Deseret News Article: "Coming back to church while reconciling faith and sexuality"

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

reject it for myself, and I think others may benefit from doing likewise.  I acknowledge that others accept it as a valid social construct.

So you think people would benefit from not having expectations of themselves dating, falling in love with, and marrying a man of a woman or marrying a woman of a man?

I think people will benefit from obeying God, including the Law of Chastity.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sexual identity is a recent social construct, dating to the second half of the 19th century. Before that, neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality (or any other kind of -sexuality) existed, either as words or identities. Same-sex behaviour, of course, has been ubiquitous. In addition to all the quotes from queer and queer-friendly historians...

It was first used iirc as a clinical description to allow for the imprisonment of men who had sex with men (and women with women though my guess is that was not seen as so horrific) in insane asylums…and of course prisons.  That many of those who had sex with the same sex did not appreciate such treatment and therefore were fearful of it and the resulting destruction of their lives decided to fight against such treatment and did so through creating a political/sexual identity using that label should hardly be surprising. 
 

That they are now condemned by some for using an identity that was forced on them to legalize their mistreatment is…amusing isn’t the word. Absurd doesn’t convey what I mean either. 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Sexual identity is a recent social construct, dating to the second half of the 19th century. Before that, neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality (or any other kind of -sexuality) existed, either as words or identities. Same-sex behaviour, of course, has been ubiquitous. In addition to all the quotes from queer and queer-friendly historians...

It was first used iirc as a clinical description to allow for the imprisonment of men who had sex with men (and women with women though my guess is that was not seen as so horrific) in insane asylums…and of course prisons.  That many of those who had sex with the same sex did not appreciate such treatment and therefore were fearful of it and the resulting destruction of their lives decided to fight against such treatment and did so through creating a political/sexual identity using that label should hardly be surprising.

That they are now condemned by some for using an identity that was forced on them to legalize their mistreatment is…amusing isn’t the word. Absurd doesn’t convey what I mean either. 

Who is doing this condemning?  Where?

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

That he may subjectively chafe more against those constraints more than some other student (who is quite willing to abstain from sex outside of marriage) is neither here nor there."

Quote

For me, "impact" has more to do with application, not with subjective and internalized reactions to prescriptive or proscriptive laws.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75519-byu’s-newly-updated-honor-code-is-at-odds-with-lds-church’s-lgbtq-rules/?do=findComment&comment=1210160300

 

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75519-byu’s-newly-updated-honor-code-is-at-odds-with-lds-church’s-lgbtq-rules/?do=findComment&comment=1210160300

 

 You are only proving my point.  I am speaking here of "disparate impact" in its legal sense.

Thanks,

Smac

[LoudmouthMormon]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

5 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Just wanted to remind folks that there's decent reason to believe there are somewhere around a quarter of a million gay LDS folks living in the mormon corridor.  Unstudied, unseen, and apparently happy with just quietly being LDS. 

Nope, wrong, bad statistics, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Meh.  Either that, or you have to defend your worldview against things that threaten it.   As Dan McL says, "Ok, let's see it."

 

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

There are about a quarter of a million of LGBTQ (a minority of whom are gay) folks IF you assume they are equally demographically distributed within the church. Saying they are all gay is throwing things off to a huge degree. While these folks are probably spread pretty equally within the church throughout childhood and adolescence that changes.

Ok, I misspoke, using the word "gay" as a generalization to represent folks who ain't straight.  How about this: 

Just wanted to remind folks that there's decent reason to believe there are somewhere around a quarter of a million LGBTQ LDS folks living in the mormon corridor.  Unstudied, unseen, and apparently happy with just quietly being LDS. 

Better?

And there's no assuming happening.  Again, out of a randomized sample of 2,625 current members from across the Mormon Corridor, a full 4% of them identified as LGBTQ.  Maybe not Gallup Poll gold standard polling, but it's a decent starting place.  It is totally plausible that ~4%, give or take a few tenths, of current members, think of themselves as not straight.  The only reason to doubt it, is if your worldview is being threatened by such a reality.  I get that you want the number of apparent content LGBTQ LDS folks to be as near zero as you can possibly get it.  Your worldview demands that LDS belief and LGBTQ nature is incompatible.  It HAS to be wrong somehow, or else there's a problem with your worldview.  

Or it's correct, and your worldview ain't as inclusive as you think.

"Many of those folks have voluntarily left if they were born into the faith."
Again, we're talking about 4% of 2,625 current members.  Not people who have left the faith.  Not valid, try again.

"Are there some in the church? Yes."
Yep, roughly 4%, give or take, according to this randomized survey.

"The majority of the LGBTQ community are some flavor of bisexual/pansexual and if they find a partner of the right gender and keep quiet they are probably unnoticed in church."
So, you are saying the majority of LGBTQ folks are bi/pan.  L's and G's and T's, all totaled together, are still in a minority compared to B's.  Ok.  Not really supported by my 2 minutes of googling, but I understand your need to have the reality be where only a tiny, tiny minority of Ls and Gs can be happy as LDS. 

"There are some gay and lesbian people who live quiet single lives."
Yep.  1 of my 2 personally known folks is married, the other is single.

"Some find marriage with VERY mixed success."
Just like the rest of us.  Marriage is hard work.

"There are some trans people who just cope with dysphoria."
Our church is all about helping people cope with various unhappy or undesirable aspects of reality.  I realize to you that seems backwards, and a better answer is "naw, you just need to embrace who you are and then you won't need to cope any more because you'll be all better and not needing to cope".  But you and your worldview doesn't get to dictate answers for people who aren't you.  

"There are asexual people who marry and sometimes frustrate their spouse."
Yes, frequency and sexual compatibility are a big source of frustration in married life.  This isn't something unique to LGBTQ.

"There are aromantic people who make things work."
Yes.  Marriage is all about making things work.  Life is all about making things work, whether in a relationship or not.

"There are non-binary people who chafe at gender norms but endure them."
Lol I chafe at norms but endure them.  I hate ties.  My tie is off on the drive home every week.  I hate sunday shoes.  I'm a total introvert with lifelong anxieties and distress around public speaking.  I force myself to smile and mingle and fellowship and get to know people and give talks and teach lessons and bear the occasional testimony.  In all of the criticisms leveled at the church for making teh poor nonstraight people live inauthentic lives, "chafing at norms" has got to be the absolute weakest, stupidest, least impactful criticism.  I'm a top-tier norm chafer, and I find great satisfaction and fulfillment in the church.  I wonder how many of the ~quarter million LGBTQ current members are just like me, except with a gender thing instead of a public speaking thing?   

"Many of these people also give up and leave."
Yep.   And a lot stay.  A lot more than you feel comfortable acknowledging, apparently. 

"The church is a self-selecting group after a certain age."
Indeed.  And apparently, ~4% of current self-selecting current members are LGBTQ.
 

 

I want to put in another plug for my buddy.  A guy I got to know closer than most other humans.  He carries his unwanted leanings/tendencies/urges/proclivities/desires around, and subjugates them to his will.  He does his part to make his marriage work.  He's not interested in being thought of as a "member of the community".  After over a decade of making things work, these troubles don't trouble him very much.  He's got a big list of troubles that he finds more troubling, with which he struggles to a greater extent.  He often expresses prayerful gratitude to his Father in Heaven for his testimony, the healing peace-bringing light of the gospel, and the atoning sacrifice of his Savior, that helped him get clean and be the human God wants him to be.

He gets to be a real person, even if he threatens someone's worldview.

And that survey makes it plausible that there are tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of current LDS folk in similar situations.

 

Edited June 4 by LoudmouthMormon

[CV75]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

I reject it for myself, and I think others may benefit from doing likewise.  I acknowledge that others accept it as a valid social construct.

Essentially, yes.  Hamba has explained this rationale here:

And here:

I have read many of the references Hamba has provided, and find them - and his assessment of them - persuasive.

Given the radical re-definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, I think addressing the Law of Chastity in the context of same-sex behavior is necessary.

Per Wikipedia:

And here:

FWIW, I view "gender" as a synonym for biological sex.  Otherwise, it's just a reference to broad sex-based stereotypes and caricatures.  

I had previously, as Hamba puts it, "uncritically embraced the new discourse of sexual identity."  Having examined the issue more critically, I have come to find the notion of "sexual identity" to be problematic, and have rejected it.

If I were to attach a "sexual identity" to myself, it would be "heterosexual."  Latter-day Saints attracted to the opposite sex have plenty of potential "tension and conflict" available between their sexual inclinations and doctrinal constraints.  Anyone who has ever participated in membership councils could tell you that.  This is a big reason I value the Restored Gospel so much, as it has helped me better understand and abide by the the contours of the Law of Chastity.

Thanks,

-Smac

From our conversation, it seems that identifying as a child of God is the product or a sign of embracing the Gospel, and not the means to do so, whether a person is unaware, critical, rejecting or accepting of any number of concepts under the heading of sexual identity.

So, it seems that the subordination of the heart comes before the subordination of any identity. This speaks to me of how black, white, bond, free, etc. (social constructs) get grouped with male and female (divine or eternal constructs) in the Lord's treatment and perfection of any who are willing to receive His Gospel.

Edited June 4 by CV75

[smac97]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

From our conversation, it seems that identifying as a child of God is the product or a sign of embracing the Gospel, and not the means to do so,

I think claiming, an prioritizing, this "identity" can be part of the journey in terms of "embracing the Gospel" (the "means to do so").

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

whether a person is unaware, critical, rejecting or accepting of any number of concepts under the heading of sexual identity.

Or any other "identity," really.  I think all should be subordinate and secondary (and some - like sexual identity - can be set aside altogether).

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

So, it seems that the subordination of the heart comes before the subordination of any identity.

Yes, that would seem to be so. 

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

This speaks to me of how black, white, bond, free, etc. (social constructs) get grouped with male and female (divine or eternal constructs) in the Lord's treatment and perfection of any who are willing to receive His Gospel.

This is a good point.  Our differences, whether innate or constructed, are secondary to being a "child of God."

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

On 6/3/2024 at 1:13 PM, smac97 said:

Okay.  Hence the "'setting aside or subordinating one's sexual orientation/identity' in favor of a more important one" concept.

I have two close friends who have both succeeded in the "setting aside" thing.  Neither of them "identify" themselves by their sexual orientation.

I have another friend who is presently succeeding at the "subordinating" thing.  He still identifies as gay, but he subordinates that identity to that of Latter-day Saint, of disciple of Christ, of child of God.

Okay.

As per usual, you resort to personal insults and invective in lieu of substance.

Hence the "'setting aside or subordinating one's sexual orientation/identity' in favor of a more important one" concept.

I think there are people who have succeeded at this.  

I decline to comment in any way particular to you.

Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

Thanks,

-Smac

I actually agree that one must at times, set aside or subordinate one value over another.  This is exactly where the conflict arises.  But you have the wrong choices being made.  I think the vast majority of LGBTQ members are making is, 

1. Do I want to find a spouse to love and cherish throughout my life to learn and grow old together.  Someone I can always trust and count on.  Someone who will be with me year in and year out.  Someone who respects me for who I am and not force me into a mold that I cannot fit.  Someone who I never have to apologize for my love for them.  They can still identify as a child of God.  They can still have Christ in your life. They consider being a child of God and a relationship with Christ as being the most important part of their spiritual beliefs which they can still embrace.  Membership in the Church comes third.

or

2.  Do I want to remain a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  

It is the Church that has giving this ultimatum.  If you choose #1, you will have the opportunity of a rich and fulfilling life to share with someone who will bring you such love and happiness in this life that you can't imagine a life without them.  If you choose #2, you will sit in a lot of meetings whose purpose is to guide you to a path of happiness that you will never be a part of in this life because it is fundamentally based on a relationship with someone of the opposite sex.  Way more important is you will forfeit all the hopes and dreams of #1

For most LGBTQ members, #1 is probably the best choice for them.  For some, they are willing to give up everything that #1 offers in order to remain loyal to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  As soon as someone at any point in their life chooses #1, they become all the things you rail against.  The act itself identifies them as LGBTQ and they are no longer worth members of the Church. It is that act itself forces upon them that"sexual identity" that you seem to despise.  

My partner actually has never come out gay, as in announcing to the world that he was gay.  He just didn't see the importance of that.  But his father knew when he helped him move into a new house and that night he went to the bedroom with his boyfriend while his father stayed in the guest room and a third bedroom was left vacant.  His mother found out when she was invited to family Christmas dinner at their house and everyone else except her and an aunt were with their partners who all were the same sex.  His only sibling, his brother was also gay.  Somehow she figured it out.  lol

My. experience was different.  Because I was a member of the Church, I had to tell every single family member including my children why I was leaving the Church.  They deserved to know why I was leaving the Church.  The Church literally forced me to take upon that "sexual identity" that you seem to despise.

[CV75]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think claiming, an prioritizing, this "identity" can be part of the journey in terms of "embracing the Gospel" (the "means to do so").

Or any other "identity," really.  I think all should be subordinate and secondary (and some - like sexual identity - can be set aside altogether).

Yes, that would seem to be so. 

This is a good point.  Our differences, whether innate or constructed, are secondary to being a "child of God."

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, this applies to any identity that is not eternal, including a “child of God identity” that is adopted without the influencing and guiding principles of the light of Christ which leads us, even from birth for those born in the covenant, to hearing and then living by the fulness of the Gospel.  There are lots of mis-conceptualizations as to what a child of God is out there. I’m using “fulness of the Gospel” here to convey our access to the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost, which comes by way of priesthood-administered covenants. I often hear people say we see through a glass darkly, so realizing our eternal identity is not yet complete, but by grace we are heading in the right direction.

I think that thinking we have found "the" identity to replace another is not the same as discovering and then becoming the personification of that identity through faithful living. "Fake it till you make it" never works.

[smac97]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

I actually agree that one must at times, set aside or subordinate one value over another.  This is exactly where the conflict arises.  

I am glad we can agree on that.

5 hours ago, california boy said:

But you have the wrong choices being made.  

I respectfully disagree. 

Per Matthew 19:22 (and Mark 10:22 and Luke 18:23), the Rich Young Man valued his "great possessions" more than following Jesus Christ. 

Per John 14:15, love of God and obedience are inextricably linked: "If ye love me, keep my commandments."

"Great possessions" can be anything we value more than loving and obeying God.

5 hours ago, california boy said:

I think the vast majority of LGBTQ members are making is, 

1. Do I want to find a spouse to love and cherish throughout my life to learn and grow old together.  Someone I can always trust and count on.  Someone who will be with me year in and year out.  Someone who respects me for who I am and not force me into a mold that I cannot fit.  Someone who I never have to apologize for my love for them.  They can still identify as a child of God.  They can still have Christ in your life. They consider being a child of God and a relationship with Christ as being the most important part of their spiritual beliefs which they can still embrace.  Membership in the Church comes third.

or

2.  Do I want to remain a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  

I would put it this way:

1. Do I want to love God and keep his commandments,

or

2. Do I want to disobey one of God's most vital commandments, the Law of Chastity.

5 hours ago, california boy said:

It is the Church that has giving this ultimatum.  

No.  The Lord has invited those who want to follow Him to keep his commandments, even when doing so involves great sacrifice.  We saw this in the story of the Rich Young Man.  The life he could have chosen would likely have involved poverty, privation, and perhaps even cost him his life.  Instead, he chose his "great possessions."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Nofear]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Per Matthew 19:22 (and Mark 10:22 and Luke 18:23), the Rich Young Man valued his "great possessions" more than following Jesus Christ. 

Per John 14:15, love of God and obedience are inextricably linked: "If ye love me, keep my commandments."

"Great possessions" can be anything we value more than loving and obeying God.

We could add Matthew 10:34-39 to the list of scriptures. Here the Savior says that choosing him could explicitly cause division with some, potentially even one's family.

Edited June 5 by Nofear

[Daniel2]

On 6/2/2024 at 9:40 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

 

 

For what it's worth, my experience differs from this individual's (which isn't surprising, since no two people are identical, regardless of how any of us self-identify).

My husband and I don't participate in Pride activities. It's just not our thing. We're more homebodies and don't enjoy parades or those types of parties. That said, we both support the concept of Pride and understand it's importance, both for individuals and advocacy.  We also understand that it's not for everyone, and that's OK, too. 

My husband and I also typically don't wear or have anything that displays LGBTQ+ symbols (although we are going to go to Disneyland's upcoming Pride night for the first time, and we did purchase rainbow Mickey shirts and hats to wear to that). We do wear matching wedding rings, and even after 15 years together, we typically hold hands wherever we go and exchange a brief kiss when reuniting or parting ways at home or when out and about (just as my parents did on both counts). 

We have two married friends, both men, one of whom openly rejects the label of 'gay,' that likewise don't participate in Pride or wear or display LGBTQ+ imagery.

We also have other friends, acquaintances, and co-workers, some self-identified straight allies and others who are self-identified gay (some flamboyantly so and some not-flamboyant), that dress and employ the use of rainbow and other LGBTQ+ imagery.

Never once have my husband and I or our non-gay-identifying same-sex married male friends been ostracized or criticized for not participating in Pride or declining to wear LGBTQ+ symbols. Never have we felt pressured to do so by our more flamboyant friends or straight allies.  Never have I felt compelled to post on social media criticizing how others chose to participate or choose not to participate in Pride or other LGBTQ+-activities or behaviors.  As far as I'm concerned, to each their own.

I understand this individual's experiences differ and certainly are valid as his own experiences, but his experiences are not universal.

 

Edited June 5 by Daniel2

[california boy]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am glad we can agree on that.

I respectfully disagree. 

Per Matthew 19:22 (and Mark 10:22 and Luke 18:23), the Rich Young Man valued his "great possessions" more than following Jesus Christ. 

Per John 14:15, love of God and obedience are inextricably linked: "If ye love me, keep my commandments."

"Great possessions" can be anything we value more than loving and obeying God.

I would put it this way:

1. Do I want to love God and keep his commandments,

or

2. Do I want to disobey one of God's most vital commandments, the Law of Chastity.

No.  The Lord has invited those who want to follow Him to keep his commandments, even when doing so involves great sacrifice.  We saw this in the story of the Rich Young Man.  The life he could have chosen would likely have involved poverty, privation, and perhaps even cost him his life.  Instead, he chose his "great possessions."

Thanks,

-Smac

No one is disagreeing that putting God first is the most important choices a person can make in this life.  The disagreement is whether Church leaders know what God wants LGBTQ couples to do.  You believe, without any revelation that Church leaders have current policies right, know the will of God on this matter and their current interpretation of God's commandments is the correct one. Those that are LGBTQ believe that the Law of Chastity is no sexual relationships outside the bonds of marriage.  It is a position the Church itself had for most of it's history until recently when they changed that law by inserting between a man and a woman.  You are assuming the current interpretation on the Law of Chastity as the Church leaders now have defined the Law of Chastity is now the correct interpretation.  Who told Church leaders to insert between a man and a woman?  There was never a revelation to make that change.  It is just an assumption Church leaders made on their own.

Given the track record the Church leaders had on both how blacks were barred from temple ordinances and the priesthood, (the same restriction that now exists for LGBTQ couples) and the past policies the Church had towards LGBTQ couples that have changed and evolved over time and probably will continue to evolve, it is not surprising that LGBTQ couples don't trust or believe Church leaders have current policies correct at this time.  

There is nothing in scripture that has ever said marriage is only available to part of God's children.  Yet that is the assumption made by Church leaders currently who have the same prejudice and ingrown beliefs Church leaders had about those children of God that are black.  LGBTQ couples are willing to put their trust God on this issue and let Him sort this out in the next life if they are wrong. They simply have more trust in God than they do current Church leaders.  You simply have more trust in Church leaders than God.

[california boy]

14 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

For what it's worth, my experience differs from this individual's (which isn't surprising, since no two people are identical, regardless of how any of us self-identify).

My husband and I don't participate in Pride activities. It's just not our thing. We're more homebodies and don't enjoy parades or those types of parties. That said, we both support the concept of Pride and understand it's importance, both for individuals and advocacy.  We also understand that it's not for everyone, and that's OK, too. 

My husband and I also typically don't wear or have anything that displays LGBTQ+ symbols (although we are going to go to Disneyland's upcoming Pride night for the first time, and we did purchase rainbow Mickey shirts and hats to wear to that). We do wear matching wedding rings, and even after 15 years together, we typically hold hands wherever we go (just as my parents did). 

We have two married friends, both men, one of whom openly rejects the label of 'gay,' that likewise don't participate in Pride or wear or display LGBTQ+ imagery.

We also have friends, acquaintances, and co-workers, some self-identified straight allies and others who are self-identified gay (some flamboyantly so and some not-flamboyant), that dress and employ the use of rainbow and other LGBTQ+ imagery.

Never once have my husband and I or our non-gay-identifying same-sex married male friends been ostracized or criticized for not participating in Pride or refusing to wear LGBTQ+ symbols. Never have we felt pressured to do so by our more flamboyant friends. 

I understand this individual's experiences differ and certainly are valid as his own experiences, but his experiences are not universal.

 

My experience is the same.  I haven't been to a gay pride parade in probably 20 years.  Nor do I own a pride flag.  I don't even own a rainbow Micky t-shirt.  I don't know any of my gay friends that still go to the pride parade here in San Francisco. The vast majority of those who attend the Pride parade are straight couples and their families. They are teaching their children that all people deserve respect and love, including the LGBTQ ones.  We have never been ostracized or criticized for not participating in Pride or not having any of the LGBTQ symbols.  This is not uncommon in the gay community in San Francisco because gay couples, for the most part, are already treated equally in this area.  No one cares if we are gay or not.  

Now if I did live in an area where being LGBTQ was treated with hostility and prejudice, I am sure I would be supporting the LGBTQ community to obtain those same rights as straight couples and work to change peoples minds that somehow we aren't equal to them and deserve the same respect as any other minority group.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

58 minutes ago, Nofear said:

We could add Matthew 10:34-39 to the list of scriptures. Here the Savior says that choosing him could explicitly cause division with some, potentially even one's family.

And both Jesus and Paul taught the highest and best way to serve God was to forgo marriage altogether. Why aren’t you quoting those scriptures? How do you decide which ones to follow and which ones to ignore?

[Peacefully]

37 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And both Jesus and Paul taught the highest and best way to serve God was to forgo marriage altogether. Why aren’t you quoting those scriptures? How do you decide which ones to follow and which ones to ignore?

I’ve been married three times, divorced once and widowed once. First husband was a non-member so we couldn’t be sealed but I was able to get my own endowment. I was sealed to second husband but found out very disturbing things after he died so I asked for and received a cancelation. I am now sealed to third husband who is also sealed to previous spouse but he is thinking about a cancelation from her because she made his life hell for 30 years. 
 

So the church seems to be able to make concessions for heterosexual couples in various circumstances but somehow a monogamous, same-sex couple, married for years or decades is outside of the scope. It makes no logical or spiritual sense to me. 

Edited June 5 by Peacefully

[Nofear]

37 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And both Jesus and Paul taught the highest and best way to serve God was to forgo marriage altogether. Why aren’t you quoting those scriptures? How do you decide which ones to follow and which ones to ignore?

I'll take the Savior's pronouncements over the opinions of his dsiciples anyday. Setting that aside, the question of how we believers determine what/how to believe (scriptures or otherwise) is one that has been discussed multiple times on this board. If you honestly can't remember the answers and your question isn't just trolling I'm sure a new thread would find responses.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

18 minutes ago, Nofear said:

I'll take the Savior's pronouncements over the opinions of his dsiciples anyday. 

From Matthew:

Quote

   The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”  But he said to them, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given.  For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”

Emphasis mine.

Why haven't you made yourself a Eunuch for the kingdom of heaven?

[smac97]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

No one is disagreeing that putting God first is the most important choices a person can make in this life.  

Well, some disagree on this.  It is not uncommon to sidestep or ignore a commandment, or to re-define it, or to create a rationalization for exempting oneself from it, and then claim to "put God first."

2 hours ago, california boy said:

The disagreement is whether Church leaders know what God wants LGBTQ couples to do.

Virtually all commandments come through prophets and apostles.  Rejecting prophetic guidance, whether selectively or wholesale, by disaffirming it as such is a rationalization that eviscerates the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Every commandment can be sidestepped by this way of thinking.  Alma touches on this in Alma 42:

Quote

16 Now, repentance could not come unto men except there were a punishment, which also was eternal as the life of the soul should be, affixed opposite to the plan of happiness, which was as eternal also as the life of the soul.
17 Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a punishment?
18 Now, there was a punishment affixed, and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto man.
19 Now, if there was no law given—if a man murdered he should die—would he be afraid he would die if he should murder?
20 And also, if there was no law given against sin men would not be afraid to sin.
21 And if there was no law given, if men sinned what could justice do, or mercy either, for they would have no claim upon the creature?
22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

"How could he sin if there was no law?"  If the individual denies the existence of the law, then he can deny the sin that comes from violating it.  

"But there is a law given."  And these laws come through prophets and apostles.  

2 hours ago, california boy said:

You believe, without any revelation that Church leaders have current policies right, know the will of God on this matter and their current interpretation of God's commandments is the correct one.

You are not accurately stating what I believe.  I believe there is ample and sufficient scriptural and prophetic guidance on the parameters of the Law of Chastity.  

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Those that are LGBTQ believe that the Law of Chastity is no sexual relationships outside the bonds of marriage.  

First, I don't think there are many in this community who subscribe to this re-definition of the Law of Chastity.  The tendency is to entirely disregard the Restored Gospel.

Second, this line of reasoning - avoiding a truth by re-defining it - just does not hold.  Consider this anecdote attributed to Abraham Lincoln:

Quote

In discussing the question, he used to liken the case to that of the boy who, when asked how many legs his calf would have if he called its tail a leg, replied, ” Five,” to which the prompt response was made that calling the tail a leg would not make it a leg.

Respectfully, the individual cannot exempt himself from the Law of Chastity by re-defining it (and/or re-defining marriage), or by simply asserting that the law does not apply to him, or that he understands the law better than those charged with formulating, interpreting and enforcing it.

Over the last several years I have been paying attention to the "Sovereign Citizen" movement, the adherents of which attempt to utilize argumentation similar to what you are presenting here, namely, disregarding the law, or re-defining it so as to declare themselves exempt from it.  Some examples:

The fellow in the blue cap makes an impassioned argument that the court lacks jurisdiction, that the laws the judge is about to enforce do not apply to him.  It doesn't work.  Even though these folks feel strongly about the issues facing them, their idiosyncratic and ad hoc interpretation and preferred application of the law do not work.

I once had a pair of borrowers try to argue that they did not need to re-pay their residential loan because it was only a "credit" loan, and was not backed by gold bullion stored at Fort Knox.  This argument failed at the trial court, so they appealed the decision to the Utah Court of Appeals.  It failed there, too:

Quote

Brook and Wray filed a convoluted complaint that appears to request that the district court vacate a purported illegal trustee's sale and quiet title to a parcel of property in their names. They also asked for various forms of monetary damages. The gravamen of the complaint appears to allege that Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB issued Brook an invalid loan for a parcel of property in Santaquin, Utah. With these strange and vague allegations, Brook and Wray appear to be attempting to plead the theory known in the credit industry as a "vapor money" or "no money lent" theory, which is commonly pleaded in an effort to avoid legitimate debts. See generally Barnes v. Citigroup, Inc., No. 4:10CV620JCH, 2010 WL 2557508, at *2, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59140, at *5-6, (E.D.Mo. June 15, 2010) (discussing the vapor money theory). As in the typical vapor money claim, the complaint alleges that Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB issued Brook an invalid loan because the loan was backed by credit and not lawful money. Accordingly, because the loan was invalid, Brook was not obligated to repay the loan, and therefore, Defendant James Woodall conducted an illegal trustee foreclosure sale.

However, this "`vapor money' theory has no basis in law. It has been squarely addressed and rejected by various courts throughout the country for over twenty years." Frances Kenny Family Trust v. World Sav. Bank FSB, No. C04-03724 WHA, 2005 WL 106792, at *5-6, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2403, at *16-17 (N.D.Cal. Jan. 19, 2005) (awarding attorney fees against the plaintiffs and their attorneys for "abuse of the judicial process" despite the plaintiffs' voluntary dismissal of the complaints); see also Demmler v. Bank One NA, No. 2:05-cv-322, 2006 WL 640499, at * 3-4, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9409, at H0-11 (S.D.Ohio Mar.  9, 2006) (determining that the no money lent theory pleaded in the case was "utterly frivolous and lacks any legal foundation whatsoever," and that "this patently ludicrous argument. . . . ha[s] been rejected by federal courts across the country"); Nixon v. Individual Head of the St. Joseph Mortg. Co., 615 F.Supp. 898, 899-901 (N.D.Ind. 1985) (dismissing, awarding attorney fees, and sanctioning the plaintiff for bad faith claims pleaded in a complaint that alleged the bank's check, which he used to purchase a house, was an illegal tender); Alcorn v. Washington Mut. Bank, F.A., 111 S.W.3d 264, 266 (Tex.App. 2003) (stating that the "vapor money" theory is a legally erroneous concept apparently based on the misinterpretation of a publication of the Federal Reserve System).

We agree that the vapor money theory as alleged in the complaint has no basis in law. Accordingly, the district court correctly determined that the complaint failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted.

These folks sought to avoid the application of the law by re-defining it in a way that justified his behavior, or else exempted them from the law.  This reasoning does not work.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

It is a position the Church itself had for most of it's history until recently when they changed that law by inserting between a man and a woman.  

"Until recently" marriage had been defined as between a man and a woman, such that "inserting between a man and woman" would have been redundant and unnecessary.  Once civil society decided to re-define marriage to include same-sex couples, the addition became appropriate and necessary.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

You are assuming the current interpretation on the Law of Chastity as the Church leaders now have defined the Law of Chastity is now the correct interpretation.

And you are assuming that your interpretation is "the correct" one.  Again, this is a "sovereign citizen"-style argument.  It does not work.

I am not making any such assumption, though.  "Jurisdiction" refers to "the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law."  In the context of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, the "jurisdiction" over the doctrines and laws of the Church belongs to the Presiding High Priest and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  It is their role and responsibility, not yours or mine, to definitively establish and maintain the parameters of the Law of Chastity.

Of course, this is all in a purely ecclesiastical context.  A sovereign citizen can have his way by moving out of the United States, and thus remove himself from the jurisdiction of this country's laws.  What he cannot do, though, is stay in the country and insist that his say-so supersedes the exercised jurisdiction of the courts of this country.

Similarly, an individual can leave The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and thus remove himself from the laws and commandments of the Restored Gospel.  What he cannot do, though, is stay in the Church and insist that his say-so about the Law of Chastity supersedes the exercised jurisdiction of the prophets and apostles who administer and preside in the Church.

So I am not "assuming" anything here.  I am acknowledging the proverbial "law of the land."

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Given the track record the Church leaders had on both how blacks were barred fromt temple ordinances and the priesthood, (the same restriction that now exists for LGBTQ couples) and the past policies the Church had towards LGBTQ couples that have changed and evolved over time and probably will continue to evolve, it is not surprising that LGBTQ couples don't trust or believe Church leaders have current policies correct at this time.

Sovereign citizens use this sort of reasoning all the time to claim that state and federal courts and their adjudication of the law are illegitimate.  It doesn't work.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

There is nothing in scripture that has ever said marriage is only available to part of God's children.  

There is ample scriptural and prophetic guidance on the marriage being between a man and woman, and on the parameters of the Law of Chastity.  You choose to disregard this authority, or craft a rationalization that purportedly exempts you from it.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited June 5 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Rejecting prophetic guidance, whether selectively or wholesale, by disaffirming it as such is a rationalization that eviscerates the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 

Does this apply to the prophetic guidance that Black people were cursed for their pre-mortal behavior, or only to the guidance that you like?

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

From Matthew:

Emphasis mine.

Why haven't you made yourself a Eunuch for the kingdom of heaven?

From Elder McConkie:

Quote

Matthew 19:12. “Made Themselves Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven’s Sake”

From verse 12 in Matthew 19, it may appear that the Savior approved of celibacy or self-mutilation. Modern prophets and apostles, however, have clarified “that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. … God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force” (“The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” Ensign or Liahona, Nov. 2010, 129).

Elder Bruce R. McConkie (1915–85) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles explained that anciently some people held the false belief that a life of celibacy was to be sought after: “Apparently those who made themselves eunuchs were men who in false pagan worship had deliberately mutilated themselves in the apostate notion that such would further their salvation. It is clear that such was not a true gospel requirement of any sort. There is no such thing in the gospel as wilful emasculation; such a notion violates every true principle of procreation and celestial marriage” (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3 vols. [1965–73], 1:549).

See also this excellent article by John Gee: Misusing Eunuchs

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Rejecting prophetic guidance, whether selectively or wholesale, by disaffirming it as such is a rationalization that eviscerates the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 

Does this apply to the prophetic guidance that Black people were cursed for their pre-mortal behavior, or only to the guidance that you like?

Neither.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Nofear]

22 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Why haven't you made yourself a Eunuch for the kingdom of heaven?

If I were unable to live chastely in marriage as an authentic heterosexual male, it is indeed my hope that I would be able to follow the Savior's admonition to live a chaste, celibate life for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven and my own.

edit to add: though as smac97 points out, that doesn't mean anything like undergoing self-mutilation

Edited June 5 by Nofear

[SeekingUnderstanding]

10 minutes ago, Nofear said:

If I were unable to live chastely in marriage as an authentic heterosexual male, it is indeed my hope that I would be able to follow the Savior's admonition to live a chaste, celibate life for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven and my own.

Except according to Jesus, living as a Eunuch (celibate not castrated) for the Kingdom of God is a higher calling. Paul says the same thing. You have decided that these commandments are inconvenient and so have rationalized them away. But you strictly adhere to Paul's (not Jesus') prohibitions against certain same sex behaviors. It appears from the outside that you are less concerned with what the authors of the scriptures taught and meant and are more interested in whatever is convenient to your social group.