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

[Robert F. Smith]

4 minutes ago, Fether said:

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.

The bishops of student wards at BYU are generally members of the BYU staff, though not always.  Something said to a bishop is part of the regular confessional in law and is confidential, unless it is a complaint about another student's perceived misbehavior.  Most of the action taken by the Honor Code Office is a result of fellow students saying something, or based on police interaction with students.  Long ago, the BYU police were very aggressive in enforcing the rules, even engaging in undercover ops.  I don't think that there is much of that now.

The reason for a focus on BYU (at the several campuses) is that LDS Church policy is likely to be seen in action there, while it might not be visible elsewhere.

I have always thought that the strength of the LDS Church is that the members are taught correct principles and then allowed to implement them however they wish.  That was Joseph Smith's approach.

[Vanguard]

32 minutes ago, california boy said:

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

When speaking about the prevalence of the LGBT orientation I would like to know the numbers I am hearing are accurate. kim's pretty strong claim struck me as an overreach. And to answer your question, it's not about the numbers.

What is your take on the numbers?

Edited January 11, 2022 by Vanguard

[california boy]

13 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

When speaking about the prevalence of the LGBT orientation I would like to know the numbers I am hearing are accurate. kim's pretty strong claim struck me as an overreach. And to answer your question, it's not about the numbers.

What is your take on the numbers?

I am not going to speculate on what the numbers are because I don't really know.  The percentages she gave is pretty consistent with what I have read over the years.  What I do know is that there are few people in the Church who don't know someone or is directly related to someone who is LGBT.  Whatever the number, I don't think it is insignificant.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

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

The context is your reply to kimpearson's post, in which you said, "You clearly get it.  Thanks."

I agree that the desire for romantic relationships is experienced by all under consideration in his post. I was giving that further and broader context to consider the feelings of any member of the Church.

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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

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.

Well even for heterosexuals dating, holding hands, kissing and hugging can lead to other things. 

[HappyJackWagon]

3 hours ago, Fether said:

The quote from Pres Ballard is my scriptural reference

I'll state the obvious. A quote from Pres. Ballard is not scripture. It is a statement from an apostle.

I'm confident you can comprehend the difference between the two. If you can't, ask yourself if the church treats all statements from Pres./Elder Ballard as scripture.

I'm also confident that you know that every statement by an apostle is not considered a revelation, which other poster's were asking for. 

When it comes down to it the church is lacking a modern day revelation or scripture that defines what behaviors are inappropriate for LGBTQ individuals that would be appropriate for straight individuals and why that double standard would be acceptable. The church is also lacking a modern day revelation or scripture that explains an LGBTQ person's place in the plan of happiness. As it stands, they either have no place at all or they are being discriminated against within the church based on church policy, both of which are totally unacceptable.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

(PDA is wrong in my book, hetero or straight.  Have some decorum and decency, and keep those things private)

That is another cultural taboo and probably not part of the gospel.

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, Fether said:

-NCMO-

Heterosexual couple: lust

Homosexual couple: lust and homosexual behavior

-Romance driven hand holding-

heterosexual couple: innocent

Homosexual couple: homosexual behavior

 

its that added “homosexual behavior” sin that separates the acts

This is simply your interpretation. The leadership has not made this distinction have they?

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, Fether said:

Because part of the LOC is “acting of homosexual feelings is a sin”

“Let us be clear: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that ‘the experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including [those with same-sex attraction].’” - M Russell Ballard

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction

Still does not forbid dating, etc based on what I see.  But one thing you are reinforcing to me is that most LBGT people are likely better off leaving the Church.  Living a life with no even emotional intimate connection seems pretty bleak.  Yes I know we can have emotionally intimate connections with friends and family but these are different IMO.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Still does not forbid dating, etc based on what I see.  But one thing you are reinforcing to me is that most LBGT people are likely better off leaving the Church.  Living a life with no even emotional intimate connection seems pretty bleak.  Yes I know we can have emotionally intimate connections with friends and family but these are different IMO.

Bleak, indeed.

One thing this thread has illustrated...again...is that the church doesn't have anything joyful to offer LGBTQ individuals in this life and it really doesn't even have anything to offer in the next life either. There are no answers, only sadness and judgment. The church will continue to push the unwanted aside and many will continue to leave. It's probably for the best.

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, Fether said:

The quote from Pres Ballard is my scriptural reference

 quote by an apostle in LDS newsroom is not scripture nor does it define policy.

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That is another cultural taboo and probably not part of the gospel.

Quote

  3 hours ago, rongo said:

(PDA is wrong in my book, hetero or straight.  Have some decorum and decency, and keep those things private)

@Rongo   - I imagine you have held your wife's hand in public or put your arm around her in Sacrament Meeting, or worse, maybe even kissed her on the cheek in public. All of those things are PDA that would be deemed inappropriate for and LGBTQ couple. I always appreciate your perspectives but I find it hard to believe you would really find those things indecent   In any case, definitely a personal preference, not gospel in any way.

 

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

Say what?

[Calm]

10 hours 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 the church will not change the LOC, but will change in other ways as more accurate knowledge is learned and falsehoods dispensed with and revelation received to better teach how to live a chaste, gospel filled life and how to feel loved, needed, have true companions and family in many ways rather than depending on a list of do nots for those that vary from the standard of straight, married, with children, to have full and varied approaches focusing on creating a role for each based on who they are, not how they compare to the so-called ideal, thus making other choices feel as “less than” rather than the unique ideal for that one individual. 

Edited January 12, 2022 by Calm

[kimpearson]

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

When speaking about the prevalence of the LGBT orientation I would like to know the numbers I am hearing are accurate. kim's pretty strong claim struck me as an overreach. And to answer your question, it's not about the numbers.

What is your take on the numbers?

OK. You seem to need more evidence of my overreach and clarification.  The percentages I gave are verified in every country in North and South America, Europe, Asia, India and many countries in Africa.  If anything the percentages I gave are understated because many countries report higher percentages.  Japan, India, China for example reports percentages far higher than 5%.  The percent of adults identifying as queer is actually less than most current polls of youth 12 through 18.  There is no indication that somehow children under 12 will have a different occurrence of being queer.  One poster wanted to argue with me over one small group that is so small it literally has no statistical or practical relevance.   All current evidence points to the likelihood that the numbers I previously stated are on the very bottom of the most conservative estimates.  To be frank it is likely over 1 million members of the Church are queer but that would have caused so much denial that I didn't start there.

Your skepticism is shared by every church leader, active member who has never looked at the issue and many members of conservative christian churches I have pointed this out too.  It seems to scare people because most believe in their hearts that God would never have so many of His Children come to this earth who are queer.  Many folks cling to past theories that queerness is caused by something that happened to a person after they were born.  The possibility that a baby is born queer shakes their view of God.  So I am not surprised by you or others who want to argue with totally irrelevant details to somehow justify their views.  All I ask is that you quit looking for a way to argue with me about exact numbers and accept that a whole lot of your fellow brothers and sisters both in the Church an out are queer and have the same longings for romantic committed love that heterosexual cisgender folks do.  I would also ask you that you consider how unlike a loving God it seems to be to ask all those children to live life in celibacy.  Please also don't throw the idea of Catholic celibacy at me.  History has proven and proven recently that Catholic celibacy has an incredible failure rate among its participants.

[HappyJackWagon]

4 hours 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. 

It sounds to me like you believe the church and its leaders are unwilling to address difficult topics. Why do you believe that is?  Are they being weak? Are they uncertain? Are they afraid of backlash?  IMO weak leadership doesn't inspire much confidence.

Should members expect leaders to be stronger and tackle the issues more directly regardless of the consequences amongst the membership? Or are they being commanded by God to play coy? Or are they just PR driven suits?

I'm really curious about your perception of why church leadership wouldn't address such important issues in a more direct way.

[HappyJackWagon]

26 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

OK. You seem to need more evidence of my overreach and clarification.  The percentages I gave are verified in every country in North and South America, Europe, Asia, India and many countries in Africa.  If anything the percentages I gave are understated because many countries report higher percentages.  Japan, India, China for example reports percentages far higher than 5%.  The percent of adults identifying as queer is actually less than most current polls of youth 12 through 18.  There is no indication that somehow children under 12 will have a different occurrence of being queer.  One poster wanted to argue with me over one small group that is so small it literally has no statistical or practical relevance.   All current evidence points to the likelihood that the numbers I previously stated are on the very bottom of the most conservative estimates.  To be frank it is likely over 1 million members of the Church are queer but that would have caused so much denial that I didn't start there.

Your skepticism is shared by every church leader, active member who has never looked at the issue and many members of conservative christian churches I have pointed this out too.  It seems to scare people because most believe in their hearts that God would never have so many of His Children come to this earth who are queer.  Many folks cling to past theories that queerness is caused by something that happened to a person after they were born.  The possibility that a baby is born queer shakes their view of God.  So I am not surprised by you or others who want to argue with totally irrelevant details to somehow justify their views.  All I ask is that you quit looking for a way to argue with me about exact numbers and accept that a whole lot of your fellow brothers and sisters both in the Church an out are queer and have the same longings for romantic committed love that heterosexual cisgender folks do.  I would also ask you that you consider how unlike a loving God it seems to be to ask all those children to live life in celibacy.  Please also don't throw the idea of Catholic celibacy at me.  History has proven and proven recently that Catholic celibacy has an incredible failure rate among its participants.

I can't comment about the Catholic celibacy issue in any way but the argument I'm seeing by some people that "monk's and nun's can be celibate, so LGBTQ can too," really misses an important point. Yes, some people choose to live celibate lives and do so successfully and happily. I have no issue with people making that decision for themselves. But it's very different for a person (like me) to declare that someone else should live a celibate life and then hold them to that expectation. That's more of a scary dystopian hell where controlling leaders assign "others" to live in a way they aren't willing to live themselves.

And it's even worse than that. Not only do some people think it's ok to tell others to be celibate for life but they also tell those people not to hold hands or hug or kiss or build any kind of emotional intimacy with a person. What so many fail to comprehend is that it isn't just about sxual relations. Meaningful relationships are so much deeper than that, but these individuals are being told not to have any kind of meaningful relationship with a person they love. They are being condemned to a life of loneliness with only the platitudes of hope that things will be better in the next life. Yet there is no revelation, no explanation about what will become of LGBTQ people in the next life. They have been left out of the explained plan of happiness. Either God is a jerk or the church claiming to speak for God is being jerkish.

[Peacefully]

5 hours 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.  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?

Very well said:)

[rongo]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

That is another cultural taboo and probably not part of the gospel.

Personal preference, actually --- not part of the gospel.  I can honestly say I dislike straight PDA as much as gay PDA.  

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

Personal preference, actually --- not part of the gospel.  I can honestly say I dislike straight PDA as much as gay PDA.  

There is pda and then there is PDA. Big difference between a make-out session in church versus simple hand holding which is also PDA and would be deemed inappropriate for LGBTQ.

I imagine you have engaged in PDA at church to some degree. I'm pretty sure we all have

 

[Vanguard]

1 hour ago, kimpearson said:

OK. You seem to need more evidence of my overreach and clarification.  The percentages I gave are verified in every country in North and South America, Europe, Asia, India and many countries in Africa.  If anything the percentages I gave are understated because many countries report higher percentages.  Japan, India, China for example reports percentages far higher than 5%.  The percent of adults identifying as queer is actually less than most current polls of youth 12 through 18.  There is no indication that somehow children under 12 will have a different occurrence of being queer.  One poster wanted to argue with me over one small group that is so small it literally has no statistical or practical relevance.   All current evidence points to the likelihood that the numbers I previously stated are on the very bottom of the most conservative estimates.  To be frank it is likely over 1 million members of the Church are queer but that would have caused so much denial that I didn't start there.

Your skepticism is shared by every church leader, active member who has never looked at the issue and many members of conservative christian churches I have pointed this out too.  It seems to scare people because most believe in their hearts that God would never have so many of His Children come to this earth who are queer.  Many folks cling to past theories that queerness is caused by something that happened to a person after they were born.  The possibility that a baby is born queer shakes their view of God.  So I am not surprised by you or others who want to argue with totally irrelevant details to somehow justify their views.  All I ask is that you quit looking for a way to argue with me about exact numbers and accept that a whole lot of your fellow brothers and sisters both in the Church an out are queer and have the same longings for romantic committed love that heterosexual cisgender folks do.  I would also ask you that you consider how unlike a loving God it seems to be to ask all those children to live life in celibacy.  Please also don't throw the idea of Catholic celibacy at me.  History has proven and proven recently that Catholic celibacy has an incredible failure rate among its participants.

You make too much of my inquiry and paint with too much of a broad brush. Bottom line is that if you make concrete sweeping pronouncements about how there are literally hundreds of thousands (more than a million in your mind?) of LGBT in the LDS community you need to provide links to how you arrived at that number and be prepared to take questions. Simply stating as much will not suffice your self-professed, vaunted expertise in working with said community notwithstanding.

Edited January 11, 2022 by Vanguard

[rongo]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It sounds to me like you believe the church and its leaders are unwilling to address difficult topics. Why do you believe that is?  Are they being weak? Are they uncertain? Are they afraid of backlash?  IMO weak leadership doesn't inspire much confidence.

I think it's much more being criticism-averse than it is uncertainty or weakness (which could be construed as weakness). 

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Should members expect leaders to be stronger and tackle the issues more directly regardless of the consequences amongst the membership? Or are they being commanded by God to play coy? Or are they just PR driven suits?

I'm really curious about your perception of why church leadership wouldn't address such important issues in a more direct way.

I don't think that they are commanded by God to by coy; I think it's a choice that God allows (but that they could choose to do otherwise with. They aren't remote-controlled automatons).

I personally think that the PR departments wags a lot of the dog, and they could choose to reduce this if they wanted to. There are some factions in the Church Office Building (bureaucrats), and the Brethren in the last several years have given wide latitude and deference to them. I've hinted here before about some of this, in particular with Ally Isom (is she still a Church spokeswoman? I know she's running against Mike Lee in the Utah primary), and some things were curtailed after they were brought to Elder Rasband's attention (further this deponent saith not). There are PR professionals within the COB right now who are very pro-gay agenda and actively push it. For those who pay attention to the survey questions that are sent out (Jana Reiss has highlighted some of these) --- there is reason to be concerned if you think that softening the Church's stance vis a vis homosexuality as a sin is problematic (I can't think of anything the Church has surveyed people on or "piloted" that it hasn't ultimately adopted). And yet, these changes are obviously resisted, or extremely slow in coming. 

I think that the Brethren are good men, and I wish they would take more of the reins away from the PR people. Remember when President Oaks was mouthing along to what President Nelson was reading off of the teleprompter at their inaugural press conference (when he told Peggy Fletcher Stack that he knew her mother and father, etc.)? They have enough experience to handle this type of stuff themselves. I know that they are old, and the Church is global and has a lot of members, etc., but I don't like the level of PR "handlers," personally. 

Edited January 11, 2022 by rongo

[rongo]

31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

There is pda and then there is PDA. Big difference between a make-out session in church versus simple hand holding which is also PDA and would be deemed inappropriate for LGBTQ.

I imagine you have engaged in PDA at church to some degree. I'm pretty sure we all have

You don't know me very well.  

My wife does hold my arm, but we aren't even hand-holders (in public). I don't judge or look down on others, but I'm not a big hugger, either. Just a personal preference. 

The back scratchers or back rubbers who really go at it in sacrament meeting drive me nuts. 

[rongo]

5 hours ago, rongo said:

I don't really expect the Church to tackle this issue head-on. 

But, things like the article in the OP (pretty well-written, with sympathetic interview subjects) could "smoke" the Church out on this. Especially if more and more people who genuinely want to make both work emerge. I will be fascinated to see how that is worded and handled, in this age of carefully-worded statements and eggshell diplomacy. 

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

You don't know me very well.  

My wife does hold my arm, but we aren't even hand-holders (in public). I don't judge or look down on others, but I'm not a big hugger, either. Just a personal preference. 

The back scratchers or back rubbers who really go at it in sacrament meeting drive me nuts. 

That's true. I don't 

I'm glad the scandal of arm holding hasn't rocked your ward