Mormons and Gays - The Lord Reverses HImself

[_Fence Sitter]

Here's an interesting article I found on the history of requirements for attending the temple. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1030&context=mormonhistory

The site requires free registration.

It looks to me like the only references to homosexuality are violations of the law of chastity, including acting on homosexual impulses. If you get a chance, I'd like to hear your take on the article.

Thanks Brad, I love articles like this and I am a fan of JMH stuff.

[_subgenius]

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.

+1

[_subgenius]

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

it seems that this point is one of the church considering that being an LGBT may not simply be a "choice" but rather just a "defect"...either way, ultimately, the policy has not been revised - so obviously the Lord has NOT reversed Himself.....sorry for ya.

This OP and thread title reads a little like Drifting's work....hmmmm

[_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.

+1

You realize, of course, that us agreeing is a sign of the apocalypse.

[_ldsfaqs]

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."

There actually is not "contradiction" between the quotes....

Homosexual orientation is not an "inborn" trait, it is a biological and mentally developed desire.
We sometimes don't "choose" our attractions and desires, but that doesn't mean we were "born that way". We do however choose to develop them. What a person focuses on mentally, is who they become. Further, science has already shown that there is no known "homosexual" brain, dna, or biological born trait. Of course, biology, attractions etc. change as a person grows and thinks.

"Born Sexual orientation" is not the same as "attractions, chosen or not".

Every gay man is a man, every gay woman is a woman. Many from a very young age focused unhealthily on homosexual desires and so they became that way. Others became gay later on by more direct conscious choice. Still, it's all choice, even if from a young age.

In some of my youth, one of the places I lived two brothers were sexually immoral, one tried to get me to have homosexual sex with him, even though he wasn't really gay, just a sick sex freak, and the other tried to make me suck him off and then he broke my leg in two places when I wouldn't. The first, I could have chosen to do it with him, because I had a sexual interest myself and would have loved to get my rocks off, i would have likely become bi just like him. But, I CHOSE not to do those things, because I knew they were wrong, knew they weren't good for my future, was an extreme deviation from the norm, etc. People who are "born gay" either don't know or don't care in the beginning or later.

[_Fence Sitter]

Brad,

Thanks again for the JMH reference. Interesting article. I actually think it supports what both of us are saying. Your point seems to focus on "official positions" while I am looking at how general membership has acted and the lack of specific direction to local leadership. At times it seems the TRI has tried to be very specific, such as child support, but in most places it leaves a lot of room open to the interpretation of both the interviewer and interviewee. I believe this is intentional on the Church's part and for good reason. They do not want local leadership to delve too deeply into private maters such such as what constitutes "unnatural" practices or "offensive intimate relations", especially between spouses, or how firm ones belief is in the prophet, the Restoration or even Christ. These are decisions that the Church wants the member himself/herself to decide, after all no one within the Church would be criticized for paying too much tithing or being too chaste. This has left those faithful LDS who are gay or have a family member who is gay, with a lot of guilt.

The recommend questions themselves give no definitions,relying on general understanding of what "Chastity" and "morality" and "unnatural" mean. (pg 150)

or at the bottom of page 150 in footnote 45 we see this: (Italics mine)

Petting, masturbation, pornography, and the like are strongly denounced in conference addresses, local talks, manuals, and ecclesiastical counseling as weakness, sins and causes of unworthiness, (as has homosexuality) but the handbook contains no instruction on how bishops should deal with them.

Now from the new web site we see this quote from Elder Christofferson.

I can understand that there could have been a legitimate concern about the kind of reception one might find from a local priesthood leader in the past...But I’m convinced that today that there are so much more help and resources available to a bishop or a local priesthood leader. There’s greater understanding, there’s greater appreciation of the issues and how to help. We are training bishops; they have resources that they haven’t had in the past, that we haven’t been able to make available. There are resources online, there are resources in print. There’s just greater experience over time that has developed and accumulated

In my opinion, this new website is a message to membership and local leadership, that being gay is not, by definition, immoral and therefore not grounds to deny a TR or leadership position.

[_ldsfaqs]

In my opinion, this new website is a message to membership and local leadership, that being gay is not, by definition, immoral and therefore not grounds to deny a TR or leadership position.

I would say that is "one" of many purposes of the website. The main purpose of the website is to make clear the churches position on the issue, that's it's not "bigoted" evil etc. as it is portrayed by gays and other actual bigots. It simply has a different view of the issue, but we still do and are to treat people as people.

Further, there is no "being gay" unless you act on the impulses.
Just like you are not an alcoholic if you don't drink (even though you would like to), aren't a child molester, unless you do it (even if you would like to) etc. Of course, Christ said that even our thoughts will condemn us. But, that's a different issue, and it's not Church policy. A truly good person who has thoughts that they have difficulty controlling is in the end not going to be condemned the same as the person who acts on his thoughts and simply doesn't care about right or wrong, good or evil, etc.

A gay person is no different than any other person who struggles with sins and temptations that are wrong, abnormal, etc. for many of such same people can most certainly "say" they were "born that way". After all when it comes to thought and feelings, being "born that way" only means that from the earliest you can remember you had particular thoughts and feelings that you either nourished or fought against. Gays who want to be gay are simply people who want to be gay, it has nothing to do with being born that way, because a person can in fact change. People that actually are born a certain way such as physical or other mental disabilities can't necessarily change. Of course, I say necessarily, because there are in fact miracles, and other training things that changes a person or helps them be more normal.

The only reason certain gays believe they were born that way is because they've created and nourished that thing to be so a part of them, they can't comprehend anything else. When you train yourself or have been trained to be a certain way, it's hard to change it, especially something so personal and intimate as sexual feelings and thoughts.

[_ZelphtheGreat]

Just as plural marriage was taught to be an ironclad requirement in This LIFE has changed, so will the treatment and acceptance of Homosexuals. It will be explained away with something similar to the 40 years in the desert being used by The Lord to remove the old generation and prepare the new one for the promised land, new teachings and whatever other excuse the brethren can come up with.

It will be shown as Boyd K Packer and his fellow homophobes die off and younger, more open minded zealots take their place and face the reality that the current and past stance hurts financial donations. Acceptance will change because it makes sound business sense. It is all about the money.

[_subgenius]

Just as plural marriage was taught to be an ironclad requirement in This LIFE has changed, so will the treatment and acceptance of Homosexuals. It will be explained away with something similar to the 40 years in the desert being used by The Lord to remove the old generation and prepare the new one for the promised land, new teachings and whatever other excuse the brethren can come up with.

It will be shown as Boyd K Packer and his fellow homophobes die off and younger, more open minded zealots take their place and face the reality that the current and past stance hurts financial donations. Acceptance will change because it makes sound business sense. It is all about the money.

While i appreciate your post's bitter and cynical tone, i can't help but notice the glaring flaws. Primarily that marriage being ordained of God and being necessarily heterosexual will never change...and the several other doctrines that pivot around this simple truth render your speculation as more of imaginary than ever being inevitable.