwide church.

[Vanguard]

Just now, Tacenda said:

Well, this is just in Utah. Think worldwide church.

Again, how does kim know this? And how do you? Where are the numbers? You're extrapolating and 'digging in' on your position quite a bit - so much that it gives cause to question your motives. 

[MrShorty]

14 minutes ago, Fether said:

Further question. I don’t “hate” gays. Just the idea of two men kissing is grotesque. Because that image is so repulsive to me, does that mean I hate them? Am I a bigot for this?

I think we have to make a careful distinction here between "this is an expression of my sexual orientation" and "because I find _____ disgusting, it must be universally immoral." As a strict heterosexual, I agree that, for me, making out with another man (here I want to make another distinction between the friendly kisses on the cheek so common in French and similar cultures) is definitely disgusting. The same behavior with a woman, on the other hand, is very exciting and attractive. I don't want to make out with other men, but I also know that this is nothing more than an expression of my sexual orientation -- it is not a value or moral judgement. One of the challenges for me is trying to figure out how much of the Church's expressions against LGBT stuff comes from leaders' personal sense of disgust at these behaviors and how much is truly rooted in God's inspiration. Mine or any other hetero person's sense of disgust should not in any way be the basis for declaring LGBT behaviors immoral.

I don't have the same level of experience with the LGBT community as others, but I have enough to understand that, for strict homosexuals, making out with a member of the opposite sex is just as disgusting as I feel about making out with my same sex. For bisexuals, they experience varying levels of attraction and/or disgust towards these activities. Asexuals have little or no interest in making out with anyone, and may find the whole idea of making out in general disgusting. I have learned that my experience is far from the only experience out there, and that many people have a different experience than I do. I think getting beyond homophobic is being able to somehow express your own sexual orientation without requiring that others experience your sexual orientation.

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, Vanguard said:

Again, how does kim know this? And how do you? Where are the numbers? You're extrapolating and 'digging in' on your position quite a bit - so much that it gives cause to question your motives. 

Hopefully Kim will tune in. I think it's close, thinking isn't saying I know.

Edited January 10, 2022 by Tacenda

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

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." 

We are a worldwide church though and it won’t make sense in other cultures to limit these behaviours because a few countries that now hold a minority of members have a different view…this may be why strict lines in terms of what physical behavior is or isn’t allowed won’t be given, but rather intent…are you physically attracted? Is it emotionally exciting?  Is this okay in a context where there is no intent to push excitement to arousal (and if it occurs anyway, the intent is to back off) or is this only okay for heterosexual attraction and not homosexual?

Edited January 10, 2022 by Calm

[Vanguard]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Hopefully Kim will tune in. I think it's close, thinking isn't saying I know.

Fair enough and you are right. It would have been helpful though to let us know your extrapolation on this. How does the claim "4.7 percent of adults in Utah's capital city consider themselves LGBT" (per the article) get you anywhere near the number kim is claiming? Perhaps kim has something substantive though it quickly became more interesting to me how easily you championed such a claim without substantive evidence. I appreciate you 'dialing back' on such heretofore unevidenced claims.

kim - Do you have anything substantive to back these numbers up?

[rongo]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I don't really see this as affecting the Law of Chastity itself.  I think we've interpreted the LoC to include homosexual relations in any form (hand holding) and even in the bounds of marriage, but would the death of that specific interpretation kill the whole thing?  

I don't think so.  Because to me the Law of Chastity is no improper sexual contact before marriage and fidelity in marriage, and that could be applied to everyone, heterosexual or homosexual.  

In other words, I don't believe that the double standard has to be a part of the LoC or the whole thing falls apart.  I think it could exist just as well, and just as strong, without the double standard.

 

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The Law of Chastity is clearly stated in many scriptures, the temple, church teachings. Retrofitting that to include handholding amongst gays is akin to retrofitting the LoC to ban interracial marriage, which was also attempted

I'm enjoying the discussion, all around. 

Question for both of you: do you see a difference in the Church, hypothetically, making it clear that (handholding, etc.) is not a Law of Chastity violation per se, but still strongly discouraging it or even condemning it? In other words, would it make a difference to you if the Church didn't couch the rationale in terms of the Law of Chastity?

To me, it seems like a distinction without a difference. 

30 minutes ago, pogi said:

I haven't read the whole thread, so this may have already been mentioned, but...

I don't think the church will ever come out and suggest that gay dating is a sin - barring a specific revelation on gay dating (without sex), there is no scriptural doctrinal basis for it.  I wouldn't be surprised at all if they came out and strongly discouraged it though - suggesting that they are playing with fire.  It would be a non-doctrinal policy akin to the old cremation policy. 

If gay people are looking for romantic companionship and a life-partner that they can spend their life with while remaining active in the church, and avoiding sex - I think they are kidding themselves, to be honest.  These people are looking for companionship.  They are looking for that spark.  A spark that they want to nourish and foster and let it grow and grow...until it must be doused with water before it catches fire.  That cycle will wear a person down over time.  It is unsustainable, I think.  

The forbidden fruit would become too tempting and frustrating in a long-term serious relationship with no possibility of marriage or sex.  One can only take that kind of dousing so many times.  Most would either leave the church to pursue their relationship to the fullest, or they would be ever frustrated.  I think most would eventually partake of the fruit and come to the realization that they either have to leave their partner or leave the church.  It would be better for mental health to commit to a monastic type of celibacy or pursue their romantic interests outside the church.  

Barring a radical change in the church in terms of homosexual marriage, I don't think that fostering romantic gay relationships and remaining an active Latter-day Saint are cohesive and conducive to good mental health.  

This is what I and others have been saying. Based on my experience trying to help gay members who wanted to keep the commandments as defined by the Church --- sanctioning and encouraging non-platonic kissing, handholding, hugging, etc. would have thrown these poor people into a real dilemma. For people trying not to violate the actual Law of Chastity (overtly, or "already in your heart"), Church-sanctioned gay dating would have been a troubling trial that they and I both would have felt would not have had a good outcome for their goals or their eternal development. 

Regardless of whether or not it is actually part of the Law of Chastity or not, there are very good reasons, from a Church standpoint, to discourage and not to support gay dating. Unless we've just been hopelessly wrong the entire time about homosexuality and the plan of salvation. 

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

We are a worldwide church though and it won’t make sense in other cultures to limit these behaviours because a few countries that now hold a minority of members have a different view…this may be why strict lines in terms of what physical behavior is or isn’t allowed won’t be given, but rather intent…are you physically attracted? Is it emotionally exciting?

I think it can be written to include any courtship behavior, where that differs widely from other cultures. Even in cultures that have platonic kissing or handholding, there is also romantic kissing or hand-holding, and that is obviously what is meant. Not air kisses on the cheek or friends holding hands. 

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think it can be written to include any courtship behavior, where that differs widely from other cultures. Even in cultures that have platonic kissing or handholding, there is also romantic kissing or hand-holding, and that is obviously what is meant. Not air kisses on the cheek or friends holding hands. 

Courtship behaviour needs to include ‘courting for romance’ though and not just marriage (assuming that is what the limit will be). Using “courtship” would be too easily bypassed too many imo by saying ‘as long as we are not planning on being married, it is okay’. 

googled definition…

Quote

a period during which a couple develop a romantic relationship, especially with a view to marriage.

"he married his wife after a whirlwind courtship"…

behavior designed to persuade someone to marry or develop a romantic relationship with one.

I think if the focus is on purpose rather than how one is feeling, this allows for wiggling by those who are looking for ways to justify pushing boundaries. Not sure that going the feelings route will make a difference though for this set and if feelings is the standard, then I can see those who are hyper vigilant going the route they would even allow themselves to look at anyone they could be physically attracted to. 
 

I debate the value of trying to remove loopholes as if someone is looking for those, they are not being obedient but merely law abiding. But closing up loopholes might be helpful to get emotionally immature persons past that stage without major baggage…speaking as a once emotionally immature person who dated someone I had no intent of marrying out of curiosity, but mainly loneliness and did not realize it wasn’t just about having fun with someone while too young to be serious for the guy.  I am very grateful that the only major regret I have was hurting him, but I know of some other women of my age who ended up with having to go through the official process to feel forgiveness because of the depth of their regrets and others with kids, STDs, and other permanent reminders of pushing the boundary till it broke choices.  I think in some of those cases more specific early warning boundaries would have been helpful, though most were driven by loneliness and had chosen to date guys who were willing to pressure them” (obviously not knowing they would be like that in many cases, but others ignored signs of selfishness in other areas)….

Lol, this is all reminding me of how grateful I am that dating was not part of my life for very long.  I probably got married way before I was ready, but what a blessing that it worked out very well for me overall. 

Edited January 10, 2022 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

27 minutes ago, rongo said:

 

I'm enjoying the discussion, all around. 

Question for both of you: do you see a difference in the Church, hypothetically, making it clear that (handholding, etc.) is not a Law of Chastity violation per se, but still strongly discouraging it or even condemning it? In other words, would it make a difference to you if the Church didn't couch the rationale in terms of the Law of Chastity?

To me, it seems like a distinction without a difference. 

This is what I and others have been saying. Based on my experience trying to help gay members who wanted to keep the commandments as defined by the Church --- sanctioning and encouraging non-platonic kissing, handholding, hugging, etc. would have thrown these poor people into a real dilemma. For people trying not to violate the actual Law of Chastity (overtly, or "already in your heart"), Church-sanctioned gay dating would have been a troubling trial that they and I both would have felt would not have had a good outcome for their goals or their eternal development. 

Regardless of whether or not it is actually part of the Law of Chastity or not, there are very good reasons, from a Church standpoint, to discourage and not to support gay dating. Unless we've just been hopelessly wrong the entire time about homosexuality and the plan of salvation. 

I believe it's a distinction with an important difference. Yes, the church could simply come out and say "we consider XYZ behavior is a sin and therefore individuals who engage in XYZ behavior will experience the following consequences". This would be an example of the church setting a policy as opposed to declaring their new rule to be a part of God's law of Chastity, which it clearly isn't. Claiming something is part of the LoC when it isn't weakens and makes a mockery of the LoC.

If we believe affectionate hand-holding and kissing is sinful because it could lead LGBTQ individuals towards other behaviors, one would have to assume that the same behaviors in hetero couple could also lead towards other behaviors. 

There is a disparity in the treatment of the two different groups and that disparity is being justified because of the LoC. Except it's not the existing LoC. It's doing something that is bigoted (in the basic definition of the word) and saying it's because of God's law. So it's the church and leaders taking a stance and blaming God for it. 

Edited January 10, 2022 by HappyJackWagon

[Fether]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If we believe affectionate hand-holding and kissing is sinful because it could lead LGBTQ individuals towards other behaviors, one would have to assume that the same behaviors in hetero couple could also lead towards other behaviors. 

Showing romantic affection to the same sex is the sin.

The only way I can see someone argueing this is if they assume there is some major revelation coming that changes the law of chastity to include the complete acceptance of homosexuality. And this of course, cannot he argued beyond anecdotal theories and past examples.

Edited January 10, 2022 by Fether

[bluebell]

37 minutes ago, rongo said:

 

I'm enjoying the discussion, all around. 

Question for both of you: do you see a difference in the Church, hypothetically, making it clear that (handholding, etc.) is not a Law of Chastity violation per se, but still strongly discouraging it or even condemning it? In other words, would it make a difference to you if the Church didn't couch the rationale in terms of the Law of Chastity?

To me, it seems like a distinction without a difference. 

 

You don't think there is a difference between the church strongly discouraging us from being cremated, for example, and the LoC (especially when we consider temple covenants)?

To me, there is a huge difference between a law of God and being discouraged from doing something, or even a prophet condemning it.  I mean, didn't prophets once condemn birth control?  Didn't another prophet once condemn playing with face cards?  Discouragement and condemnation have an important place, but they are vastly different than the laws of God.

Prophetic condemnation is much easier to walk back from, for good and bad.  And since prophets aren't infallible, being able to walk back from some of their teachings is kind of necessary.  But when you are talking about a Law from God, to me that implies capital R revelation.  You don't want to get those wrong, it's going to be huge messy (like you said in that other post-messy enough that it could topple some things). 

 

[kimpearson]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

You seem to have decided that given a gospel context, individuals' emotional and mental needs for love and stability are found exclusively in committed, single-partner relationships. Is that correct?

Individuals' emotional and mental needs for love and stability are found in several places that almost all humans seek for.  In the gospel context, the main ones are family, close friends and romantic relationships that have the potential to grow and become eternal.  There are many including queer members who don't enjoy one or all of these in this life.  Heterosexual cisgender members look to the future with a completely supported hope that they can have all three.  That is supported every Sunday, every conference and every talk given by a general authority.  That hope can be realized in this life or the eternities and such members see examples to give them hope everyday.  The thought of having them in the eternities is sweet and supportive for these members.  Heterosexual cisgender members who don't have one or all of these relationships often struggle with loneliness and poor self image.  For queer members, Church teachings deny two of these, family and romantic relationships if such members seek a queer relationship in this life.  The only hope queer members are given is that in the eternities they will be changed if faithful in this life.  That hope is really a false hope because experience has shown that almost all queer members have to accept they are queer to make it through life.  When queer members accept who they are, the thought of being changed in the eternities is repulsive.

[kimpearson]

2 hours ago, Vanguard said:

kim - Can you provide a reference for the numbers you seem to be claiming in your 2nd paragraph? Those do seem to be exorbitantly high. 

Just google it.  The incidence of queerness is uniform across the world.  Most reliable measures are 3% to 5% of the adult population is gay.  .03% to .09% are transgender.

Church membership 16 million.  480,000 to 800,000 gay church members.   48,000 to 144,000 transgender members.  (Counting family and close friends, the number of members personally affected is in the millions)

Most surveys in recent years actually show these percentages increasing as society becomes more accepting.  There is no evidence that members of the Church have a different incidence of being queer.

Edited January 10, 2022 by kimpearson

[LoudmouthMormon]

A family in my ward had a son, who is now showing up in a dress.  I don't know the story.  But today this individual was in the hall, being love-bombed by a bunch of Young Women, and I heard one of them ask "can I do your hair?".

 

[kimpearson]

Just some more points of the number of queer members.  I mentor one group of parents with 2,500 members and am a member of another group with over 500 members.  I have asked several times if anyone is aware of a ward where they know of no queer kids.  No body can find one.  They all have queer kids.  I then asked if when they were growing up, were they aware of any queer kids in their peers at church.  Some were but most weren't.  Many parents are relating that as their kids come out, they are discovering that a number of their ancestors were queer and the secret was kept by a select few in the family.

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, rongo said:

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

I hug my housemate frequently. He's really sick right now, and I've been known to sit on the edge of his bed and hold his hand. Western culture has already done significant damage to men; I have zero need for some kind of 'letter of the law' statement from the Church that could do even more damage to men regarding the ability to express non-sexual physical affection.

[CV75]

42 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

Individuals' emotional and mental needs for love and stability are found in several places that almost all humans seek for.  In the gospel context, the main ones are family, close friends and romantic relationships that have the potential to grow and become eternal.  There are many including queer members who don't enjoy one or all of these in this life.  Heterosexual cisgender members look to the future with a completely supported hope that they can have all three.  That is supported every Sunday, every conference and every talk given by a general authority.  That hope can be realized in this life or the eternities and such members see examples to give them hope everyday.  The thought of having them in the eternities is sweet and supportive for these members.  Heterosexual cisgender members who don't have one or all of these relationships often struggle with loneliness and poor self image.  For queer members, Church teachings deny two of these, family and romantic relationships if such members seek a queer relationship in this life.  The only hope queer members are given is that in the eternities they will be changed if faithful in this life.  That hope is really a false hope because experience has shown that almost all queer members have to accept they are queer to make it through life.  When queer members accept who they are, the thought of being changed in the eternities is repulsive.

Do have clinical credentials? From your response you seem to be saying that individuals' emotional and mental needs for love and stability are found in several places (I’ll add to that, in several ways).

To me, the gospel context is a covenant relationship with God (i.e., marriage, children and extended family, and friends who are also on the covenant path via the ordinances). The expression of love combined with sexual attraction towards another person, as with the expression of all our passions, must honor these covenant relationships. Unrequited love and its attendant emotions and the denial of marriage for any number of reasons is a common experience. An outlet for romantic feelings and emotional fulfillment cannot be guaranteed for anyone, and we have to deal with disappointment.

From what you described, the better question seems to be, “How much romance can a relationship endure, individually and as part of the couple's larger community, in deference to their covenant relationships?” and not “How can a romantic relationship, in deference to covenant relationships, be hoped for in heaven?” And perhaps the more important question is, “What does God want me to do about the covenants now, in this mortal probation?”

Doctrinally, a person can receive God’s grace to endure these disappointments for life, hope for a better life, do good works and enjoy healthy covenant relationships as circumstances and opportunities arise. But often a clinical intervention may be helpful as people deal with their inner experience and expectations vis-à-vis their faith, their church and their society at large.

[pogi]

29 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

A family in my ward had a son, who is now showing up in a dress.  I don't know the story.  But today this individual was in the hall, being love-bombed by a bunch of Young Women, and I heard one of them ask "can I do your hair?".

 

I wish I knew that trick to get attention from girls in my school years!

[Calm]

2 hours ago, kimpearson said:

When queer members accept who they are, the thought of being changed in the eternities is repulsive.

I can see where this is likely true for at least a significant part of queer members, likely even a majority given how acceptance of self works in other areas of the self in our culture, but also given how acceptance works in other areas of the self (plus there is likely differences in other cultures in our world) I wonder if it is as absolute as you present it as or if there is a significant amount of queer members who are able to say ‘this entirety of me is the way I am now and I accept and even love that I am this way for now, but I don’t need to be this way forever, so I am okay with God changing me if he thinks that is best in the next life”.

Edited January 11, 2022 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

32 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

The incidence of queerness is uniform across the world.

No, it's not.

[rpn]

3 hours ago, kimpearson said:

 

There are literally hundreds of thousands of gay members and former members of the Church.  There are literally tens of thousands transgender members and former members.  There are literally tens of thousands of other members that identify as some other form of queer.

 

The BYU Alumni magazine printed maybe 25 years ago a report of research at BYU that showed that the more children you had the more likely you would have gay children, the guess (and it was just a guess, based on the research they did) being that something hormonally occurred over the course of multiple pregnancies.  Given that Catholics, Latter-day Saints and places where a lot of children die early are generally the communities that have lots of children in each family, it would be a reasonable extrapolation that a higher percentage of those groups would be gay.    (I've searched long and hard for research online, but I haven't found it in the last ten or so years I've looked for it.   The professor has died.  So all I have is my memory of what I read.)

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I hug my housemate frequently. He's really sick right now, and I've been known to sit on the edge of his bed and hold his hand. Western culture has already done significant damage to men; I have zero need for some kind of 'letter of the law' statement from the Church that could do even more damage to men regarding the ability to express non-sexual physical affection.

That would be a problem in the Philippines too.  My Filipino companions would hold my hand or have their arm around my shoulder as we walked the streets.  That’s just what they do.  At first it made me really uncomfortable, but I grew to appreciate the culture and gesture.  It bonded us as brothers.  

Edited January 11, 2022 by pogi

[Fether]

46 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

A family in my ward had a son, who is now showing up in a dress.  I don't know the story.  But today this individual was in the hall, being love-bombed by a bunch of Young Women, and I heard one of them ask "can I do your hair?".

 

That’s incredible! My sister left school entirely partly for experiencing the exact opposite.

Edited January 11, 2022 by Fether

[kimpearson]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

I can see where this is likely true for at least a significant part of queer members, likely even a majority given how acceptance of self works in other areas of the self in our culture, but also given how acceptance works in other areas of the self I wonder if it is as absolute as you present it as or if there is a significant amount of queer members who are able to say ‘this entirety of me is the way I am now and I accept and even love that I am this way for now, but I don’t need to be this way forever, so I am okay with God changing me if he thinks that is best in the next life”.

I have heard that comment from about 10 of the approximate 5,000 stories I have listened too.