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

[kimpearson]

29 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

No, it's not.

Show me where it doesn't occur in the ranges I have quoted and there is a free release of information by the government.   Show me any place that it doesn't occur at all.

[kimpearson]

Not that this is the most authoritative but it is interesting.

 

https://universe.byu.edu/2021/03/11/recent-survey-finds-nearly-1000-byu-student-survey-respondents-identify-as-lgbtq/

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, rpn said:

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.)

I remember it as well.

I believe it is related to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation

Edited January 11, 2022 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

Yes, men and women (monks, priests, and nuns) have sometimes been unable to maintain their vows of celibacy.  That is part of the human story, and we need to address it frankly and openly.

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, kimpearson said:

Show me any place that it doesn't occur at all.

'Where Masturbation and Homosexuality Do Not Exist'.

As I have previously noted (probably far too many times), I spent 13 years in a research school at a major university that brought together historians, anthropologists, and linguists in an 'area studies' approach. Research in our area of the world is conclusive: all sexual identities (hetero-, homo-, bi-, etc.) are late 19th-century Western social constructs that, as is mentioned in the above article, were introduced into many non-Western societies though the process of colonisation -- a process that is ongoing. There were no local terms for these identities because the concepts simply didn't exist. And in fact, sexuality and gender were ordered and constructed very differently. (If you're interested, I'm happy to discuss Melanesian societies that, as late as the 1980s, still structured the male sexual experience around the transition from a 'receiver of seed' to a 'giver of seed'.)

As the above article notes near the end: 'This finding recalls a much-discussed 2010 Behavioral and Brain Sciences paper called "The WEIRDest people in the world?" in which the authors argued that far too many sweeping claims about "human nature" are drawn exclusively from samples of Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies'.

The realisation that almost all social science 'data' are culturally bound has only grown in the intervening 12 years, and, frankly, those of us who live and/or do research outside of the West are pretty much over it.

All totalising discourses mask their genealogies and obscure (or downplay) competing narratives in order to pretend to universality and timelessness. I don't personally know a single professional historian, linguist, or anthropologist who would disagree with what I have written in this post.

Edited January 11, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[CV75]

54 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 don't see the resurrection as changing us in any way, but restoring us to our perfect form. There was a perfect spiritual creation before a perfect physical creation, and then this creation fell. There is a physical restoration of the imperfect physical creation that came before, to match the original spiritual and matching original physical creations.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Fether said:

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

Your citation doesn't actually deal with the question of what is homosexual desire, or homosexual behavior, which you seem to define as "sin."  Now, of course, if you have us all convicted by our thoughts, then that merely tells us what we already know:  That all are sinners, and that all we can do is repent.  It does not in any way address what in fact is prohibited activity.  That needs to be addressed directly, not by fuzzy implication.

[The Nehor]

3 hours 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.

It is self-torture. From personal experience it is torturous enough to go looking for something and trying and failing and watching it never work out. It wears you down. Trying to do the same thing when success means you still don’t get what you want is just adding salt to the torture wounds.

Edited January 11, 2022 by The Nehor

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, rongo said:

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. 

You need to be able to define the terms of those actions and what they mean exactly then, with the understanding that it only applies to North American Caucasian culture -- since we have a profusion of cultures in North America, not all of which have the same standards and expectations.  Not to mention that most LDS members live outside the USA and speak a language other than English -- with a culture often very foreign to what the majority expect to find in Utah County.

I have lived for many years outside the USA, and have seen conduct which was certainly not questionable, but would be in a USA setting.  I worry that shallow thinking may come to dominate what is prohibited, with the consequent anger and disappointment which comes with innocence being misinterpreted as sin.  We already prohibit polygamy in countries where it is perfectly legal, and won't baptize polygamists in those countries.

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, rongo said:

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. 

Which is why the advice already provided in For the Strength of Youth applies across the board:

Quote

Never do anything that could lead to sexual transgression. Treat others with respect, not as objects used to satisfy lustful and selfish desires. Before marriage, do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing. Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body. Pay attention to the promptings of the Spirit so that you can be clean and virtuous. The Spirit of the Lord will withdraw from one who is in sexual transgression.

Avoid situations that invite increased temptation, such as late-night or overnight activities away from home or activities where there is a lack of adult supervision. Do not participate in discussions or any media that arouse sexual feelings. Do not participate in any type of pornography. The Spirit can help you know when you are at risk and give you the strength to remove yourself from the situation.

This isn't hard, in my opinion. If something increases my desire to violate the Law of Chastity (or the likelihood that I will), then I shouldn't do that thing. And the list of such things is going to be unique to each person and will even shift with the passage of time and the influence of new experiences and new people. Of necessity, it must also be subject to revelation and revelatory adjustments/updates.

For these reasons, any attempt to 'build a [concrete] hedge' around the Law of Chastity is doomed to fail ... and harm all kinds of people in the process.

Edited January 11, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

1 hour ago, kimpearson said:

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

Then perhaps you shouldn’t use absolutes rather than speaking like the 10 don’t exist. I don’t see that as anymore appropriate than speaking as if homosexuality of whatever minority percentage it exists in does not exist in our culture. 

Edited January 11, 2022 by Calm

[Fether]

37 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your citation doesn't actually deal with the question of what is homosexual desire, or homosexual behavior, which you seem to define as "sin."  Now, of course, if you have us all convicted by our thoughts, then that merely tells us what we already know:  That all are sinners, and that all we can do is repent.  It does not in any way address what in fact is prohibited activity.  That needs to be addressed directly, not by fuzzy implication.

No, It’s not about thoughts. It’s about your intentions with your actions. If I’m holding hands with a man because it’s culturally appropriate to do between friends, all is well. But if I am holding hands with a man, and I’m doing so to show romantic affection, that is where the sin lies.

Edited January 11, 2022 by Fether

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I don't see the resurrection as changing us in any way, but restoring us to our perfect form. There was a perfect spiritual creation before a perfect physical creation, and then this creation fell. There is a physical restoration of the imperfect physical creation that came before, to match the original spiritual and matching original physical creations.

Hummmm….that doesn’t really click with my view of eternal progression unless our original form was very, very simple and can’t really be defined as having strengths or weaknesses. 

Edited January 11, 2022 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

7 hours 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. 

Eloping for the weekend to a shotgun-wedding-without-the-shotgun to Vega$ so that the twosome can do "the old hippity-dippity" without [technically] violating the Law of Chastity, then having the marriage annulled?  (If there's a better example of keeping "the letter of the law" while, at the same time, violating, completely and totally, its spirit, I'm hard-pressed to say what it is.)

Edited January 11, 2022 by Kenngo1969

[SteveO]

1 minute ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Eloping for the weekend a shotgun-wedding-without-the-shotgun to Vega$ so that the twosome can do "the old hippity-dippity" without [technically] violating the Law of Chastity, then having the marriage annulled?  (If there's a better example of keeping "the letter of the law" while, at the same time, violating, completely and totally, its spirit, I'm hard-pressed to say what it is.)

Eh, I’ve heard of that.  Pretty sure most of the accounts of the lengths LDS youth were willing to go in order to keep the “spirit of the law” are urban legends.

There was a far more crass and crude legend that went around the oil fields when I was still in that demonstrated how far LDS women were willing to go in order to satisfy the sexual needs of their partners, while still maintaining their “chastity”.  I wouldn’t  put too much confidence in them.

[LoudmouthMormon]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

'Where Masturbation and Homosexuality Do Not Exist'.

 

I can't wait to click on that link, but it just takes us to another part of this thread.  Can you fix it?

[Hamba Tuhan]

16 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I can't wait to click on that link, but it just takes us to another part of this thread.  Can you fix it?

Oops! Fixed now. Thanks!

[LoudmouthMormon]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

2 hours ago, kimpearson said:

Show me any place that it doesn't occur at all.

'Where Masturbation and Homosexuality Do Not Exist'.

Oh wow.  What an interesting article, and from The Atlantic no less.

@kimpearson, I'm looking forward to your response.   Is it possible that some of your "sweeping claims about human nature", are merely "drawn exclusively from samples of Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies"?

Edited January 11, 2022 by LoudmouthMormon

[kimpearson]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

'Where Masturbation and Homosexuality Do Not Exist'.

As I have previously noted (probably far too many times), I spent 13 years in a research school at a major university that brought together historians, anthropologists, and linguists in an 'area studies' approach. Research in our area of the world is conclusive: all sexual identities (hetero-, homo-, bi-, etc.) are late 19th-century Western social constructs that, as is mentioned in the above article, were introduced into many non-Western societies though the process of colonisation -- a process that is ongoing. There were no local terms for these identities because the concepts simply didn't exist. And in fact, sexuality and gender were ordered and constructed very differently. (If you're interested, I'm happy to discuss Melanesian societies that, as late as the 1980s, still structured the male sexual experience around the transition from a 'receiver of seed' to a 'giver of seed'.)

As the above article notes near the end: 'This finding recalls a much-discussed 2010 Behavioral and Brain Sciences paper called "The WEIRDest people in the world?" in which the authors argued that far too many sweeping claims about "human nature" are drawn exclusively from samples of Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies'.

The realisation that almost all social science 'data' are culturally bound has only grown in the intervening 12 years, and, frankly, those of us who live and/or do research outside of the West are pretty much over it.

All totalising discourses mask their genealogies and obscure (or downplay) competing narratives in order to pretend to universality and timelessness. I don't personally know a single professional historian, linguist, or anthropologist who would disagree with what I have written in this post.

I don't want to argue but the article clearly states that homosexuality individuals could exist.  This article really isn't the definitive statement you make it out to be.

When I put this to the Hewletts, they replied that indeed, the desire may exist in some individuals in these groups, but we simply do not know. They added that although the Aka and Ngandu live in small groups, "They travel extensively and our studies suggest each person knows about 400-500 individuals," which means that, theoretically, a person with homosexual desires might find another person with the same. But in a culture in which the general idea of a desire doesn't exist, such a desire might remain unarticulated, even if two people who share it find each other.

[kimpearson]

46 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Oh wow.  What an interesting article, and from The Atlantic no less.

@kimpearson, I'm looking forward to your response.   Is it possible that some of your "sweeping claims about human nature", are merely "drawn exclusively from samples of Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies"?

I am curious why you don't do your own research.  It only takes 5 or 10 minutes but here is an excerpt from an article on the American Psychological Association website.

Most historians agree that there is evidence of homosexual activity and same-sex love, whether such relationships were accepted or persecuted, in every documented culture.

A brief history of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender social movements/Bonnie J. Morris, PhD

https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/history

[SkyRock]

Before the Sexual Revolution, many if not most with SSA ended up marrying and having children.   Many out were able to overcome their attraction and live differently, in accordance with the LoC.

I know a man near 90 who engaged in same sex activity as a young man, then went on a mission, married in the temple, had a bunch of kids, served as bishop, and then as a stake president.  

[Cordelia]

15 minutes ago, SkyRock said:

Before the Sexual Revolution, many if not most with SSA ended up marrying and having children.   Many out were able to overcome their attraction and live differently, in accordance with the LoC.

I know a man near 90 who engaged in same sex activity as a young man, then went on a mission, married in the temple, had a bunch of kids, served as bishop, and then as a stake president.  

Though it should be noted that the Church Handbook specifically says not to recommend heterosexual marriage as a way to "cure" homosexuality. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, kimpearson said:

  This article really isn't the definitive statement you make it out to be.

I didn't in any way intend it to be definitive, just one easy answer to your original question. My understanding is based on more than a decade of academic experience, thousands of pages of primary research, and many dozens of conversations with fellow academics -- all of which is hard to link to online.

Quote

I don't want to argue but the article clearly states that homosexuality individuals could exist.

Of course it does. Attempting to force information into compliance with dominant paradigms is precisely what we do, and subjunctive language like could and might certainly helps that process.

1 hour ago, kimpearson said:

Most historians agree that there is evidence of homosexual activity and same-sex love, whether such relationships were accepted or persecuted, in every documented culture.

This is a correct statement. Same-sex sexual behaviour is ubiquitous. For example, in many (though not all) pre-Christian Melanesian societies, every single male engaged in same-sex sexual behaviour over nearly his entire lifetime, beginning as a receiver of seed once taken from the women's compound (around age 5) and eventually growing into a giver of seed for both wives and younger males. Naturally, love played a role in all this, with the most emotionally intimate relationships between males and their male mentors/protectors.

Now try asking historians, anthropologists and linguists about fixed, gendered sexual identities, and you'll get a very different answer. Hint: the consensus is that these are late 19th-century social constructs, without precedent in human history.

Edited January 11, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[SkyRock]

17 minutes ago, Cordelia said:

Though it should be noted that the Church Handbook specifically says not to recommend heterosexual marriage as a way to "cure" homosexuality. 

As best as I know, no one tried to "cure" him.   He decided to follow a different path and repented of the sins of his youth.  Simple as that. 

[kimpearson]

1 hour ago, SkyRock said:

Before the Sexual Revolution, many if not most with SSA ended up marrying and having children.   Many out were able to overcome their attraction and live differently, in accordance with the LoC.

I know a man near 90 who engaged in same sex activity as a young man, then went on a mission, married in the temple, had a bunch of kids, served as bishop, and then as a stake president.  

Actually that is not the history I have read.  Many married and had children and were miserable their whole lives.  Many lived two lives, one as an outward heterosexual and a secret gay life with homosexual relationships.  Many drank themselves to death.  Others likely committed suicide.  Others were put in institutions.  Many actually lived openly as gay.  Once again do some research on the subject.  Talk to the 90 year old and listen to his story.  I have talked to a number of similar individuals who are in their 70's and 80's who held important church callings their whole life.  Every one of them has shared of story of secretly hating themselves and determining the only way to redeem themselves was to serve the Lord.  They learned early in life to never share their true feelings even with their spouse.  In every case I have personally listened to, they still view themselves as broken and likely unworthy or they have come to accept themselves and are very angry at the life they had to endure.

Attached is just one article on the subject:  https://www.history.com/news/gay-culture-roaring-twenties-prohibition   Forgot to mention that many homosexual members left the intermountain west and moved to cities when they could be gay.

Edited January 11, 2022 by kimpearson