“Forgive them (naive church leaders and the knee-jerk condemers), for they know not what they do”, is the policy that I have found best to ATTEMPT to practice.

Thanks for sharing this. This subject has always been dear to my heart.

good point, Jared…..food for thought.

In regards to same sex attraction, I never knew anyone who had this challenges in the ’50s. I’m sure it existed, but I think that the fact it wasn’t acceptable created a climate where it didn’t flourish.

Flourish? It was the object of hatred, crimes to which law enforcement turned a blind eye, and oppression sanctioned by secular and religious leaders alike. Of course you didn’t see much of it. It was repressed and hidden.

In other words, I think many (not all) who had the attraction just denied it and went about their life and were successful not acting on their impulses.

I’d be interested in knowing the percentage of such persons who lived in what for them could only be contorted and contrived conformity with society’s required patterning who suffered from mental illness as a result, depression, suicide. Remember, Ahmadinejad reported a couple of months ago that Iran doesn’t have any homosexuals, either.

But in todays society, it is acceptable and denying it is more difficult as a result, consequently it flourishes because the inner strength societal norms provided in the 50’s isn’t here today.

Iran’s society apparently has those same, strong societal norms. I have a hard time praising that situation.

However, opinion is one thing but gospel principles are another.

Yes, one can be changed by one’s own discovery and consideration of facts. The other requires an entire religious community to do the same. Takes longer that way.

Thanks for sharing this.

Let me just comment from the other side of this. For those of us who are gay, the love and support of family and friends means everything.

When I came out (post-mission, temple-married with kids), my LDS parents stood by me. It was a difficult transition, and there were many tears shed on all sides. I still remember the look of shock on their faces when they first heard the news.

Their loyalty to me during this period and after a difficult divorce changed my life. Even though they have both passed away by now, I can still feel their love for me burning brightly inside.

I have mixed feelings about the fact that the cognitive dissonance that developed in them due to the church’s harsh stand toward me eventually caused them to lessen their activity in the church. Shortly after I came out, my distraught father was able to arrange a meeting with one of the General Authorities he had worked with when he was stake president. My dad came back from that meeting literally in tears. The reception was that icy.

This happened a number of years ago and things may have progressed since then. Nonetheless, I think the church risks painting itself into a corner on this issue. There is a tremendous difference in opinion between the generations about issues of gay acceptance. There is such a thing as being on the wrong side of history– I am old enough to remember the “mark of Cain” sermons and Sunday School lessons about valor in the preexistence affecting skin color.

Anyway, thanks again for posting this.

greenfrog, I’d be interested in those statistics, also. I agree that those who practiced this lifestyle probably lived much like the Jews in Poland during the Holocaust.

However, I also wonder if the homosexual lifestyle isn’t flourishing because of increased public acceptance. I don’t have an answer or an opinion.

I hate when people throw gospel principles at us, no offense at all, Jared, I don’t think you meant it that way. However, the first and most important principle of the gospel is charity. Charity. The pure love of Christ.

That church leader who treated MoHo’s father like crap committed a sin and I hope God got him for it. Good.

Back in the day, one’s honor was ostensibly determined by a larger criteria than just being true to one’s self. Being true to one’s children, for instance, had something to do with shaping one’s outward behavior. Now all that matters in our post-sixties quest for the “real” is the self–and Darwin is invariably invoked as the ultimate proof that Polonius was a man like into Solomon the wise.

I think there needs to be a modern-day revelation about the subject of homosexuality. I don’t know if that revelation needs to come from the prophets or from science or from both … there is still much about homosexuality that is not understood and yet people are taking very strong positions on the subject.

In the past I’ve been very much aligned with traditional negative views of homosexuality. However, it seems pretty clear that many male homosexuals are ‘hardwired’ that way and they don’t seem to have any choice in the matter. I’ve heard about – but haven’t read – scientific articles that show female sexuality is more ‘malleable’.

I would like to see something that is completely objective, scientific and definitive on the subject of homosexuality. To know what (whether it’s a gene or something else) actually causes or directs homosexual inclinations – that would be a good first step.

I’m not really objective myself. The relationship between a man and a woman (and their children, if they have them) has always made sense to me as a fundamental unit in society. It seems to me that men and women each bring something to different to the relationship that balances out the couple and helps them to face the world. By comparison (and yes, I am biased as a heterosexual) male-male relationships and female-female relationships don’t seem to offer the same kind of value or balance. I understand that homosexuals feel love and experience intimacy – but I don’t see it as the kind of relationship that could or should last into eternity.

Even though we have every reason to believe that the Church authorities are inspired and speak the mind and will of God, it is possible that the Proclamation on the Family is simply a proclamation of the Brethren’s mid-1990s position on same-sex marriage. It was, after all, prepared and issued in the context of Hawaii’s SSM court case.

For an organization which once explored and was open to alternate societal and family structures, the Proclamation plainly illuminates the about-turn the church has made toward conservative and traditional ideologies.

I thought Shakespeare wrote: To thine own self be true.

annegb,

Polomius is a character in Shakespeare’s “Hamlet.”

Same sex attraction shouldn’t be singled out as a topic for special consideration. After all, each of us have had to deal with our own challenge(s) with appetites and passions. All of us need to deny ourselves of ungodliness at some point if we want to be a follower of Christ.

The assumption being that homosexual relationships and even homosexual sexual activity are inherently ungodly. As long as Christianity and the LDS church holds to this thinking, our homosexually oriented sons and daughters will have no place at the table of Christ nor be welcome to receive the Balm of Gilead.

Jesus commanded adulterers to go and sin no more, but did not cast them out of his presence. But then, again, you assume that homosexuality is inherently sinful.

Jack,

I take no issue with your reading of Polonius’s character. What I do take issue with is your insinuation that somehow being honest with yourself is somehow less than honorable. Rather than make an ad hominem attack about people who don’t exist, tell me why being honest with yourself is not a necessary condition (unlike Shakespeare, I’m not convinced that it’s a sufficient condition) to having honor.

This isn’t just academic–I’ve heard people express the idea that there is honor in denying that homosexual feelings exist. To share, even with close friends, that one has those feelings is somehow self-indulgent. I think that’s incorrect–there is no honor in living a lie, and to encourage people to do so states that homosexuality is not one of the burdens that we will bear together as a church, but which they must bear separately.

Steven B

When I was a young man I stopped going to church and quickly involved myself in the ways of the world.

One day, years into my new life style, I felt a hungry to know if God was there. I made my mind up to to read the Book of Mormon to answer my question–is God there? Before I could even start reading the BofM the Lord provided me with an experience, a visitation, that showed me there is not only a God but that there are evil spirits who are bent on our destruction.

I came away with a sure knowledge that God is there, and so is evil. I experienced what it is like to be on the receiving end of the hatred that evil spirits have for us. My life would have ended except I was delivered by the power of God. But only when I asked for it.

I share this experience with you, a complete stranger to me, with the hope the spirit will bear witness to you that what I am telling you is true and that it might make a difference in your life. There is good and evil before each of us and we get to choose which we will embrace.

If what I have said here is offensive to you or anyone else I’m sorry. But the Lord gives the kind of experience I received not only for my benefit but for any who will listen as well.

Nate W.,

In my first comment(#14) I indicated (in so many words) that the criteria for determining *behavior* has been narrowed solely to a concern with self. It isn’t that we shouldn’t be honest with ourselves–of course we should. We must. But when concern for self is the sole determinant of behavior at the exclusion of all (or almost all) else, then what we have is failure to be honest with ourselves regarding the importance of other (or what ought to be other) determining factors. IMO, this is contra the Law Jesus gives in the New Testament.

Somehow (it seems) we get the idea in our heads that the only folks who are lacking with respect to that Law are those who are blinded orthodoxy. And yet, what greater crime is there than abandoning one’s children? Some have done this in their quest to “find themselves” and feel justified in so doing because the mis-placed importance of “honesty.”

Now by all means, we shouldn’t lie to ourselves about who we think we are, but that doesn’t mean we should get a pass on destructive behavior. Everyone of us have to struggle against something about ourselves that is potentially harmful to others. Frankly, all it requires being more of an adult than most of us really like to be.

Sorry Jack, my reading of you was quite uncharitable. Given the context of the discussion, I had inferred that you were saying that homosexuality was essentially selfishness and dishonorable. You didn’t say that, and it was wrong of me to assume that it was what you meant.

For what it’s worth, I think you touch on a horrible dilemma facing a few men and women in the church: they followed past priesthood guidance (thankfully, not given currently) and married. Their feelings haven’t subsided, but now they have children and a spouse to worry about as well. Does this person continue to live with the spouse that they love but not romantically (which takes its toll on all participants in a relationship), or leave and try to do right by their spouse and kids outside of the marital relationship? It’s a heartbreaking decision that I won’t presume to judge. However, I think that divorce does not constitute abandoning one’s children and we ought not presume that a divorcee, gay or straight, failed to take their children’s best interest into account.

The movie is Far from Heaven.

# 32 Jack,

I agree with you on this idea. In being true to thyself, which behavior is actually being more true? Is it to thyself literally and singularly? Or is it to thyself as something greater than thyself?

My view on the issue of same-sex attraction follows exactly what is taught by church authorities. Unfortunately, it is a battle that is to be fought throughout your life, as with many sinful tendencies, for lack of a better term. And for all the stories including those posted here of people who have decided to go a different direction than what is taught in the church, I have heard stories of people who decided to stick with the church and work things out with their families and with church leaders.

What is more noble or even right? The doctrine IS the family proclamation and the words of the prophet. I can’t imagine being in the position to have to work things like that out, but the issues involved with same-sex attraction are written pretty much in stone. I think the only argument available is how those experiencing same-sex attraction are treated in church society. On those grounds, I think the only rightful argument would be against one individual at a time, the church structure and doctrine being excluded entirely.

As a rule, I feel compelled from by own sins, past and present, and my faith in God to look with compassion on the sinner. I think the big moment will come in the hereafter when we may get to stand in the presence of the Savior, hear from his mouth that we are unclean and have the opportunity to either say, “In light of present glorious circumstances, I now and forever forsake my sin” as a means of repentance, or say “I have my agency and am entitled to my choice” and find ourselves forever on the outside looking in.

Greenfrog #8,

I think your comments are way off. Jared has a great point in that the times mentioned were times in which mainstream America and other societies were reeling from world war and consequently settled down to lives in the newly constructed suburbs for peace and quiet. The movie Pleasantville comes to mind as the so-called liberation from those values. Your comments echo the Hollywood agenda. Personally, I strongly argue that the contorted and contrived conformity you speak of is a double-edged sword, driving many to accept a lifestyle devoid of moral obligations to self and others. One can hardly argue that this is not the case in present-day USA. Oftentimes, in weighing the desired outcomes, we choose the more moral push for conformity. Comparing 1950′s U.S. to present-day Iran is simply inane.

For LDS, there is a way to make conformity meaningful. For our pop culture society, that can hardly be said.

Anon,

We should all be so lucky as you in never having to suffer from an overabundance of compassion.

(I know I wrote earlier about reading comments uncharitably, but anonymous comments that compare homosexuality to pedophilia do not have a presumption of good faith).

I got out my WEB DuBois book and it’s in the first paragraph or two—how does it feel to be a problem?

Anon, while I wouldn’t go as far as you have gone, (I feel you’ve generalized perhaps, cited incidents that are rare in reality), I can relate to your feeling of caution.

This is too complicated for me to have an opinion other than common human kindness. I have to leave this in God’s hands. I don’t have a clue what the church or the prophet or the general authorities should do. I’d hate to be in their shoes.

I certainly don’t think the Lord wants this to be a lifestyle in eternity, as Danithew stated. I don’t think it’s going to be that way.

I don’t think that was the point of Brent’s column. From now on I will simply say, “Harping…” and you will know that I’m harping on just being nice to each other and living and let living.

IF it’s a sin in the way we used to conceive it, and IF some have been drawn into it by life’s terrible circumstances, God will take care of it. I’m not worried about the outcome.

“Harping….” That’s what I’m worried about.

” leave and try to do right by their spouse and kids outside of the marital relationship?”

Reading through some more comments. Just to followup on this thought that you have to having strong romantic (ie sexual?) desires for your spouse.

If you were straight and your spouse was disfigured in a car accident. Or was burned, or was cripled and wore diapers all the time.

Is the right solution divorce? Surley you would not feel romantic desires to someone who was seriously “damaged” (for lack of a better word) physically. Does that mean you should leave them because you are not being true to yourself and your sexual desires and appetites?

Of course not. Leaving your family on supposedly good terms is mutually exclusive from the concept of doing right by them. You’re only trying to do right by yourself. And that’s another word for selfishness.

Wickedness never was happiness.

Now before you tell me I’m judging and holier than thou, etc. Take a step back. I have MANY issues. I have to repent often. I know I’m not perfect. There are even be times when I attempt to convince myself that the spiritually destructive behaviors I sometimes have when I fail are really the “right” way to act. And that I am justified in behaving that way.

But I am wrong. And I pray that I will always continue to be able to eventually come around when I feel that way and realize that just because I do something or feel compelled to act a certain way that it is right.

It is not. The council in this area is clear and asking for more revelations to clear the matter up will not help.

I’m a very selfish person. Most of us are. Most of us do bad things. But don’t try to convince me that the mistakes you feel compelled to make are ok because you feel compelled to make them. I really don’t like writing this way because it seems very antagonistic.

I really think its inappropriate for us to be discussing these situations and passing judgement back and forth on people, motives, etc. I love the fact that someone above posted (paraphrasing), “He should have more charity. I hope the Lord gives him whats coming to him.”

Surely you see the irony in this statement? Charity for me but not for thee? The Lord should give me some charity, but just a little more justice for everyone else?

Again, I’m no better. I do bad things. I repent.

I guess what bugs me is we have people saying repentence isn’t necessary in this case and turning the tables around as though the person who was abanoning covenants, abandoning families, in favor of “being themselves” are the ones who are correct, and those who are pleading with people to continue fighting the good fight and struggle through life, and make repentence a daily process are the ones in error.

Now excuse me while I go repent for some of my feelings while posting this…

Cdub,

I have no doubt of your sincerity and good faith. I guess the disconnect between us has to do with how we define sin. While I understand that for some, prophetic statement ends the discussion, when that prophetic statement conflicts with my experience, I need something more to believe that homosexuality really is against God’s will. From a harm standpoint, it seems to harm no person nor society (I know that some will take issue with this, but all “proofs” of harm seem to work backwards to justify prior beliefs and certainly the chain of causation is tenuous at best). From the standpoint of judging actions by their fruits, I have seen same-sex relationships as loving as opposite-sex relationships, ones whose partners are complimentary to each other and have raised very well-balanced children. Their coupling has produced good fruit and it certainly does not feel evil. The spirit has not testified to me that this behavior is wrong (while I do not question anyone else who has experienced otherwise–I believe God testifies to each one of us the things we need to hear). Because of these factors, it is hard for me to accept homosexuality as a moral wrong.

As far as romantic feelings, I certainly was not referring to lust or simply physical attraction. I hope we can all agree that it is possible to be deeply in love–even romantic love, with someone who is disabled or disfigured. Feelings towards one’s spouse should ideally be beyond physical attraction, but always a romantic love–loving a spouse like one loves a sibling or a parent doesn’t seem like a basis for a solid marital relationship. When one is not capable of feeling for their spouse a love that is beyond friendship, it seems like it would cause great strains on the marriage. This isn’t a situation where the couple has fallen out of love, it is one where there was no love (in the romantic sense) in the first place. To say that the right answer in that situation is always to stay in the marriage is a judgment that I hope all of us would refrain from making.

Charlie, you make a good point. We have gay friends who post here and I think sometimes we bend over backwards trying to be PC and not offend people who matter to us.

The truth is that, no matter how much I love my friend, no matter how much I lobby for kindness and compassion, I do not believe that this is the lifestyle God intended his children to live. And again, I believe it will all be worked out in the millenium.

#5:
In other words, I think many [in the 1950s] (not all) who had the attraction just denied it and went about their life and were successful not acting on their impulses.

Actually, many of them were satisfying those “impulses” in secret. Think Larry Craig. There have always been places where gay men “in the know” could safely find one another. I think today’s climate of greater honesty is much better, don’t you?

Nate #28 and Jack in general:
I can completely understand Jack’s concern about being true to those you love, and who rely upon you. I would suggest, however, that being true to your children (for example) can often require being true to yourself. In my own case, it was better that I come out of the closet and divorce, than for one of my children to one day find their father’s brains splattered over half a room. (Sorry for the graphics, folks, but that’s the reality.)

I can understand how, in the context Jack put it, “being true to yourself” can sound self-indulgent and selfish. I would ask, however, that you consider for a moment the alternative. You see, I spent 18 years in a faithful marriage, and as an active member of the LDS church. I raised five children, was active in the community, and held responsible church positions. Throughout that time, however, I was hiding my true self. I carried on a consistent, active deception against those I interacted with on a daily basis. I didn’t just “obey the law of chastity,” I made everyone around me believe I was heterosexual.

Jack, have you ever told a lie in your life, and worked to “CYA,” as you call it? Do you remember how that felt? Do you remember the nearly-constant feeling of “What if they find out the truth?” or “What would they think of me if they knew?” When you repented of that lie, do you remember the sense of peace and relief you felt—the very real sense that a burden had been lifted from your shoulders? That’s exactly how I felt, Jack, when I finally came out of the closet. I felt peace. In fact, I was amazed to find out just how much energy I’d put into the deception—something I couldn’t realize until I put a stop to it. That’s what “being true to yourself” is all about.

annegb, I’m sorry, honey, but Walt W. plays on my team.

He’s going to be in the TK with me and all of the really talented interior decorators. Trust me, we will be color coordinated and use exactly the right fabrics. And our poetry is better, too.

Hot tubs and color TV in heaven? Girrrrl, my worst fears have just been confirmed.

(And, yes, civility all around is the way to go.)

danithew,

It doesn’t really matter what causes homosexuality. What matters is that we take time to talk to gay people and understand what the experience is like from their perspective.

We only want to be treated like everyone else. That’s it. We want to know that our loved ones won’t be evicted from their homes if we die unexpectedly. We want our loved ones to be able to make medical decisions on our behalf if we are incapacitated. We’re not asking for anything that you don’t already have and, by the way, take for granted.

#39:
“Anon,” you seem to speak very confidently, so I’m surprised you feel compelled to hide your identity. That’s your own choice, of course. I also see that you’ve read a number of propaganda pieces, which like to cite studies without full detail. Perhaps I can shed light on a few of the things you seem to have read.

Various causes that were seen as correlated were: arrested childhood development, failure to properly passage through certain early stages in boyhood, and failure to bond with a father/male-figure. Those correlations have often been verbally disputed, but never disproven. It’s just that political correctness has quashed the discussion of those factors.

Actually, the items you list have never been proven as “causes” of homosexuality, either. I would invite you to carefully consider the supposed corrolations or causes you’ve listed, and compare them to a little common sense. For example, if even a significant percentage of young men who failed “to bond with a father/male figure” became gay, we would have an enormous gay population. So-called “distant fathers” have been increasingly common since the Industrial Revolution. I happen to know many gay men who have very good relationships with their fathers, which would also bring these guesses into question.

There was one study (don’t know if it was repeated) that showed how elevated hormone levels in the mother at a certain point during pregnancy with sons was correlated with effeminate (but not necessarily homosexual) behavior in the sons later on.

I’ll give you one even better. Studies also show that as women have more pregnancies, the levels of female hormones to which the fetus is exposed actually increases. Studies further show that each successive child has a greater likelihood of being gay. One theory, of course, is that the increased feminine hormones with successive pregnancies has a causal role in this. For certain religions that promote large families, these statistics are particularly interesting.

Many professionals have pointed out a high incidence of mental/emotional illnesses in homosexuals (leaving aside the questions of whether that is a cause or result of homosexuality, or coincidental).

You also “leave aside” the question of how much of this mental illness (predominantly depression, btw) is related to (a) the pressures of being closeted, and (b) the sting of social condemnation.

And there have been a lot of documented statistics about homosexuals that don’t seem to get mentioned any more: high rates of domestic violence between partners,

You’re right that domestic violence in the gay community does not seem to garner much attention. On the other hand, domestic violence seems truly rampant in the heterosexual community. Pot. Kettle. Black. Do we need to outlaw heterosexual relationships, since they seem to have such a high rate of domestic abuse?

extremely high promiscuity,

I find there are both gay and straight individuals who display “extremely high promiscuity.” Those who like to point only to promiscuity among gays usually cite the so-called “Dutch study.” The Dutch study results are used to claim that even among “stable homosexual partnerships,” gay men have an average of eight sexual partners per year outside their primary relationship. Those who cite the study almost always neglect to tell you that it explicitly excluded anyone under the age of 30 (younger people are typically more promiscuous than older), or that it explicitly excluded anyone who was monogamous (thus removing from the results anyone who had ZERO sexual partners outside their relationship, and skewing the “average”), or that it was heavily weighted with HIV/AIDS patients from an Amsterdam clinic.

extremely high incidence of STDs,

Again, this claim is often based on studies which only (or primarily) recruit subjects from those visiting STD clinics, thus skewing the results. Of course, if these folks were truly interested in reducing STDs among gay men, they would encourage strong, supportive, monogamous relationships among gay men—such as marriage.

low life span (documented even before the aids epidemic),

and the fact that some homosexual men really do attempt to recruit/seduce/groom younger men.

Republican Congressman Mark Foley, you mean? I’m sure it happens, but is it an accurate portrayal of gay men in general? BTW, would you say it’s accurate to say that some heterosexual men really do attempt to recruit/seduce/groom younger women? If you are trying to bring pedophilia into the discussion, may I suggest this link for a comprehensive discussion of the data: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,002.htm .

cdub, Re #56, I appreciate your comments.

I personally know a number of same-sex couples with children. What do you propose to do to them? Give the children the status of orphans (as a recent red state law tried to do)? Keep the nonbiological parent out of any parent-teacher conferences at school?

There are practical concerns here, and they deal not with hypothetical, in-the-future families but with people who exist today. The fact is that these families exist in growing numbers in our society. Wouldn’t it be more humane to treat them with at least a little dignity and fairness?

What happens in the hereafter is the subject of personal opinion, conjecture and religious belief. It’s not a legitimate basis for public policy in a secular, pluralistic society.

I completely respect your religious belief and your right to have that belief. I’m going to bow out of this thread now lest my presence cause ‘contention.’ I don’t know quite how to convey the positive feelings I have for you all. I really appreciate the discussion and the spirit of inquiry. I understand that there may not be total agreement. Good luck to you all.

cdub #60:
Without ever having met me, you have taken it upon yourself to reject what I have stated about my own circumstances. You have taken it upon yourself to determine the needs and circumstances of my children. You have taken it upon yourself to determine precisely what motivations I hold in my actions.

Some of what I have said expresses a set of life experiences which do not seem to align with your particular religious beliefs. I understand that this may result in cognitive dissonance for you, and that the easiest way for you to deal with that feeling is to impose an explanation on the situation which you feel is in line with your religious beliefs. For this reason, it may be important for you to conclude that I am lying about my experience, and in reality, I selfishly tossed off all sense of responsibility in order to satisfy what you see as my heinous sexual urges.

Of course, nobody can expect you to know that I was involved in an emotionally abusive marriage. Nobody can expect you to know of the daily screaming fits I endured, the constant criticism I received, or the tantrums which erupted if ever I asked my spouse to do anything for me (such as ironing a shirt for me when I was running late to a meeting for my church calling). Nobody else knew either, because she was all smiles in public, and while she refused to do housework (let alone help me with minor tasks such as above), she was the first to volunteer for relief society service projects, such as cleaning someone else’s home in front of other women.

Oddly enough, cdub, I am now in a committed relationship which is much more like the ideal taught by LDS leaders. My partner and I support one another through our day to day lives. He is so eager to do things for me, and make me happy, that it’s almost overwhelming, and in fact I worry sometimes whether I’m treating him as well. We treat one another respectfully, as equals. For your own sake, I hope you have the fortune someday of getting to know a happily committed gay couple well, and that you can learn that being gay is about far more than sexual desire.

#48
P.S. Here’s an old joke:

Q: Why is it better to go to the telestial kindgom?

A: It’s better decorated.

Where’s the joke? Not funny or sarcastic at all.

Dear 56. cdub
“What is the purpose of sex?”

DOH! Operator give me the number for 911.

-I think I’m getting some tonight. So ‘cdub’ I’ll keep you posted-

annegb,

I have to disagree that the 1950s were a better time regarding this issue. The fact that in the 1950s this issue wasn’t raised made it more comfortable for those that didn’t have to deal with it, but I would suspect that the environment was absolutely poisonous for homosexuals. Today we are in the process of a long transition. We’re moving from homosexuality being something so shameful that it was never mentioned to something that the vast majority of society doesn’t even worry about. At that point everyone will be more comfortable except those that obsess about the topic.

Oddly enough those that are obsessed with demonizing homosexuality will eventually be such a minority that they’ll end up in closets of their own, having to practice their shameful acts in secret. We’ll have an inversion of the 1950s.

For now, however, we’re in the midst of the transition and everyone is a little uncomfortable with where we’re at. I’m of the opinion that this isn’t a stable position and that only the endpoints are stable.

P.S.- Nick-

I think it’s great you are in a good relationship, but I can’t help but feel bad for you that you couldn’t have that with a woman. See- “the way God intended”. There’s more to being hetero than just sexual acts as well.

#68:
I understand your point, but I would caution you with regard to using “gender identity” in reference to sexual orientation. While I certainly do know some effeminate gay men, most I know are quite happy to be men, and are certainly what our society would consider masculine.

I haven’t read anything on any point of view, pro or con, that helps me understand why homosexuality exists in God’s world as I am convinced He wants it to be.

The thrust of the initial post was the suggestion that LDS church members make room in the pews for gay people. Based on many of the comments so far, it is clear that members have already judged gay people as hedonistic and sex-obsessed. And Telestial material. I was even called to repentance simply for questioning whether there is anything intrinsically sinful in homosexual relations.

So no, it appears there is no room on the pews.

But to address the question as to why homosexuality exists in God’s world. I believe it has to do with “opposition in all things” in the sense of diversity. It is part of the rich tapestry of human existence. The scientific data continues to mount up pointing to what gay people have been saying for decades–that homosexuality is part of the natural diversity of the creation. I know we like to think that mantra is just part of the “gay agenda”, but when the studies continue to point to biology, what other conclusion can one draw?

Perhaps the most obvious indicator that God wants homosexuality to exist is to be found in the overwhelming failure of ex-gay ministries to affect a change in participants sexual orientation. I think the recent Jones and Yarhouse study made that fact very clear, despite the spin given by Focus on the Family and WorldNetDaily. Doesn’t it seem strange to all that the “pray away the gay” programs clearly aren’t working? Is God incapable of answering prayer?

Perhaps society is too rooted in the ancient taboo to hear the answer.

I have to think that deserting one’s spouse and children after reassessing one’s overt sexual orientation is a bad thing. I have a good friend and a close colleague who are both going through emotionally violent divorces and the teenage kids are suffering some deep and permanent wounds.

To create that sort of chaos in the lives of the people we should love the most? Scary stuff.

I have no idea why people who have same sex attraction try and make their case against those who believe that man with man and woman with woman sexual activity is akin to adultry. The weight of scriptural doctrine against the practice is huge. Modern prophets uphold the firm foundation of moral purity laws that will not be chipped away by argument.

(Even if BYU students “support…..gay marriage.(MoHo)and (Nick’s) wife threw endless tantrums and his male companion is a saint.)

My husband has struggled with same sex attraction since puberty. He looked for answers and found the Atonement and the comfort of the Lord. I think contrary to what the pro-gay commentors here promote here, that when my husband chose to be true to his temple covenant and not act out on his attraction he found his true self–a flawed but valuable eternal being in need of repentance and a Savior and destined for eternal glory, development and procreation. I have found all of God’s commandments to benefit mankind especially His commandment to be chaste. I praise Him for His grace and mercy.

But I don’t mind working with gays or sharing the chapel with gays. I’d only have a problem with an active gay giving the opening prayer or a class.

Just don’t have a gay sister open the meeting with prayer, right?

(I hope that was more of your tongue-in-cheek humor.)

But I don’t mind working with gays or sharing the chapel with gays. I’d only have a problem with an active gay giving the opening prayer or a class.

How very odd of you. One would expect that a true “latter-day saint” would want supposedly wayward souls to pray more, including with others. In fact, your comment brings to mind the words of Joseph Smith, who said that if a believer supposes another to be deluded, they ought “to have endeavored in a proper and affectionate manner to have reclaimed me.”

queuno

Maybe the Brethren have said all they plan to say on it. Is it [The Proclamation] wrong because it disagrees with your 21st-Century sensibilities?

My sensibilities do not determine church doctrine or policy. If we are to discuss the inclusion of gay people at the table of Christ, then we have to admit that people with a homosexual orientation were essentially written out of the Plan of Happiness. And the Proclamation on the Family sealed the document shut.

But when the Brethren prepared the Proclamation they were still speaking of homosexuality with terms like “gender confusion,” which doesn’t instill confidence that the Authorities understood basic principles underlying homosexuality.

A lot has happened in the decade since. Numerous scientific studies have been released that point to a biological origin to homosexuality. The data is becoming clear that reparative therapy is ineffective and religion-based support organizations are failing to change the core sexual identity of gay individuals. LDS leaders have finally acknowledged the reality of homosexuality in terms of a “sexual orientation.” What’s more, they recognize that a certain portion of the church members will never possess the essential heterosexual component necessary to live the exalting commandment of Temple Marriage, regardless of their effort to “pray away the gay.”

Church rhetoric and education concerning homosexuality appears considerably more developed and current than when the Brethren crafted their official response to homosexuality and same-sex marriage in the mid 1990s. If LDS authorities have a change of thought regarding the homosexual’s place in the eternal Plan of Happiness, then clearly a revised proclamation to the world would be the obvious approach to encourage the Saints to be united on the matter.

I have a question & comment.

Do I understand the prevelant argument re: Homosexuality that a person is born that way, so the only way they will experience true love and companionship is to follow then act physically on their hardwired attraction to SS? As I understand the doctrine, experiencing SSA is not a sin, but it is physically acting on it.

So if we except that argument, then for argument sake, allow a person who is born physically unatractive pay a hooker for sex? If they have no real chance of securing a girlfriend and eventual wife through the traditional methods, why should they be denied physical love for their entire life? Of course that is silly, they are expected to live a celibate life unless they can find someone willing to marry them. Is their circumstance different then someone struggling with SSA? Should we not expect someone who happens to be born with SSA to just bear that cross through this mortality? Is that different then someone else who may have been born with a condition that would not allow them to take full advantage of their mortal body? This is just another condition that someone may be born with that would not allow them to take have the full experience of this mortal body (in this case, someone born with SSA, but who never acts upon it would never be able to experience sex in this life. Is that any less fair than a “breeder” (i.e. hetrosexual woman)woman who is born without the ability to conceive to not be able to experience childbirth in this mortal body?

Why would God deny any of his children the full experience of this mortal body.. I don’t have any idea, one of his mysteries, but expecting those who are born with SSA to not act physically on thier impulses is not disimilar to other expectations of obedience in the Gospel. Is it fair.. no. Do I understand it, no. Is it the way the Gospel works, according to my understanding, yes.

Just my thoughts, flame away

#85:
Of course that is silly, they [ugly straight people] are expected to live a celibate life unless they can find someone willing to marry them. Is their circumstance different then someone struggling with SSA?

Actually, even LDS general authorities have recently acknowledged that these two circumstances are very different. An unattractive (for whatever reason) heterosexual person can always have hope for marriage, and frankly, ugly and stupid people get married all the time. A gay person (as opposed to a more-or-less bisexual person, who can function quite well in a heterosexual relationship) doesn’t have that same hope in the LDS view. A gay LDS person is expected to go through their entire life alone and celibate, without hope for an earthly relationship.

If you give this some further thought, you will realize that gay LDS are additionally expected to live a standard of chastity that is well beyond that required from heterosexual LDS members. Heterosexual LDS members are quite welcome to hold hands, embrace, even kiss, in a romantic relationship, without being married. The same is not true for gay LDS members, who are expected to refrain from any sort of affectionate displays. The recently-released LDS pamphlet on homosexuality even goes so far as to direct that gay persons should not associate with other persons who admit to being gay.

On another note, this language of “struggling with same-sex attraction” or “SSA” is silly. The term, “same-sex attraction” was invented by evangelicals in order to make themselves sound scientific, and to make homosexuality appear as some sort of “syndrome” to be “cured.” Their alleged “cure” has no therapeutic basis, but rather involves prayer and increased participation in activities traditionally associated with their own gender. These groups literally teach gay men to play basketball and build bookshelves, in order to “make them straight.” They literally teach lesbians to wear makeup and accessorize their wardrobes, in order to “make them straight.” While these programs can encourage homosexuals to be celibate or enter into doomed heterosexual marriages, they have demonstrated no success in actually changing sexual orientation.

Aneegb # 72,

I understand that there are a few instances in the world of transgender births, but all of these situations have one thing in common. The sex of the child can be determined. Hormones have gone haywire to produce abnormalities in sex organs or otherwise so that a child born a boy has mammary glands or other combinations that I won’t mention here. There has never been a documented case of ambiguous sex at birth.

Regardless, I absolutely do not think God makes mistakes. My understanding and belief in God is that he is perfect. The challenges that people face in life that may stem from gender identity issues- Nick, this is actually the proper psychological reference, as PC as it gets- are for them to live with, unfortunately. The same has to be said for Downs Syndrome or any, ANY other disability, retardation, or other challenge present at birth or presenting itself later in life. See Neal A. Maxwell on the topic.

I don’t believe Homosexuality falls into any of these categories. There are usually genetic markers that provide for a predisposition to same-sex attraction or being “femmy”, just as there are genetic markers for alcoholism and other substance abuse addiction. In my opinion, we are to acknowledge these weakness, or pre-dispositions (See Ether 12:27) and work things out with God.

Steven B #83,

Any scientific studies pointing to genetic origins of homosexuality have only pointed to genetic pre-dispositions. There is no causal correlation. The most recent “Church Rhetoric” is actually spot on with current research. Your sensibilities are out of date.

Nick #86,

Someone who has had sex out of wedlock is not allowed to give a congregational prayer or speak in church, so yes to your first question. Address the seriousness of the sin in the eyes of the church before hacking away with generalities.

Nick #90,

Someone who sits around the majority of their free time is said to have a “sedentary lifestyle”. One who exercises and eats healthy every day is said to live a healthy lifestyle. One who practices homosexuality lives a homosexual lifestyle. It’s a matter of daily choices and actions. It doesn’t diminish the seriousness of the life lived.

#89:
The challenges that people face in life that may stem from gender identity issues- Nick, this is actually the proper psychological reference, as PC as it gets- are for them to live with, unfortunately.

No, “gender identity issues” is not the “proper psychological reference” for homosexuality. Homosexuality is not a condition of confusion or unhappiness with one’s gender. “Gender identity” refers to which gender one considers oneself to be. Those with “gender identity issues” are those men who feel they are truly women, and vice-versa. Therefore, both gay and straight individuals have experienced “gender identity issues.” Most gay men I know absolutely identify as men, and wouldn’t want it any other way.

#91:
Nasamomdele, your characterization completely ignores the context in which “sedentary lifestyle” and “healthy lifestyle” have been used, in comparison with the context in which “homosexual lifestyle” has been used. You really are comparing apples and oranges there.

If you want to say that someone “practices homosexuality,” why not just say they are “openly gay?” The latter doesn’t imply additional baggage that applies to only a small segment of homosexuals.

Since “SSA” is not a valid medical or psychological diagnosis, I can only assume Porter is suggesting that homosexual persons are “asking for a pass on the law of chastity.” This isn’t completely true, Porter. I know gay men who are former members of the LDS church, who hope the LDS church someday applies the same chastity standard to them that it does to heterosexuals, i.e. no sex outside of marriage. If the LDS church recognized sexual activity within a legal same-sex marriage as legitimate, these men would actually return to the LDS church, “repent,” and remain celibate until they married.

#92
he is speaking there of a “normal” single sister. There are clearly many circumstances where there is no hope of a spouse.. The Lord asks a lot of them to remain celibate, just as he asks a lot of those who experience SSA to remain celibate.. but he does. No amount of sophistry can change that.

as to #97 comments on the church recognizing same sex marriages, I off the following comment.. from the same interview with Elder Jensen:

I don’t think the church could ever change its position, because gender, gender identification and the idea that a man and a woman coming together in marriage and to procreate and to have a family is such a core element in God’s plan for our life.

I have GOT to go clean my house, but quickly perusing the comments (I think we overlapped quite a bit), what I’m gleaning is that being homosexual is not normal. It’s a condition of life that causes pain to those who have it, in many ways.

Conditions like alcoholism bring pain also. I know my mental problems cause me and my family pain and are trials that hopefully I will learn from and grow from.

The struggles I have with my conditions are inside and outside. I struggle with the stigma and judgmentalism. Sometimes my problem causes me to sin against others when I’m cruel or unfeeling.

I’m going to study your subsequent posts. This is such good food for thought and so much better than the usual “I’m gay and I’m right and you guys suck” vs “I’m spiritual and not gay and I’m right and you guys suck.”

We’re seeking understanding here, I hope and that’s just so cool.

#98:
It doesn’t seem (and I’m generalizing, I realize) that homosexual relationships last. Those long lasting, deeply monogamous relationships seem to be the exception rather than the norm.

I suppose this depends a great deal on which homosexual relationships you’re exposed to. Honestly, I’m not sure this is a reflection of sexual orientation. I mean, it’s pretty much to the point these days that “long lasting, deeply monogamous” straight relationships “seem to be the exception rather than the norm,” isn’t it?

Caca . . . had some good scriptural references that were found in the Old Testament. I think scripturally there is some evidence to support that God doesn’t feel inclined to accept sexual relations between men as righteous.

Yet there are so many commands in the OT that are ignored, under the claim that Jesus fulfilled that law. To be frank, it seems modern christians pick and choose OT commands that happen to fit their predetermined ideas. I mean, the OT prohibits anyone with any physical defect from exercizing the priesthood. It orders excommunication of a couple who engage in coitus during menstruation. It forbids wearing clothing of mixed fibers. The list goes on and on, and all these are ignored. It’s not particularly effective to argue that Paul renewed these commandments, as Paul was speaking to a group of people where ritual homosexual (male) prostitution took place, as part of idolatrous worship, so it’s not at all clear that Paul’s statements were a blanket condemnation of homosexuality, particularly within loving, committed relationships.

It’s interesting that He doesn’t seem to mention sexual relations between women.

Uh-huh. Which is another reason why these commands may refer specifically to idolatrous, ritual homosexual male prostitution. Even in modern society, there is an odd tendency to be less condemning toward lesbians than gay men. Some attribute this to mysogyny, with the idea that men shouldn’t “act like women.” Others point out that some straight men supposedly find lesbian activity, or male-female-female activity, arousing (ugh).

#81,was your reference to “wayward souls” a Freudian slip?

Nope, it was intended to reflect Carlos’ attitude toward homosexuals as “wayward souls.”

Your point about Lesbians being taught to be more feminine is about evangelicals, am I correct? Does the church have a similar program?

You mean the LDS church? The LDS church has a non-official relationship with Evergreen International, which caters to LDS, but is directly modelled on the evangelical “reparative therapy” group, Exodus. I understand Evergreen is almost entirely men. While they are changing quite recently, they literally emphasized learning to play basketball as a “cure” for being gay. The idea (again, cribbed from Exodus evangelicals) was that by “learning” to interact with men in “manly” ways, one would lose their “sense of mystery” toward men, and homosexual attraction would disappear. Do you get that? By spending more time with hot, sweaty men, your supposed to stop being gay. Nope, doesn’t make sense to me, either.

So any attack on LDS attitudes towards homosexuality should probably include all Christian religions, to one extent or another.

I have no need to “attack,” but yes, my criticisms extend to most of christianity. I hasten to point out that there are several welcoming christian groups, however, which do not condemn homosexuality.

Is that normal in gatherings among gay people? Is it considered flirting (as I interpreted it). It just seemed so terribly rude.

Physical flirtation and touching is certainly common in the gay community. Doing such when your partner is uncomfortable with that is more than just rude, IMO.

Nick, do you think you’re a mistake?

Heh..absolutely not! Hence my frustration when people who have no experience whatsoever with what it is like to be gay pontificate about homosexuality as some sort of birth defect, or in need of a “cure.” I realize this sounds odd to many here, but I thank deity often for the blessing of being a gay man.

In #38, nasamomdele wrote regarding my #8:
Your comments echo the Hollywood agenda.

Echo? My comments — as wrong-headed as you may find them — are decidedly my own. Care to ask about the life experiences that have given rise to them, or are you more interested in marginalizing them by name-calling?

Personally, I strongly argue that the contorted and contrived conformity you speak of is a double-edged sword, driving many to accept a lifestyle devoid of moral obligations to self and others.

Not following you here. The conformity I was referring to was the 1950s practices of tacitly and (in some cases) overtly encouraging hate crimes against gays and lesbians. That societal behavior coerced outward conformity, and it extracted a terrible price. Let’s not forget that the guy who invented the very binary computing we’re all using here was chemically castrated because he admitted to homosexuality. He later killed himself. That kind of coercion can produce outward appearances of conformity. But it’s abhorrent to me.

Also, I don’t know of any gays and lesbians who are devoid of moral obligations to self or others. All the ones I know seem as interested in right and wrong as I am and as I perceive you to be.

One can hardly argue that this is not the case in present-day USA. Oftentimes, in weighing the desired outcomes, we choose the more moral push for conformity. Comparing 1950’s U.S. to present-day Iran is simply inane.

Both claim(ed) to be relatively free of homosexuality. Both are/were incredibly repressive toward homosexuality and endorse(d) violence upon those who admit(ted) homosexuality. You still don’t see any connection?

#107:
Marcia, I understand your strong feelings on this issue, given that you are married to a gay or bisexual man. I believe it’s safe to assume, however, that all (or at least nearly all) commentators on this blog are quite familiar with the LDS doctrine of the Fall. I’m not sure that your retelling, devoid of commentary connecting it to the context of this discussion, contributes much light on the subject.

If your unstated, very oblique, point is to suggest that homosexuality is a result of the Fall, and not a part of deity’s creation, then one must assume you believe in a very impotent deity.

Further, your dichotomy between “humbly turn to” your deity, vs. “tirelessly defend” one’s “weaknesses” is uninformed. The LDS church has been home to many, many gay men who prayed, fasted, cried, begged, and did all they could find to do, in their desperate hope that deity would make them heterosexual. These men have “turned to the Lord” for help with exponentially more humility than your posts seem to demonstrate, only to find that they were still gay.

I’ll repeat what I’ve said elsewhere before. If the current (this week?) teachings of the LDS church are correct on this matter, and I find myself standing in front of your deity, condemned for being the gay man that I am, I will then and there bear testimony against that deity, for his cruel indifference toward his sons who have so desperately sought his help in a simple effort to be and do what he required.

“SSA” is an invention of evangelical bigots, Mac, bearing no relationship whatsoever to a legitimate medical or psychological condition. Ergo, nobody “lives with SSA” or “acts on SSA.” If you’d like to discuss homosexuality, on the other hand, you might have something interesting to suggest. Surely you speak out of experience, rather than merely assuming that your faith cancels out others’ tangible life experience, right?

No, you’re asking a question about an imaginary condition. Feel free to ask a question that deals with reality, and I’ll be happy to give my answer.

Nick, I think he’s asking if it is possible for someone who considers themselves to be gay and then remain celibate?

Nick,

Potaytoe, pataatoe

Is it possible for someone to consider themselves gay/lesbian and choose not to participate in homosexual activity?

Mac,
Yes, it is certainly possible for anyone to choose to be celibate. If a person chooses to be bound by the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then (this week–who knows about next week?) they should certainly refrain from engaging in any sexual relations outside a heterosexual marriage.

Of course, we live in a pluralistic society, where not everyone accepts the doctrines of the LDS church. Those who are not under LDS covenants certainly are not bound to obey them.

Thanks, Porter. I see those were not your words. I still stand by what I said, however. Elder Jensen’s statement confuses gender with sexual orientation—two things which are entirely distinct from one another.

As far as Jensen not being able to see the LDS church ever changing its position, I’m willing to bet he would say that was his opinion, rather than an authoritative statement. Surely the general authorities are all well aware that dramatic changes can occur in a church that believes in continuing revelation. Elder McConkie once insisted that the priesthood would never be given to persons of African descent, yet he was wrong–and he was man enough to admit it.

Jim Crow Laws Family Law Law School Rankings…

I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me…