Poll: Opinions on LGBT Issues And The Law Of Chastity

[Teancum]

48 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

As I stated, the reason I did this survey is because over the last decade as I read this forum, I have found that there are less and less voices & responses in support of the Law of Chastity as it is currently taught by the church with regards to LGBT issues. Just going off number of board posts opposed to the church's traditional teachings of the Law of Chastity versus those that defend it, I have began to wonder if the vast majority of board members do not believe in the traditional Law of Chastity any more.

My goal was to see if I really was in the minority in being okay with the LoC, and I honestly tried my best to set up a poll that would NOT be offensive or biased, but would allow all board members the ability to answer their views on the Law of Chastity and LGBT issues, to see if they agreed with it or not. Evidently, I failed because the feedback from those who are not members of the church any more (and a few who still are but thought it wasn't nuanced enough answers) is that the survey was untakable. Again, if someone is better suited to the task they can try again with better, more nuanced answers.

That said, if you only consider this a survey of those who are not offended by the questions / answers, which means primarily active members, I am surprised at the results. Just based upon board participation, I would have expected that the vast majority of board members feel like the Law of Chastity is not relevant to LGBT members of the church. It's actually the opposite. There seems to be a large, silent contingent (maybe majority?) of those on this board who are not offended by the Law of Chastity in relation to LGBT folks.

This makes me think there is a dearth of 'conservative' viewpoint being expressed on this issue on this board. I know for me, I personally have stopped posting as much on LGBT topics because:

1. Volume - It feels like a LARGE percentage of threads descend into debates about LGBT issues. It's like in church we have been counseled that all topics should be centered on Christ and the Atonement, on this board it feels like all topics are centered around LGBT issues and everything has to come back to this (which is not at all how why I go to church - I go to church to connect with God & Christ)
    
2. Tone - I feel the LGBT topic threads are more hostile in tone towards posters who agree with the traditional Law of Chastity. When someone comes on and tries to defend traditional views of the Law of Chastity, their responses are picked apart as hate filled (in the last thread it was the phrase 'pot of pottage' and 'same-sex-attraction' that started this) and from there the topic descends into name calling and meanness
    

So I guess my survey was unintentionally biased. But it did at least let me know that I am not alone in my traditional interpretation and acceptance of the Law of Chastity. I think there must be others who feel as I do, but also are gun shy about posting because of the tone of responses they will get.

Thanks to all those who participated in the survey and also to those who didn't participate but still voiced their thoughts as to why and gave their answers in post-format.

I answered your question as a former LDS believer. Essentially I don't think that if there is a god, that this god gave a think called the law of chastity. So I answered I do not believe god gave a law of chastity.  It is a man made construct. Just like all religious things.  Controlling peoples sex lives with rules let's religion have significant influence on the lives of its adherents. It is a sad thing that religions wield this tool and use it to club their members with so effectively. 

[Teancum]

53 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

That said, if you only consider this a survey of those who are not offended by the questions / answers, which means primarily active members, I am surprised at the results. Just based upon board participation, I would have expected that the vast majority of board members feel like the Law of Chastity is not relevant to LGBT members of the church. It's actually the opposite. There seems to be a large, silent contingent (maybe majority?) of those on this board who are not offended by the Law of Chastity in relation to LGBT folks.

I was surprised by your initial  thoughts that many did not support to believe in the law of chastity.  The active members of this board are not that many and I think most are still pretty solid believers.

[longview]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Their flimsy facade has done a lot better than a lot of temple sealed marriages.

You are trying to word it in such a way to make it sound like temple marriages are not worth striving for? It would be better to just adapt to the "bar scene" shallow relationships?

From google: According to research cited in a 2000 article in the Los Angeles Times, “in an era of divorce, Latter-day Saint temple weddings are built to last,” with only a 6 percent divorce rate.

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

A miracle? You know where babies come from right? And people have sex with people they aren’t attracted to all the time for all kinds of reasons.

Hopefully the two children from your example felt loved by the "extraordinary" couple. At least had a good friendship going.

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I would share their description of how it happened but it is kind of vulgar.

You silly boy.

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

”joy in walking with God” as the marriage collapses as it seems to almost always do?

Be careful of using absolutes.

The joy comes when you are striving to be as christlike as possible. Even if the marriage is failing or your spouse is being overly contentious, you can respond/behave in the best or better way you know how. People have described the marriage ordinance as a three-cornered covenant (a triangle). As you try to show genuine love to your spouse, you get closer. As you try to honor God, the distance gets smaller. As this effort continues, the overall triangle gets smaller. Until the corners converges to become a single point. Thus the three become "one" (united in purpose, love, completeness). See John 17 (Jesus' Intercessory Prayer). Even Jesus felt joy as He was undergoing the crushing weight of the Atonement in the Garden of Gethsemane. Hebrews 12:2 - Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Your advice was the Church’s advice and it generally went to bad places.

The Proclamation on the Family is not advice nor a suggestion but an essential part of God's work. President Hinckley was inspired to present the proclamation in 1995, well before gender controversies started exploding in following decades.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

My goal was to see if I really was in the minority in being okay with the LoC, and I honestly tried my best to set up a poll that would NOT be offensive or biased, but would allow all board members the ability to answer their views on the Law of Chastity and LGBT issues, to see if they agreed with it or not. Evidently, I failed

See below for why:

1 hour ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

with the traditional Law of Chastity. When someone comes on and tries to defend traditional views of the Law of Chastity, their responses are picked apart as hate filled (in the last thread it was the phrase 'pot of pottage' and 'same-sex-attraction' that started this) and from there the topic descends into name calling and meanness

The problem here is that you conflate your view on the law of Chasity for license to demean your gay brother and sisters. Elder Holland once said that he couldn’t even begin to describe heaven without including his spouse and children. That if they weren’t there with him it wouldn’t be heaven to him. I would imagine that your gay brothers and sisters in committed relationships could say the exact same thing. How callous, hurtful and yes even hateful to describe that connection, that level of infancy with a bowl of pottage. Just because some of your co- religionists see that as problematic too doesn’t mean they disagree with the law of chastity. No where in the law of chastity does it say that the sacrifice you ask is trivial or even fair. It’s not either of those and until you can see that point of view (even if you don’t agree with it) you will continue to struggle here. 

[The Nehor]

33 minutes ago, longview said:

You are trying to word it in such a way to make it sound like temple marriages are not worth striving for? It would be better to just adapt to the "bar scene" shallow relationships?

No, but I do find it demeaning that you call their marriage a “bar scene” relationship while knowing virtually nothing about it.

33 minutes ago, longview said:

From google: According to research cited in a 2000 article in the Los Angeles Times, “in an era of divorce, Latter-day Saint temple weddings are built to last,” with only a 6 percent divorce rate.

That is a very deceptive take on the study. It was a study from the 80s and it also only measure “temple divorce”. In other words sealing cancellations. Most sealed church members who do divorce don’t cancel their sealing and are encouraged not to outside of certain situations.

33 minutes ago, longview said:

Hopefully the two children from your example felt loved by the "extraordinary" couple. At least had a good friendship going.

They did. At least the daughter I dated loved her parents and was loved by them. I never met her sister but from the way she was talked about I think it was the same. 

33 minutes ago, longview said:

You silly boy.

Flattery will get you everywhere.

33 minutes ago, longview said:

Be careful of using absolutes.

I specifically didn’t use an absolute.

33 minutes ago, longview said:

The joy comes when you are striving to be as christlike as possible. Even if the marriage is failing or your spouse is being overly contentious, you can respond/behave in the best or better way you know how. People have described the marriage ordinance as a three-cornered covenant (a triangle). As you try to show genuine love to your spouse, you get closer. As you try to honor God, the distance gets smaller. As this effort continues, the overall triangle gets smaller. Until the corners converges to become a single point. Thus the three become "one" (united in purpose, love, completeness). See John 17 (Jesus' Intercessory Prayer). Even Jesus felt joy as He was undergoing the crushing weight of the Atonement in the Garden of Gethsemane. Hebrews 12:2 - Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

 

I wouldn’t know how marriage works and am unlikely to get the opportunity to find out so I hope that is how it works.

33 minutes ago, longview said:

The Proclamation on the Family is not advice nor a suggestion but an essential part of God's work. President Hinckley was inspired to present the proclamation in 1995, well before gender controversies started exploding in following decades.

Sometimes I wish I still had this kind of conviction.

[Anonymous Mormon]

46 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

See below for why:

The problem here is that you conflate your view on the law of Chasity for license to demean your gay brother and sisters. Elder Holland once said that he couldn’t even begin to describe heaven without including his spouse and children. That if they weren’t there with him it wouldn’t be heaven to him. I would imagine that your gay brothers and sisters in committed relationships could say the exact same thing. How callous, hurtful and yes even hateful to describe that connection, that level of infancy with a bowl of pottage. Just because some of your co- religionists see that as problematic too doesn’t mean they disagree with the law of chastity. No where in the law of chastity does it say that the sacrifice you ask is trivial or even fair. It’s not either of those and until you can see that point of view (even if you don’t agree with it) you will continue to struggle here. 

@SeekingUnderstanding - This is the kind of strong response that makes me feel like the conversation goes from constructive to immediately attacking the person who believes in the traditional Law of Chastity teachings of the church. In your comment you seem to be inferring that I am:

• Looking 'for license to demean your gay brother and sisters'
• That if I agree with Elder Holland then I am 'callous, hurtful and yes even hateful'
• And that I can't see another point of view that I don't agree with

I actually agree with you that the term 'Mess of Pottage' could be seen as demeaning and that we should be more careful in how we say things. It's the kind of mistake I am likely to make and am now going to be more aware of. However, when I tried to refer back to it as the point where the conversation turns into name calling and meanness, you immediately started accusing me of things like 'looking for license to demean your gay brother and sisters.'

Out of curiosity, do you think that someone can hold and express the view of the traditional Law of Chastity between a man and a woman without being 'callous, hurtful and yes even hateful?'  Or is the entire traditional view of the Law of Chastity between only a man and woman itself so vile that everyone who believes this in your view is 'callous, hurtful and yes even hateful?'

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

@SeekingUnderstanding - This is the kind of strong response that makes me feel like the conversation goes from constructive to immediately attacking the person who believes in the traditional Law of Chastity teachings of the church. In your comment you seem to be inferring that I am:

• Looking 'for license to demean your gay brother and sisters'

This comment specifically refers to the mess of pottage comment as well as the allergic reactions members have with calling someone gay. If that’s not you, great. It appeared to me that  you sympathized with these sentiments. 

3 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

• That if I agree with Elder Holland then I am 'callous, hurtful and yes even hateful'

Nope. I agree with Holland. But if you agree with Holland AND want to deny that same relationship in this life to your gay brothers and sisters, you should acknowledge what you are doing. Don’t pretend it’s as simple as selling your birth right for a mess of pottage. 

3 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

• And that I can't see another point of view that I don't agree with

I actually agree with you that the term 'Mess of Pottage' could be seen as demeaning and that we should be more careful in how we say things. It's the kind of mistake I am likely to make and am now going to be more aware of.
 

It’s not my job to baby you. It’s 2024. You through your ignorance are harming the gay, lesbian, and trans people around you. They aren’t holding signs up saying here I am. They’re in your Sunday schools. In your families. Your rhetoric hurts them. There is no excuse at this point not to be better informed. 

3 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

However, when I tried to refer back to it as the point where the conversation turns into name calling and meanness, you immediately started accusing me of things like 'looking for license to demean your gay brother and sisters.'

If you said you disagreed that take I missed it. You said people defending the church with analogies were “attacked”. You didn’t take issue with the analogy. You took issue with the attack. Respectfully, you’ll have to excuse me if I don’t care about your victimhood here. Your rhetoric hurts. It has hurt my children who are now out of the church. It has hurt some in my family who are still in the church.  That your concern is for yourself instead of them speaks volumes to me. 

3 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

Out of curiosity, do you think that someone can hold and express the view of the traditional Law of Chastity between a man and a woman without being 'callous, hurtful and yes even hateful?' 
 

Without being callous, yes  without being hateful, yes. Without being hurtful? No. But acknowledging the hurt that is caused by the law itself would go a long way in helping those in those situations. 

 

3 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

 

 

[Maestrophil]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

I appreciate your couching your comments in how you feel and such rather than with certainty. It is refreshing.

Thanks, Teancum.  I feel the only person for whom I can 'know' anything is myself.  And even then, I don't know much. 😛. 

[longview]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

4 hours ago, longview said:

You are trying to word it in such a way to make it sound like temple marriages are not worth striving for? It would be better to just adapt to the "bar scene" shallow relationships?

No, but I do find it demeaning that you call their marriage a “bar scene” relationship while knowing virtually nothing about it.

I apologize. I was only taking the general case. You did indicate that they had side relationships but I do not know what that really means.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, longview said:

I apologize. I was only taking the general case. You did indicate that they had side relationships but I do not know what that really means.

They both had sexual (and sometimes romantic) relationships of varying durations with other people of their own gender.

[longview]

33 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

They both had sexual (and sometimes romantic) relationships of varying durations with other people of their own gender.

What effect did that have on the two children (particularly your girlfriend)? No FSY manual for them? They might be condemned to wander from one "bar scene" to another? Hopefully they are more solidly grounded.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, longview said:

What effect did that have on the two children (particularly your girlfriend)? No FSY manual for them? They might be condemned to wander from one "bar scene" to another? Hopefully they are more solidly grounded.

None of them were members so no FSY manual. They didn’t take their kids to bars though.

[longview]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

None of them were members so no FSY manual. They didn’t take their kids to bars though.

How did they approach life? Your girlfriend knew you were LDS?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 3/15/2024 at 8:02 AM, Anonymous Mormon said:

On 3/14/2024 at 6:31 PM, Ragerunner said:

...The Church and its leaders have made many statements that it has already backtracked on. It feels like we are repeating many of the same mistakes that were done with the black priesthood and temple ban...

 

 

...Which just isn’t true as the Church has and continues to modify and even walk back many of its positions on this topic...

Expand  

Curious on what the Church has walked back on this topic?

Read through here for a brief history:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_teachings_on_homosexuality_in_the_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints
 

Chief among what I consider doctrinal changes would be the origin of homosexual feelings, homosexuality’s status as an extra special civilization ending sin, teachings that through righteous action homosexual feelings can be overcome in this life. 
 

Changes in practice are huge too. Advocating for banning gay and lesbians from holding positions of influence in the community, advocating for banning same sex marriage, advocating for criminalizing same sex behavior. 

On 3/15/2024 at 8:02 AM, Anonymous Mormon said:

I can think of lots of policy changes the church has made on this and other topics (i.e., kids getting baptized, usage of the terms LGBT, etc.). I can't think of any changes in position regarding doctrine (i.e., greater acceptance of the idea that same-sex relationships are morally acceptable, less emphasis on the Proclamation on the Family, etc.).

Do you see any modifications and walk backs from the church's doctrinally on this? 

Doctrine is a nebulous word. Most apologists attempt to define it narrowly. 3 Nephi 11 is often quoted to state the only real doctrine that never changes. “And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, ”

Edited March 16, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[BlueDreams]

23 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

As I stated, the reason I did this survey is because over the last decade as I read this forum, I have found that there are less and less voices & responses in support of the Law of Chastity as it is currently taught by the church with regards to LGBT issues. Just going off number of board posts opposed to the church's traditional teachings of the Law of Chastity versus those that defend it, I have began to wonder if the vast majority of board members do not believe in the traditional Law of Chastity any more.

My goal was to see if I really was in the minority in being okay with the LoC, and I honestly tried my best to set up a poll that would NOT be offensive or biased, but would allow all board members the ability to answer their views on the Law of Chastity and LGBT issues, to see if they agreed with it or not. Evidently, I failed because the feedback from those who are not members of the church any more (and a few who still are but thought it wasn't nuanced enough answers) is that the survey was untakable. Again, if someone is better suited to the task they can try again with better, more nuanced answers.

That said, if you only consider this a survey of those who are not offended by the questions / answers, which means primarily active members, I am surprised at the results. Just based upon board participation, I would have expected that the vast majority of board members feel like the Law of Chastity is not relevant to LGBT members of the church. It's actually the opposite. There seems to be a large, silent contingent (maybe majority?) of those on this board who are not offended by the Law of Chastity in relation to LGBT folks.

This makes me think there is a dearth of 'conservative' viewpoint being expressed on this issue on this board. I know for me, I personally have stopped posting as much on LGBT topics because:

1. Volume - It feels like a LARGE percentage of threads descend into debates about LGBT issues. It's like in church we have been counseled that all topics should be centered on Christ and the Atonement, on this board it feels like all topics are centered around LGBT issues and everything has to come back to this (which is not at all how why I go to church - I go to church to connect with God & Christ)
    
2. Tone - I feel the LGBT topic threads are more hostile in tone towards posters who agree with the traditional Law of Chastity. When someone comes on and tries to defend traditional views of the Law of Chastity, their responses are picked apart as hate filled (in the last thread it was the phrase 'pot of pottage' and 'same-sex-attraction' that started this) and from there the topic descends into name calling and meanness
    

So I guess my survey was unintentionally biased. But it did at least let me know that I am not alone in my traditional interpretation and acceptance of the Law of Chastity. I think there must be others who feel as I do, but also are gun shy about posting because of the tone of responses they will get.

Thanks to all those who participated in the survey and also to those who didn't participate but still voiced their thoughts as to why and gave their answers in post-format.

I don't know that I'd take much from LGBT discussions on this board. They tend to cue in just a couple of board members who tend to have very opposite beliefs and thoughts on this topic and get more heated and defensive. Which also makes the topic fast paced (comparatively) and aggressive. I rarely engage with the topic here. Not because I'm not interested in it. I am. IRL I listen to an LDS podcast one this, take therapy related courses covering this topic to help my practice, I've worked and love many who fit in the LGBT umbrella, and spiritually hope we find a better space in our faith who shouldn't have a straight  marriage. I also, as noted, generally believe in the Law of Chastity and do belief there's something essential/important about male-female sealings. But the way dialogue happens here on this topic doesn't lend itself much to nuance. Even when there is a specific post I want to respond to, the fast pace of these threads makes me hesitant to jump in. I know I can't keep pace, my post is usually tangential to the general (loud) hum of the thread, and it's a question of whether I want to throw my thoughts out there in a thread that it likely will get buried in, and knowing that I will only be able to write 1 or 2 posts a day with more significant thoughts. 

 

Which is why I don't usually respond. I'm sure i'm not the only one.

 

I do get frustrated when an LGBT topic comes up in a topic that it's at best tangential in. I know the discussion will turn to it and then get absorbed by it in time. 

I get why there's hostility to the "more traditional" posters in these threads. Some of the things I've read from them are at best tone deaf and at worst straight up cringey. There's comments that make me cringe and get me frustrated on the other end of the debates as well. With this side though, I know the reactions usually hold a degree of hurt or even self-frustration and engaging with beliefs that the traditionalists hold may in someways be like engaging with the things they were hurt by or dislike about their pasts. I've found that if I engage with them, there's times I will end up become a charicature of the more traditional members. It's happened more than once. With the traditionalists, some of the times I wonder how much they've spent with this topic as an intellectual endeavor or defending their viewpoints and how much they've engaged with it in the pursuit of truly understanding people. That bothers me. For me, I get that my life choices and desires are largely validated by the law of chastity. It's a very different experience to have ones desires and personhood rub abrasively against it. If I'm coming at this only by why it's important to me I'm going to miss valuable experiences and knowledge sources for what we may not know. So when I see this I wonder ...

 

Times up for me this morning. Time to work and garden and paint and parent and grow. 

 

With luv,

BD 

[MiserereNobis]

On 3/15/2024 at 9:10 PM, The Nehor said:

They didn’t take their kids to bars though.

They should have followed the tried-and-true rural conservative good ol' boy American tradition of leaving the kids in the truck in the bar parking lot while they drank inside with their friends  

[The Nehor]

On 3/15/2024 at 11:21 PM, longview said:

How did they approach life? Your girlfriend knew you were LDS?

They approached life hopefully. They were a sweet couple. The only weird thing was when they found out I was bi her dad gave me tips and warnings on navigating gay culture. Which sounds weird in hindsight. I learned the basics of gay culture from my girlfriend’s dad.

She did know I was LDS. I wasn’t dedicated to the gospel at that point in my life. Her being pretty openly bi finally helped me accept I was. She was the first person I told. I was a weepy mess for days.

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

They should have followed the tried-and-true rural conservative good ol' boy American tradition of leaving the kids in the truck in the bar parking lot while they drank inside with their friends  

And taking them to Hooter’s for their 9th birthday. Oh wait, they didn’t have sons. Never mind.