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

[Fether]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Even IF I agreed that the "church" has clearly defined right and wrong on this topic, I still have no reason to believe that God has.  "God" and the "church" are not the same thing even though they are often treated as if they were. Great deference is given to the church based on the assumption that everything they do and say is God's will, yet mistakes and corrections are still made. 

I'm assuming you don't have any scriptural references to support your claim since you didn't include any in your response.

The quote from Pres Ballard is my scriptural reference

[CA Steve]

2 hours ago, Fether said:

The church has already made it clear that acting on homosexual desires is a wrong. We aren’t talking about right and wrong though. What is being asked is where do the punishments start. THAT is the issue with this conversation.

It's like you are totally unaware of your own comment.

You brought up the Law of Moses. THAT is the reason for my response.

/sheesh

[california boy]

18 hours 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 haven't read through this whole thread, but I want to address what you are asking.  When I talked to both my bishop and stake president, I specifically asked them what my options were.

 Could I live with a gay room mate?  No, that wouldn't be proper just like a straight man living with a room mate who was a woman.  

Could I have a room mate that was a woman?  No, that wouldn't be proper.  Avoid the very appearance of evil.

Could I date a man but not have sexual relations?  No, that would only lead to sin.

So are you telling me that the only choices for me was to live the rest of my life alone?  Not be able to even date a guy?  Yup.  That is what the Church wants you to do.

 

I wanted to stay in the Church.  It brought me a lot of happiness in my life.  But this? It would only bring me sadness and sorrow.  As I prayed about it, I felt God  was telling me that it would be ok to find someone I could love and share this life with.  That was the right decision for me.  From then on, it didn't matter to me what the Church policy was.  I could live my life without sex.  Many faithful members experience that.  What I couldn't do is live my life alone and without any companionship.  I had my answer.

When the gospel of Jesus Christ starts to be destructive to our lives, something is wrong.  Living it should bring us happiness, not only in the next life but in this life as well.  It is Satan's plan to bring misery and despair .  By the fruits, ye shall know.  In Christ's time, those that were the untouchables were lepers.  In the Church today, they are LGBT members.

I have had quite a few gay men come to me and ask me my advice.  I tell them that the gospel can bring much joy and happiness to them by living it and drawing close to the Savior.  When that path towards Christ brings misery and despair, then it is not the path they should be on.  The gosple of Christ isn't one of tortune and sadness, it is "the good news."  It brings light and goodness into your life, not darkness.

The current Church policy leads people away from Christ.  Is Todd Christofferson and David Archuleta and all the other thousands of gay men really benefitted by being forced out of the Church simply because they want to find happiness and joy in Christ?

Edited January 11, 2022 by california boy

[Fether]

8 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

It's like you are totally unaware of your own comment.

You brought up the Law of Moses. THAT is the reason for my response.

/sheesh

I did this on purpose because it seems you are unaware of your own words

Are you not the one demanding the church have a policy and punishment attached to all these acts? Is this not the law of Moses?

[california boy]

17 hours 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.

You clearly get it.  Thanks.

[CA Steve]

3 minutes ago, Fether said:

I did this on purpose because it seems you are unaware of your own words

Are you not the one demanding the church have a policy and punishment attached to all these acts? Is this not the law of Moses?

No I am not. Come on, at least read what others are writing.

[Fether]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

I haven't read through this whole thread, but I want to address what you are asking.  When I talked to both my bishop and stake president, I specifically asked them what my options were.

 Could I live with a gay room mate?  No, that wouldn't be proper just like a straight man living with a room mate who was a woman.  

Could I have a room mate that was a woman?  No, that wouldn't be proper.  Avoid the very appearance of evil.

Could I date a man but not have sexual relations?  No, that would only lead to sin.

So are you telling me that the only choices for me was to live the rest of my life alone?  Not be able to even date a guy?  Yup.  That is what the Church wants you to do.

 

I wanted to stay in the Church.  It brought me a lot of happiness in my life.  But this? It would only bring me sadness and sorrow.  As I prayed about it, I felt God  was telling me that it would be ok to find someone I could love and share this life with.  That was the right decision for me.  From then on, it didn't matter to me what the Church policy was.  I could live my life without sex.  Many faithful members experience that.  What I couldn't do is live my life alone and without any companionship.  I had my answer.

When the gospel of Jesus Christ starts to be destructive to our lives, something is wrong.  Living it should bring us happiness, not only in the next life but in this life as well.  It is Satan's plan to bring misery and despair .  By the fruits, ye shall know.  

I have had quite a few gay men come to me and ask me my advice.  I tell them that the gospel can bring much joy and happiness to them by living it and drawing close to the Savior.  When that path towards Christ brings misery and despair, then it is not the path they should be on.  The gosple of Christ isn't one of tortune and sadness, it is "the good news."  It brings light and goodness into your life, not darkness.

The current Church policy leads people away from Christ.  Is Todd Christofferson and David Archuleta and all the other thousands of gay men really benefitted by being forced out of the Church simply because they want to find happiness and joy in Christ?

This is the battle of the age we are in now. One of two things will happen. Do I think this approach is easy? No. Do I think it is fair? No. Do I think being alone or forcing yourself into a heterosexual relationship is the best decision for everyone? No.

One of two things will happen:

1) The church will change to match this social movement

2) The church won’t change and people will bang their heads against this wall forever

[Fether]

Just now, CA Steve said:

No I am not. Come on, at least read what others are writing.

Please instruct me on what is being asked here because now I’m lost.

The church has clearly defined that having gay feelings is ok. Acting on gay feelings is bad. (https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction)

If not a question about punishment, what is being asked? What are we talking about? It all seems fairly clear to me

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, Fether said:

This is the battle of the age we are in now. One of two things will happen. Do I think this approach is easy? No. Do I think it is fair? No. Do I think being alone or forcing yourself into a heterosexual relationship is the best decision for everyone? No.

One of two things will happen:

1) The church will change to match this social movement

2) The church won’t change and people will bang their heads against this wall forever

or 3) The church will change to make  the plan of happiness given to straight people to those who are LGBT.

[Fether]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

or 3) The church will change to make  the plan of happiness given to straight people to those who are LGBT.

Yep! I mentally included that as part of #1 but it is a good distinction to make.

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

I haven't read through this whole thread, but I want to address what you are asking.  When I talked to both my bishop and stake president, I specifically asked them what my options were.

 Could I live with a gay room mate?  No, that wouldn't be proper just like a straight man living with a room mate who was a woman.  

Could I have a room mate that was a woman?  No, that wouldn't be proper.  Avoid the very appearance of evil.

Could I date a man but not have sexual relations?  No, that would only lead to sin.

So are you telling me that the only choices for me was to live the rest of my life alone?  Not be able to even date a guy?  Yup.  That is what the Church wants you to do.

I wanted to stay in the Church.  It brought me a lot of happiness in my life.  But this? It would only bring me sadness and sorrow.  As I prayed about it, I felt God  was telling me that it would be ok to find someone I could love and share this life with.  That was the right decision for me.  From then on, it didn't matter to me what the Church policy was.  I could live my life without sex.  Many faithful members experience that.  What I couldn't do is live my life alone and without any companionship.  I had my answer.

When the gospel of Jesus Christ starts to be destructive to our lives, something is wrong.  Living it should bring us happiness, not only in the next life but in this life as well.  It is Satan's plan to bring misery and despair .  By the fruits, ye shall know.  

I have had quite a few gay men come to me and ask me my advice.  I tell them that the gospel can bring much joy and happiness to them by living it and drawing close to the Savior.  When that path towards Christ brings misery and despair, then it is not the path they should be on.  The gospel of Christ isn't one of tortune and sadness, it is "the good news."  It brings light and goodness into your life, not darkness.

The current Church policy leads people away from Christ.  Is Todd Christofferson and David Archuleta and all the other thousands of gay men really benefitted by being forced out of the Church simply because they want to find happiness and joy in Christ?

I think that the best thing for people in the Church who intend to live and embrace their homosexuality is to leave the Church, as you did. It gives me no pleasure to say that, and I think that many people are shocked to hear that at all, but my experience has been that only those dedicated to living the commandments as the Church sees them have any shot of successfully navigating it. And how long they are able to navigate it is another thing . . . 

The Church rightly teaches and emphasizes kindness, courtesy, and compassion to everyone, but must continue to be true to its principles. This means standing firm on this issue, and standing firm on this issue means that something has to give for those who are just as determined to be true to themselves, as they see it (i.e., embracing and not suppressing their homosexuality). 

All of the homosexuals I have worked with and counseled wanted to be able to live Church commandments at the time (one, a lesbian, has since left her husband and lives with a woman now. They had two teenage daughters when she left), so I never worked with someone like you (and those spotlighted in the article in the OP) who are looking for the Church to accommodate dating, marriage, DA (PDA is wrong in my book, hetero or straight.  Have some decorum and decency, and keep those things private), etc. I can really empathize with them, though, especially those who want to remain active in the Church. That's why I think that concrete guidance from the Brethren would be wonderful --- otherwise, local leaders are really left to their own devices. 

I don't really expect the Church to tackle this issue head-on. The Church for many years now has avoided addressing difficult issues directly. It sure could use it, though --- no matter where people are at on the issue. 

[CV75]

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

You clearly get it.  Thanks.

The desire for romantic relationships, however that is defined for any given time and place (culture), yes. Many people spend a lifetime without one, irrespective of sexuality. What can be had in any culture where the Church is permitted are the covenants of God, all of which are sexuality-neutral. The covenants, except for marriage, are all gender-neutral as well. The marriage covenant is not a romantic relationship, but a covenant one, both for the couple and their faith community to which they belong, which is comprised of both married and single people, and most of whom are not in a romantic relationship.

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think that the best thing for people in the Church who intend to live and embrace their homosexuality is to leave the Church, as you did. It gives me no pleasure to say that, and I think that many people are shocked to hear that at all, but my experience has been that only those dedicated to living the commandments as the Church sees them have any shot of successfully navigating it. And how long they are able to navigate it is another thing . . . 

The Church rightly teaches and emphasizes kindness, courtesy, and compassion to everyone, but must continue to be true to its principles. This means standing firm on this issue, and standing firm on this issue means that something has to give for those who are just as determined to be true to themselves, as they see it (i.e., embracing and not suppressing their homosexuality). 

All of the homosexuals I have worked with and counseled wanted to be able to live Church commandments at the time (one, a lesbian, has since left her husband and lives with a woman now. They had two teenage daughters when she left), so I never worked with someone like you (and those spotlighted in the article in the OP) who are looking for the Church to accommodate dating, marriage, DA (PDA is wrong in my book, hetero or straight.  Have some decorum and decency, and keep those things private), etc. I can really empathize with them, though, especially those who want to remain active in the Church. That's why I think that concrete guidance from the Brethren would be wonderful --- otherwise, local leaders are really left to their own devices. 

I don't really expect the Church to tackle this issue head-on. The Church for many years now has avoided addressing difficult issues directly. It sure could use it, though --- no matter where people are at on the issue. 

They might live with extended family also, at least they would not be alone. But the OP seems to be about the pursuit of romantic relationships, which by nature encourage courtship behaviors that suggest sexual intentions or complementary gender bonding given the right time and place (covenant marriage).

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

This is a completely different conversation on which is where our disagreement is likely centered.
 

Our church isn’t built on canonized scripture, it is built on the Christ who now directs his church through living prophets today. The canonized scriptures and directives from living Prophets hold equal weight.

So do you have a modern day revelation that the Church has received from God on this issue?  Or is it just Church policy. Because we know there have been many times where Church policy has not matched the will of Christ.

[california boy]

24 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The desire for romantic relationships, however that is defined for any given time and place (culture), yes. Many people spend a lifetime without one, irrespective of sexuality. What can be had in any culture where the Church is permitted are the covenants of God, all of which are sexuality-neutral. The covenants, except for marriage, are all gender-neutral as well. The marriage covenant is not a romantic relationship, but a covenant one, both for the couple and their faith community to which they belong, which is comprised of both married and single people, and most of whom are not in a romantic relationship.

I don't really get what your point is in context with what I posted above,  Can you explain?

 

Quote

I haven't read through this whole thread, but I want to address what you are asking.  When I talked to both my bishop and stake president, I specifically asked them what my options were.

 Could I live with a gay room mate?  No, that wouldn't be proper just like a straight man living with a room mate who was a woman.  

Could I have a room mate that was a woman?  No, that wouldn't be proper.  Avoid the very appearance of evil.

Could I date a man but not have sexual relations?  No, that would only lead to sin.

So are you telling me that the only choices for me was to live the rest of my life alone?  Not be able to even date a guy?  Yup.  That is what the Church wants you to do.

I wanted to stay in the Church.  It brought me a lot of happiness in my life.  But this? It would only bring me sadness and sorrow.  As I prayed about it, I felt God  was telling me that it would be ok to find someone I could love and share this life with.  That was the right decision for me.  From then on, it didn't matter to me what the Church policy was.  I could live my life without sex.  Many faithful members experience that.  What I couldn't do is live my life alone and without any companionship.  I had my answer.

When the gospel of Jesus Christ starts to be destructive to our lives, something is wrong.  Living it should bring us happiness, not only in the next life but in this life as well.  It is Satan's plan to bring misery and despair .  By the fruits, ye shall know.  In Christ's time, those that were the untouchables were lepers.  In the Church today, they are LGBT members.

I have had quite a few gay men come to me and ask me my advice.  I tell them that the gospel can bring much joy and happiness to them by living it and drawing close to the Savior.  When that path towards Christ brings misery and despair, then it is not the path they should be on.  The gosple of Christ isn't one of tortune and sadness, it is "the good news."  It brings light and goodness into your life, not darkness.

The current Church policy leads people away from Christ.  Is Todd Christofferson and David Archuleta and all the other thousands of gay men really benefitted by being forced out of the Church simply because they want to find happiness and joy in Christ?

 

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by california boy

[HappyJackWagon]

49 minutes ago, Fether said:

I think what is important to note is what the church claims to be. And it’s current stance on how to treat situations like what we are talking about are completely in Line with what they claim to be.

But the church doesn't claim to be perfect.

And the leaders don't claim to be infallible.

Still- I get your point that generally speaking they are treated as perfect and infallible.

[Fether]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But the church doesn't claim to be perfect.

And the leaders don't claim to be infallible.

Still- I get your point that generally speaking they are treated as perfect and infallible.

I care little about how culturally they are treated, and I agree, they make no claim to perfection.

I just see no use in trying to play guessing games on what changes come next. 
 

I have absolutely no problem with the church coming out tomorrow and extending the blessings of the temple to practicing homosexuals. I have even, in my own mind, justified how that may be the case. But today I choose to follow the church as it currently stands 

[Fether]

13 minutes ago, california boy said:

So do you have a modern day revelation that the Church has received from God on this issue?  Or is it just Church policy. Because we know there have been many times where Church policy has not matched the will of Christ.

And this is the heart of the matter, the thread everyone is hanging on. Homosexuality has been spoken of as being a sin for generations. If this is a cultural things and God wants it changed, I have no problem getting behind it.

until that day, however, I won’t be jumping the gun on something that may or may not happen.

 

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think that the best thing for people in the Church who intend to live and embrace their homosexuality is to leave the Church, as you did. It gives me no pleasure to say that, and I think that many people are shocked to hear that at all, but my experience has been that only those dedicated to living the commandments as the Church sees them have any shot of successfully navigating it. And how long they are able to navigate it is another thing . . . 

The Church rightly teaches and emphasizes kindness, courtesy, and compassion to everyone, but must continue to be true to its principles. This means standing firm on this issue, and standing firm on this issue means that something has to give for those who are just as determined to be true to themselves, as they see it (i.e., embracing and not suppressing their homosexuality). 

All of the homosexuals I have worked with and counseled wanted to be able to live Church commandments at the time (one, a lesbian, has since left her husband and lives with a woman now. They had two teenage daughters when she left), so I never worked with someone like you (and those spotlighted in the article in the OP) who are looking for the Church to accommodate dating, marriage, DA (PDA is wrong in my book, hetero or straight.  Have some decorum and decency, and keep those things private), etc. I can really empathize with them, though, especially those who want to remain active in the Church. That's why I think that concrete guidance from the Brethren would be wonderful --- otherwise, local leaders are really left to their own devices. 

I don't really expect the Church to tackle this issue head-on. The Church for many years now has avoided addressing difficult issues directly. It sure could use it, though --- no matter where people are at on the issue. 

When I was reading this post it reminded me of the wording that we have  in the WoW, about how it was adapted for the weakest of saints. 

And that reminded me of our teachings on divorce.  Jesus taught that to divorce for any other reason than adultery was a sin and that remarriage was akin to adultery (so a distinct breaking of the LoC), yet we believe that God does not automatically condemn divorced people and that He allows remarriage, even in the temple, and that one can remarry and still be keeping the LoC as it has been given to us.

So my two thoughts from those thoughts are 1) God is merciful and compassionate, and we know that He can adapt and has adapted laws or rules to fit our weaknesses and 2) allowing something that Jesus Christ taught was against the LoC did not destroy the LoC.

I'm wondering, why do so many of us believe it is impossible for the church to allow such adaptations and mercy when it comes to homosexuality and even SSM, when we know that similar adaptations have been implemented by God in the past (and when some of us are divorced and have remarried and are currently living such an adaptation)?

It's one thing to believe that God will not condone it but to me it's different to state that God cannot condone it.  It's the "cannot condone" that I'm wondering about.  I hear that often, that God cannot condone SSM because it would be against the LoC (or some other reason). 

I don't think such a statement really holds up very well.

 

[Vanguard]

17 hours ago, kimpearson said:

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.

Well, I think that's still a big assumption those numbers would bear out regardless of the demographic but at least I know now how you're arriving at them. Also, considering that a significant percentage of the 16 million are children, it strikes me as odd that you would also be including them in your numbers.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Fether said:

Are you missing the point? Or deliberately ignoring it cause you know it’s a good one?

I’m just going to repost what I did above and maybe you will get it.

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.

If you want some law of Moses like set rules of what you can and can’t do, your in the wrong church.

Depends upon which "church" you are speaking of.  The Law of Moses is the law of carnal commandments, a schoolmaster to get us to Christ and the higher law.  Apostle Peter had a very hard time accepting that, but finally realized that it was OK to leave behind the Law of Moses on what could and could not be eaten, circumcision, and a host of other outward observances.

The Puritans were clearly wrong in their sets of demands, while at the same time executing innocent women for witchcraft.  So too the BYU Honor Code Office has to wend its way through the various demands made by the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the practicality of it.  What sort of rules are needed?  Are Fether's rules too stringent?  Have there been changes in the rules in recent decades?  When BYU administrators sit down with members of the Board of Trustees (which include a number of Brethren) and the LDS Commissioner of Education, do they all agree that Fether's rules are best?  Or are they a whole lot more broad-minded than that?

We obviously cannot read minds.  So what sort of outward appearances trigger a report to the BYU Honor Code Office?  Especially seeing that God does not judge by outward appearance, but by the heart.  What should the Honor Code Office do as a practical matter?  Have those rules changed?  You are avoiding addressing those hard questions.  I am looking for a descriptive rather than prescriptive analysis or summary.

Edited January 11, 2022 by Robert F. Smith

[california boy]

45 minutes ago, Fether said:

And this is the heart of the matter, the thread everyone is hanging on. Homosexuality has been spoken of as being a sin for generations. If this is a cultural things and God wants it changed, I have no problem getting behind it.

until that day, however, I won’t be jumping the gun on something that may or may not happen.

 

I feel the same.  And honestly I doubt it will happen, at least for a very long time.

[california boy]

31 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Well, I think that's still a big assumption those numbers would bear out regardless of the demographic but at least I know now how you're arriving at them. Also, considering that a significant percentage of the 16 million are children, it strikes me as odd that you would also be including them in your numbers.

Does it really matter what the number is?  Is there a number that if reached, would change your mind about anything?  

[Fether]

29 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So what sort of outward appearances trigger a report to the BYU Honor Code Office?  Especially seeing that God does not judge by outward appearance, but by the heart.  What should the Honor Code Office do as a practical matter?  Have those rules changed?  You are avoiding addressing those hard questions.  I am looking for a descriptive rather than prescriptive analysis or summary.

I’m not avoiding them, I thought this conversation was about the church as a whole. The OP article is pointing at the church, not the school.

As for the school, I know little about how the honor code is policed. If the honor code is policed by bishops, then it is simply up to the bishop to act as a judge (as they are supposed to) for each situation.

[Fether]

21 minutes ago, california boy said:

I feel the same.  And honestly I doubt it will happen, at least for a very long time.

Jim Bennet made an observation that if a change were to come from God on this, it would like be through Dallin H Oaks.
 

What Prophet is more set up to make such a monumental change if not him? He is the LAST person we would expect to make that change and him doing so would leave no shadow of a doubt in the eyes of the public and church that this change comes from God.