LDS Church's options for gays

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I have thoughts on this, but my lack of response to you has more to do with finding you to be annoying and disingenuous.

If someone else had asked, I likely would have answered.

my guess is that other vocal No proponents felt the same way and chose to not entertain your nonsense.

And that is ironic because this is the one time you have actually shown to be real and seem to be asking a serious question.

oh, well.

Bingo.

[Hazzard]

Originally Posted by Bruincoug

I have many times asked myself the same honest question. Namely, if I am uncomfortable with the status quo, then what alternatives are there -- and would I be comfortable with any of them?

However, in understanding my answer, it's important to understand why I'm uncomforable with the status quo (you may object to any of the following bullet-points, but I'm answering an honest question by giving my honest feelings as background. thereforce, I'm not willing to debate these bullet-points and i expect the honest question-er (or any one else who jumps on, to use these as starting points to understand the ultimate answer):
-growing up in the church, i was taught that no one was born gay -- that any homosexual feelings were sinful perversions. generally, i took this to the church's official position or apparently official position.
-when I was faced with nature v. nurture, I felt like, as a member of the church, I was doctrinally constrained to oppose the "nature" point of view.
-until college, I didn't really think much about the issue
-in college -- first at byu -- i had LDS professors and fellow students who believed that homosexuality at least partly, maybe wholly, natural. that is, some people are simply born that way. faced with scientific evidence, I let go of my dogmatic anti "nature" POV feelings, and decided that either (a) there were a combination of factors (some "nature", some "nurture" but in the end, few or none the product of conscious sin that would produce "same sex attraction" - as the Church began to call it)
-later, at other universities and in the work force, I was exposed to much more scientific debtate and evidence on the origins of homosexuality, the weight of which have pushed be to generaly accepting (a) a view of sexuality as a more complicated than an internal switch set to either gay or straight (a continuum is one useful illustration, albeit simplistic) and (b) the view that for some people, same sex attraction is their natural and incontrovertible mode.
-over this time, the church's counseling approach (both for bishops and LDS sponsored / "approved" counselling groups, e.g. LDS Social Services, Evergreen, etc) has evolved. No, this is not in the standard works. But it is very significant that Church leaders have formally recognized (as reflected in recent conference talks and interviews) that it (a) individuals experience such urges naturally and through no fault of their own, that (b) many are unlikely to ever change and, accordingly, we should not encourage gay men or women to marry members of the opposite sex (as church leaders were formerly counseled to do) and even that (c) we do not know why people have this experience or how best to deal with it
-as to the last point, even apostles have recently giving interviews claiming they do not know why people are born this way and that (a) they should do the best they can to live good lives (by not indulging the feelings) and that (b) other members should be understanding and welcoming.

more bullets:
-In short, the explanation and rhetoric that I've heard at church as well as the church approach to 'helping' gay men and women, has, over my lifetime shifted from:
--there's no such thing as 'gay' / it's unnatural and sinful to have such thoughts/feelings to
--there is such a thing / for most it can't be changed / "my heart goes out" or "I can't imagine how hard that must be" / hate the sin love the person afflicted with the often natural disorder

last bullet:
--the obvious problem here is that we have a very neatly structured "God's plan for his children" -- and, even by admission of apostles -- we're not sure where homosexuality fits into it. We no longer say "get married" or "have kids" -- so gay people are already in a nether-space outside of the usual plan.

so . . . what do I want? my honest answer:

I'd like some official statement with the imprimatur of "thus saith the Lord" or "Revelation" that either says, in effect: (1) "GAY is BAD/UNNATURAL/EVIL and therefore it's okay that practicing homosexuals out of God's Plan and the Church and oppose their political emancipation/equality" OR (2) "[God created Gay people too, they are different and that's okay, and their role in his plan is: ______________], and [the following policies/practices must be amended in the following ways . . .]"

If the answer is (1), then I will have to humble myself, pray my little heart out and seek confirmation that my leaders are inspired of God -- as we are taught that we may do*. If the answer is (2), then I will do the same.

*and i will admit, i am probably not humble enough to want to accept this sort of revelation -- on the other hand, our leaders have backed completely away from calling gay people evil, so i guess thankfully, my feelings are consistent with theirs, in that way.

For now, though, I'm not looking to misinterpretations of Sodom and Gomorrah, or Paul, or the non-specific "God's plan" according to Sunday School teachers, etc. We have received revelations on many things -- including trivial things -- if all light, truth and knowledge of the world has persuaded our leaders that some people have SSA and can't help it to the point that we don't want them to pursue temple marriage, kids, etc. -- then i'm not going to merely lean on the same sort of "folk lore" explanations that supported blacks and the Priesthood despite all evidence & argument to the contrary.

go ahead and attack me now for wanting a revelation. or tell me that we have it in "the proclamation on the family" if you must. heck, call me inactive/apostate/unbelieving. but your honest question got an honest answer.

Thanks for these words. With respect to this issue, your personal journey, as well as the natural conclusions flowing therefrom, nearly identically resembles mine. I'm sure many others feel the same way, too.

What some (I obviously don't place you in this category) don't realize is the difficulty of the shift required for policy and/or doctrinal changes of this kind within our church. It's hard enough to get two people to agree on some little thing; but to get 15 people -- most of whom are white male senior citizens -- to change directions drastically on gay rights is downright impossible in the near future. It's not like we put this kind of stuff to a church-wide vote (not that the result would necessarily be any different).

[Tex]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I have thoughts on this, but my lack of response to you has more to do with finding you to be annoying and disingenuous.

If someone else had asked, I likely would have answered.

my guess is that other vocal No proponents felt the same way and chose to not entertain your nonsense.

And that is ironic because this is the one time you have actually shown to be real and seem to be asking a serious question.

oh, well.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Bingo.

Or, you could try to make a compelling case for your view for others who might read it.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Tex

Or, you could try to make a compelling case for your view for others who might read it.

You know, the dearth of responses to your question really is interesting.

Your question only garnered 2 real responses from your target audience (the No camp). And less than a handful, in general, from anyone.

Personally, and it is just a guess, I think the lack of response from the board in general may be a referendum on how you are viewed by the community at large......non-responsive.

[Bruincoug]

Originally Posted by Hazzard

Thanks for these words. With respect to this issue, your personal journey, as well as the natural conclusions flowing therefrom, nearly identically resembles mine. I'm sure many others feel the same way, too.

What some (I obviously don't place you in this category) don't realize is the difficulty of the shift required for policy and/or doctrinal changes of this kind within our church. It's hard enough to get two people to agree on some little thing; but to get 15 people -- most of whom are white male senior citizens -- to change directions drastically on gay rights is downright impossible in the near future. It's not like we put this kind of stuff to a church-wide vote (not that the result would necessarily be any different).

yeah. reading David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism (did i get the title right?) -- made me better understand how inter-Quorum politics work, and the way that one or two stubborn old men can forestall progress, even revelatory progress. of course, in this instance, we have a case of most of the 12 + 3 -- rather than just a handful -- being immovable. 1978 came a long time after, say, the armed forces were integrated. gays in the military may precede any acceptance of gays in the pews. and i think the former 5-10 years away.

[Bruincoug]

oh, and i just re-read my original reply. i guess i didn't proofread that, and it's chock full of errors. but i'm sure y'all get the gist of it.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

You know, the dearth of responses to your question really is interesting.

Your question only garnered 2 real responses from your target audience (the No camp). And less than a handful, in general, from anyone.

Personally, and it is just a guess, I think the lack of response from the board in general may be a referendum on how you are viewed by the community at large......non-responsive.

*shrug* The only thoughtless comments have been from you and Leb. Somehow I think that's more a commentary on you than me.

But there are plenty of other threads to play piss-on-Tex. Please don't respond here again unless you intend on contributing.

[Tex]

I agree with those here who've said we can always improve our outreach. I think the church has made large strides in this direction and will do more in the future. The emotion that is attached to this topic is very powerful, much like the abortion issue. Issues that touch family relations always seem to be.

As ER said, I'm glad I'm not the one who has to craft these policies.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Tex

*shrug* The only thoughtless comments have been from you and Leb. Somehow I think that's more a commentary on you than me.

But there are plenty of other threads to play piss-on-Tex. Please don't respond here again unless you intend on contributing.

I will respect your request if you do the same for everyone on this board.

That will likely end almost all your posting altogether.

Nobody needs the non-responses and circular arguments. They get old very quickly.

People piss where they see fecal matter, amigo. If you want people to stop pissing on you, then stop being a pissant. It is hard to see ourselves the way others do, I know.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I will respect your request if you do the same for everyone on this board.

That will likely end almost all your posting altogether.

Nobody needs the non-responses and circular arguments. They get old very quickly.

People piss where they see fecal matter, amigo. If you want people to stop pissing on you, then stop being a pissant. It is hard to see ourselves the way others do, I know.

Hush.