Mormons and Gays - The Lord Reverses HImself

[Guest]

It appears that the church is changing it's once rigid stance on weather people are born gay.

Faust, among many other Mormon leaders have clearly & boldly proclaimed that being born gay is a "false belief". However, the church has reversed itself and now correctly affirms that these individuals did not chose their sexual origination. Funny how the "revealed" word of god can be changed in just a few short years. This is very reminiscent of Blacks and the priesthood, and Polygamy, the church changes according to the mounting social pressures of the day not revelation from on High! Why TBM's cannot see this is absolutely beyond me!


Apostle James E. Faust, "Serving the Lord and Resisting the Devil," Church Gerneral Conference, Spring 1995.
"There is some widely accepted theory extant that homosexuality is inherited. How can this be? No scientific evidence demonstrates absolutely that this is so. Besides, if it were so, it would frustrate the whole plan of mortal happiness. Our designation as men or women began before this world was. In contrast to the socially accepted doctrine that homosexuality is inborn, a number of respectable authorities contend that homosexuality is not acquired by birth. The false belief of inborn homosexual orientation denies to repentant souls the opportunity to change and will ultimately lead to discouragement, disappointment, and despair."


Mormons and Gays web page quote:
"The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters."

[_Fence Sitter]

When Faust said that he was speaking as a straight man, not a straight apostle.

[_Res Ipsa]

I didn't read anything on that site indicating an acceptance of the notion that a person can be gay or homosexual. To me, the careful use of "experiencing same sex attraction" is a denial that a person can be gay. When I read the statement that people don't choose to have the attractions, I see it as similar to saying Job didn't choose the the things God afflicted him with. It's simply a statement that we all are faced with trials and temptations that we don't choose, and same sex attraction is just another one.

I've been out a long time, but other than rejecting the practice of pressuring gays to marry straights, I don't see much of a change here.

[_Dcharle]

Ah yes, the "prophets are only men" defence, or are "prophets when acting as such" defence. Classic.

[_Dcharle]

Please read the church's statement again - seems clear to me:
"Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions"

[_Res Ipsa]

Please read the church quote again - seems clear to me:
"Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions"

I did. Just like I said -- the view is that same-sex attraction is no different than any other temptation, and people don't choose to have the temptations they experience. Did the church ever teach in the past that people "chose" to be tempted by same-sex attraction?

[Guest]

I didn't read anything on that site indicating an acceptance of the notion that a person can be gay or homosexual. To me, the careful use of "experiencing same sex attraction" is a denial that a person can be gay. When I read the statement that people don't choose to have the attractions, I see it as similar to saying Job didn't choose the the things God afflicted him with. It's simply a statement that we all are faced with trials and temptations that we don't choose, and same sex attraction is just another one.

I've been out a long time, but other than rejecting the practice of pressuring gays to marry straights, I don't see much of a change here.

Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions

.

I see a big a difference between self inflicted temptations versus trails one can not avoid under any circumstances, like those of Job. In my opinion the Church statement above is recognizing that homosexuality may fall in the later category and not the former. In the past, as shown by the statements Dcharle quoted, the Church has been blaming the individual.

The movement away from self inflicted blame is an attempt by the Church to get members to view homosexual feelings as if the indiviual is not at fault for the feelings. It is a lot like how alcoholism is now seen as a disease rather than just a lack of self control.

[_Dcharle]

Really? Modern Mormonism has clearly taught that individuals are not born gay, this is a slam dunk! This post is not about whether one should act on those tendencies, that's an entirely separate issue. Once again, words don't mean what they say, another system of apologetics I suppose.

[_Res Ipsa]

Really? Modern Mormonism has clearly taught that individuals are not born gay, this is a slam dunk! This post is not about whether one should act on those tendencies, that's an entirely separate issue. Once again, words don't mean what they say, another system of apologetics I suppose.

Interesting. Exactly what pre-conceived truth do you think I'm defending?

[_Fence Sitter]

Brad,

I understand the point you are making, that the Church still sees homosexuality as a temptation that can be resisted and that they have not wavered from that belief.

Do you see any change in the way the Church is describing the 'causes' of homosexuality?