1970s Church Pamphlet on Homosexuality

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

We do tell you that ... if you're single for your entire life.

Yes we do, but I would have many moments in my life when I would be disciplined because that's just not realistic.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Yes we do, but I would have many moments in my life when I would be disciplined because that's just not realistic.

Which is why Christ atoned for all of mankind's sins: because He knew it wasn't realistic for us all to be perfect. That said, that doesn't excuse us from knowing and trying to adhere to the commandments of God.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I don't have an answer for this quandary, because there is no logical answer for it. Well I posited one once, but it is not popular, so I'll shelve it.

My point is it is easy for us to propose an answer who will not have to endure it.

If you told me, I may not have sex for the rest of my life, my response would be, "I'm outta here." Thanks for playing but no thanks.

Why do you think it is so difficult for single men to stay active in the church. Heck, even heavy petting precludes you from getting a recommend to perform ordinances let alone get a Temple recommend.

It is better to get into a bad relationship and get divorced, but get your needs satisfied for awhile than it is to do some heavy petting.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BYU71

Why do you think it is so difficult for single men to stay active in the church. Heck, even heavy petting precludes you from getting a recommend to perform ordinances let alone get a Temple recommend.

It is better to get into a bad relationship and get divorced, but get your needs satisfied for awhile than it is to do some heavy petting.

That's the circumstance the policy currently places us in.

If no available compatible mate exists, in order to not go crazy, you need to marry somebody incompatible.

If a blind eye were turned to some extra-curricular activity until a good companion comes along, we might have a more reasonable survivability. But then again, I can't see any good way in this mess. They're all bad.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by MudphudCoug

I think a pretty high percentage of gay Mormon men get married and have kids. It's a tragedy. A lot of these couples end up getting divorced because the sexual orientation issue is an insurmountable problem.

That would be an interesting study. I'm sure some/many/most/who knows the percentage end in divorce or some form of separation, but I wonder about the others that don't. Or do they all end this way? Can a homosexual man/woman lead a heterosexual lifestyle and find happiness; even a form of happiness that sustains them? Surely the possibility exists, but we don't know because we only hear from the unhappy ones. I would think having and raising children would be highly fulfilling. There would be other aspects about marriage that should be satisfying.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Archaea

That's the circumstance the policy currently places us in.

If no available compatible mate exists, in order to not go crazy, you need to marry somebody incompatible.

If a blind eye were turned to some extra-curricular activity until a good companion comes along, we might have a more reasonable survivability. But then again, I can't see any good way in this mess. They're all bad.

It is my opinion that religious organizations are based on "controlling the troops". If you allow outs and exceptions, the ability to control the troops will be compromised. That is why in my opinion we hear so many matter of fact statements, that most of us really know isn't meant for everyone to follow, however the leaders can't say that.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Which is why Christ atoned for all of mankind's sins: because He knew it wasn't realistic for us all to be perfect. That said, that doesn't excuse us from knowing and trying to adhere to the commandments of God.

... nor change the commandments to accommodate man's weakness.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BYU71

It is my opinion that religious organizations are based on "controlling the troops". If you allow outs and exceptions, the ability to control the troops will be compromised. That is why in my opinion we hear so many matter of fact statements, that most of us really know isn't meant for everyone to follow, however the leaders can't say that.

I'm searching my mind, stop laughing, but it seems Oaks gave a talk to the effect that the general counsel given by leaders applies to you, once the Spirit confirms it to you. Now on very specific commandments such as chastity, I'm uncertain how Oaks would address that.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Tex

... nor change the commandments to accommodate man's weakness.

Why do you think commandments are changed then. Take for instance the commandment against using any type of birth control. What other reason besides man's weakness would this one be changed.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

That would be an interesting study. I'm sure some/many/most/who knows the percentage end in divorce or some form of separation, but I wonder about the others that don't. Or do they all end this way? Can a homosexual man/woman lead a heterosexual lifestyle and find happiness; even a form of happiness that sustains them? Surely the possibility exists, but we don't know because we only hear from the unhappy ones. I would think having and raising children would be highly fulfilling. There would be other aspects about marriage that should be satisfying.

There was an elder on my mission who came home, got married, had a kid, got divorced, and is now very obviously gay. (He was obviously gay on his mission, too.) One of my dad's college classmates was LDS--got married and had 6 kids--eventually ran off with a guy. Then he and his wife eventually got back together. (Go figure.)

I've seen several other similar situations. I'm sure some guys stay in the closet for life, and they end up imagining a man when they're having sex with their wives.