GaySaint

Since I feel this was directly addressing my presence here on these forums and in this discussion, I think I should respond. First and foremost I think I should say that I am not here to change anyone’s mind on church doctrine. I’m here because I’ve seen people on these forums attacked for what they believe – particularly those who are LDS living in a “non-traditional” family (there was a daughter of two gay dads that actually spawned my desire to sign up. I was appalled at the lack of support she got as a member of the church here, and instead was attacked because of her family dynamics, which she could not control). In addition, those who are struggling with same-gender attraction and trying to remain faithful to the church deserve respect and this type of dialog. Most members of the church who do not know a gay person do not know the struggle that someone who is gay and LDS experiences. I think it is fair to discuss that struggle to promote understanding for THOSE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH. They need support from faithful members who understand. I think it is sad that the advocates they have here happen to be me and a few others who are EXCOMMUNICATED. Why won't a faithful member of the church stand up for them in understanding, love, and compassion as well? A lot of times, members of the church will say things like “It's ok because in the next life you’ll be straight,” or “the attraction isn’t a sin, only acting on it is.” While these words might sound comforting to straight members of the church, to those struggling with same-sex attraction these phrases sound condescending. If you don’t know why, then you don’t understand what these members are feeling and going through. That is why it is important to have this discussion.

Traveler: I would use the word gay to encompass many words: same-sex attraction, same-sex behavior, and a host of other "LDS PC" terms. I would do so because I feel uncomfortable separating out the attraction from the behavior, because the behavior is rooted in the attraction, and being gay is much more complex than simply the behavior that ensues (for example, a man who is married but attracted to other men - IE: would only have an affair with other men, is gay). I would be gay whether married to a woman, in a relationship with a man, or celibate. But for the point of the question, I think I could ask if you think someone who is gay in a relationship with a member of the same-sex, who is capable of and does bridle their passions and is monogamous, faithful, and committed, is still an enemy to God?

Seminary: Thank you for your thoughtful post. I agree that appetites and passions need to be controlled, no matter the context. In marriage, I believe the phrase that used to be thrown around quite often was to “bridle your passions.” But I think it would be wrong to state that a gay person who is in a relationship that is fulfilling emotionally, spiritually, and yes, physically, is incapable of doing so himself. In fact, I would wager that a gay person in a committed relationship (like me) is in the exact same situation as a man who is married. I don’t think a man in a heterosexual relationship is giving into his “natural man” and becoming an enemy to God simply because he desires his wife. The same can be said about a gay person in a committed relationship. Of course, the converse is also true. I know many homosexuals, and heterosexuals, who simply don’t bridle their passions, period. I also agree that this is wrong. I know people like the alcoholism example, and it is, I believe, about as close an example as we can get, but we need to remember that for an alcoholic to be an alcoholic, them must first disobey the word of wisdom by having a drink. I knew long long long before I ever “acted out” that I was gay. As the topic of this forum suggest, I don't think this makes me in any way "special" or deserving of a "special condition." But does it make the trial (if you believe it is a trial) unique? I think so.

Traveler: Do you believe all gay people fall under the definition of the “natural man” and are thus enemies to God?

Anatess: While I don’t disagree with you, and I see your parallel between picking someone you are less attracted to, I see a major flaw to your example. Obviously there are people we are attracted to every day, sometimes, perhaps, even more than our spouses (or at least we may be attracted to one part of them, like their physical appearance, more than we are attracted to our spouses), but in your example, heterosexual men are still able to select a partner out of a “pool” of people they are attracted to (ie, women). What gay members are asked to do is to completely leave that pool of attraction, and select a spouse out of a pool we have no interest in. There may be some people who are not in your pool (say, for sake of argument, that you exclude ugly people) simply because you are not attracted to them. How would you feel if you were told that you would only be righteous if you were to select your partner from one of these people? And it gets worse once you put gender into the equation. I’d rather marry the ugliest man on the planet than the most beautiful woman. So while someone who is straight may lose out on the person he or she is attracted to most, they still have an entire pool of possible options that they can be attracted to. Gay members are told that everyone they find attractive is off limits (I do realize that there are the occasional gay man who find one particular woman attractive enough to marry, but this is the exception, not the rule, and should not be the "default" or "expected" solution).

Gad: So as not to derail this conversation, I'm going to send you a PM.

Gad: Can I be honest? For the first time ever on these forums I find myself slightly upset. Do you honestly think LDS homosexuals come to their decisions lightly? Do you think we haven't humbled ourselves to pray? Do you think that we didn't spend years and years with a prayer either in our heart, in our heads, or on our knees? Do you think we didn’t serve, serve, and serve in hopes that maybe one day we would be worthy to be “healed” and finally have what the church wants for us? You really have no clue what we, as gay members of the church, face. Please do not belittle us by claiming that if we are unable to change it must be because we are not humble or have been deceived. This thought process is in direct contradiction with “God Loveth His Children.” Some of the people I know, including myself, have received answers at the most humble, pleading times in our lives. When you say that we make excuses, or “cop out” and that what we feel is unimportant because it is futile, those are the things that make gay people feel worthless. Please be careful. I may be secure where I am at, but can you imagine saying those things to the twelve year old deacon who might be reading this while struggling to remain faithful to the church, and finding himself unable to change? I've got to be done for tonight...

Thank you Elgama, and please feel free to wade in :) Local: I think I would agree with you, and you made that definition seem simple. However, I don't think that definition necessarily excludes gay people.

GAD: While I agree that there is a purpose in sex to procreate and have children, homosexuality is about much much more than sex, including spiritual, physical, and emotional connections. I don't have access to the church handbook of instruction anymore, but there used to be a line in there about intimacy in marriage. It said something along the lines of "intimacy in marriage is not only to be used to create children, but to strengthen the relationship between the spouses." Boyd K Packer said: “Romantic love is not only a part of life, but literally a dominating influence of it. It is deeply and significantly religious. There is no abundant life without it. Indeed, the highest degree of the celestial kingdom is unattainable in the absence of it” (BYU Fireside, Nov. 3, 1963). I believe one of the differences between romantic love and the other types of love is the bond that forms between two people when they have sex. So sex is about more than children, and homosexuality is about more than sex. I hope that helps.

Traveler: So Second Nephi says, but defining Natural Man seems to be the difficult thing. Some people call homosexuality unnatural. By such definition, homosexuality would be more virtuous than heterosexuality (which would be defined by these people as natural). So could you define "natural man" for me? Oops: Mosiah... lol. I was thinking 2 Ne 2:27. I MEANT Mosiah 3:19, ha!

Sorry, they are related because in order for me to "align my will to God's" as you have defined it, I would have to abandon my family. While I have to wonder if you really could do so if it were asked of you, I must admire your comittment. Perhaps that is why I am no longer a member of the church and you are... But honestly I wouldn't want it any other way. I love my partner and wouldn't deny that even in the face of God himself. Whether that hurts or harms me remains to be seen, I suppose. And now I got too personal :) Back to the generic conversation... haha.

Finrock: You would abandon your family? I admit that has been my hangup. I don't think there would be as many people willing to do this if it were to really happen. The church has been amazing at teaching the importance of family, and I think it would be very hard to walk away from that. Thankfully, I don't think God will ask that of you. Unfortunately, according to many many LDS members, he has asked that of me.

We certainly agree here. Can't wait for that day, whatever the outcome :) One of the reasons I support gay marriage is because some people claim that once gay marriage is legal that the world would be so evil that it will somehow trigger the second coming. I'm all for that. I've got some questions I'd like to ask Christ face to face (tounge in cheek) I don't offend easily. Feel free to be blunt. You have set everything you have said to me with a tone of respect, and I hope I have done the same. I feel very secure where I am in life, even if I can't explain why all the time (as I'm sure you feel with the gospel), so be blunt. While I won't argue this point because it won't help the thread, and I'm not here to promote a personal agenda, I do think this point can be argued... scripturally. Lehi leaving Jeruselem is just one example of someone being commanded by God to do something different than the prophet was commanded. The "highest ranking" prophet at this time was Jeremiah, and I don't think he would have been too happy with Lehi disobeying the orders he recieved from God to have the prophets preach repentance to the city. Again, this is truth from your perspective confirmed by the spirit. I also feel truth in regards to this confirmed by the spirit. While that appears to be contradictory to you, it hasn't been in my experience. But again, that adds nothing to the discussion, other than to say that it is not right for you to question what God has told me just like it isn't right for me to question what God has told you. If my testimony is false, then so must my testimony be of Christ, because it was the same spirit. You cannot tell me one was correct and on was not when they have been so closely knit together by the spirit. I know that doesn't make sense to you, but that's ok. It isn't for you. While the prophets have come out against homosexuality, they do so with the justification that it breaks the law of chastity BECAUSE it falls under the category of sex outside of marriage. If gay marriage were to be made legal, I do think this justification disappears (which is why I think the church is against gay marriage). Of course, we then get into the legitimacy of civil marriage vs. eternal marriage… and that is a dead horse I’m not going to start beating again (although there is another topic with my feelings on this). Are these justifications the result of revelation, or of the human prejudice of man (I AM NOT criticizing church leaders here, simply stating that there hasn't been a "Thus saith the Lord" in this regard)?

Wow Local, I’m sorry that I assumed some things about you (it is very easy to do on these forums, just like it is very easy for members of the church to do so about LGBT people). I think you are a great asset on these forums if that is the case, especially if you are willing to discuss your personal experiences. I think you could help a lot of people, both gay and LDS, understand that not everyone fits into the same little boxes we place them in.

Local: I disagree. Most of our wants can be satisfied within the gospel. There are outlets for just about everything (at least that doesn't first require a sinful action to create an addiction - like smoking, drinking, etc). Homosexuality seems to appear out of no where, with no actionable fault on the person who has it, and has no "church approved" outlet. I believe if you are living a life against your wants then you are not really living as the church would want you to anyway. Why would someone be a member of the church unless they wanted to be? Whether that desire comes from fear of punishment, or hope of reward, doesn't really matter. You may have to sacrifice what you want now for what you want later, but homosexuals are asked to sacrifice what they want now and later for something they don't want later. Edit: Hypothetically, if the church switched positions and stated that in the next life everyone will be homosexual and that you will finally get that same-sex partner that God wants for you, how long would it take you to leave?

Finrock: Thank you for answering the question to the best of your ability. Good to meet you too! Although I do think there are differences in our attractions (in that you are attracted to women, and I am to men – in the same way any LDS member who is homosexual would be), I do think that is where the difference ends. I just wanted to clarify that I am quite certain that I feel the same for my partner as you do for yours, and in that way, our attractions are the same. I’m certain you weren’t trying to suggest that your attraction is different from mine in that regard, but I wanted to clarify that for others who may misread what you said about that. If I’m wrong, and you did mean that, please expound on that point, if you will. While I don’t disagree with the need to align out will with God’s, I think the fundamental difference is what we believe that will to be. If you ask my mother, who disowned me, whether someone who is gay can become straight, she would tell you that if there was, I would have found it. I spent years and thousands of dollars trying to become straight. I obeyed every item of counsel and instruction from my priesthood leaders. I’m an RM, and spent from the age of 12 trying to make sense of and align my desires with what the church taught God wanted for me. I do think there are answers, and I’ve posted on this idea ad nausea, so I won’t repeat myself here other than to say that if you ask many of the gay LDS men and women who are now leading lives with a partner of the same sex, just about every one who had a real testimony of the church at one point in their life will tell you they also now have a testimony, earned through prayer the same way their testimony of Christ was, regarding what God wants from them and that that revelation is guiding their life as an out gay man or woman. While I personally understand how that can happen, or why people feel that way, I also understand how someone with your perspective would see the revelation as contrary to the will of God. But with the thousands of testimonies about such revelations occurring, I don’t think they can easily be dismissed as deception. My point, I suppose, is that it is all about perspective. If it is possible for homosexuality to not be a sin (as in still living the law of chastity because sex would occur within a homosexual marriage), as it is from my perspetive, then a lot of the perspective you have on the issue would change (of course, I see the reverse of this as well). For example, it WOULD be possible for a homosexual to align his will with Gods. Currently, the only way to do that for a homosexual is to deny, or ignore, his or her personal will altogether – because after 12 years of trying (personal experience), it just doesn’t change. The change of heart I prayed for for so long ended up being my homosexuality seen as a blessing, instead of a weakness.

I know... three posts in a row is a new record for me. Saturn: You may want to check out this blog: How I Deal She is a woman who deals with same-gender attraction too, and blogs about how she deals and remains faithful to the church. It may be a good place for you to get some inspiration or strength.

RAM: I thanked you for your post because I don't have the "laugh" button anymore. I love the rubber band idea, but not because I'm think it would work, but because if I tried that when I was in counseling I would have probably broken my wrist off, even with a little rubber band. Haha. I remember one activity my counselor had me do. I put a picture of Christ on the back of a notepad, and every time I found someone of the same gender attractive I was to write down my thought process leading up to the "attraction" and look a the picture of Christ. I was in college, and after one day the entire notebook was full. When I returned the next week, my counselor threw it behind him and said "Well, that was futile." I found the more I focused on the issue, the more difficult it became. It was only through acknowledgment and acceptance that I finally found peace. Some will disagree with the way I have chosen to implement that acknowledgement and acceptance, but I think people in this situation need to find what works for them, and the ways of dealing once one has accepted that they will most likely have this issue for life are numerous and varied, and should be decided with the help of a loving father in Heaven.

I have heard on multiple occasions that hymns are prayers, and they are written down, so I think writing down your prayer, especially at a time where words are difficult to come by, is a great idea. Of course, I also believe one of the points of prayer is to get to know, personally, our Heavenly Father. Prayers, I believe, should be conversations, not one sided rehersals. Perhaps you could write your prayer and read it to God, and then wait and listen to what He has to say about it.

Finrock: First of all, I think you are trying to understand this issue, and I find that very wonderful. I also am glad you started this discussion. Can I give you the gay perspective? The thing that I think makes homosexuality “different” from any other sexual “sin” or “addiction” or “weakness” is the fact that the hope that you define rests on a core characteristic (which sexual orientation is called in the Oaks/Wickman article) being changed after this life. I’m going to use your example of the handicapped woman to illustrate my point. She is asked to maintain hope that everything she wants in the next life will be hers if she remains faithful (IE, the husband, family, Godhood, etc). Gay people are asked to GIVE UP on the hope they have for what they want (a partner of the same sex, family, etc) with the promise that perhaps in the next life we will actually WANT a partner of the opposite sex. The issue, for me, is that I don’t want to marry a woman. Never have. I’m expected to live a life not having what I want, so that I can hope to live a life in the next also not having what I want. So the blessing if I am faithful is a wife and eternal children in a family arrangement that I find as “abnormal” as you find homosexuality. The great promise is that I will be given something I never wanted anyway. Can you see why that would make this issue even more difficult? Perhaps even special? The handicapped woman WANTS what the blessing will be in the end. How am I supposed to even begin to want that? (This is a retorical question that you can try to answer if you wish, but is more asked to emphasize the point)

Hi everyone. Sorry I’m late to this conversation. Been a busy few weeks :) Saturn: Can I offer “the gay perspective” while at the same time avoiding telling you what you should do (I’ll leave that to your Heavenly Father, who loves you very very much, by the way)? Miss Hathaway said something on another thread recently that I found very poignant. She said that it all comes down to self-acceptance. I think this is very important. At some point, you are going to have to come to terms with the fact that you are gay (or same-sex attracted, or however you want to identify it). You are going to have to find a way to deal with it, and accept it. No one can tell you for sure whether or not this condition will exist in the next life, except God. Have you asked Him? Just because you accept your feelings doesn’t mean you have to act one way or the other. Acceptance will allow you to finally merge both halves of yourself (the LDS side and the homosexual side). Then you can make a decision about how you want to handle them. If you want the name and number of an amazing LDS counselor who deals exclusively with this issue, I can provide one. Just PM me. I have no issue stating that I believe everyone on these boards loves you and are here to support you.

Chango, I've had my fair share of bishop experiences, some better than others, but always bishops seem to want what is best for you. My advice? Ask your bishop how much he wants to know how often. Make sure he knows that you are working on things, and that wasn't a "one time" slip up. Then ask him how much detail he wants you to get into with him. Most likely he'll just want to meet with you on occasion to see how you are doing, and to help keep you committed. He most likely won't want to know every single time, date, and place you slipped up - but just ask him. Then you and he can both feel comfortable moving forward with the changes you wish to make in your life.

It would seem to me that our agency, a gift that started the war in heaven, is so worth protecting that I think it would be wrong to assume that it would simply disappear in the next life. D&C describes the different kingdoms, and throughout scripture we are taught about how different laws can be applied to a group of people who are unable to live a higher law (IE, the Law of Moses). I think each kingdom will be governed by different laws. Those unable to abide the Celestial Law will be assigned to a lower kingdom where the laws will allow them to be most comfortable. I don’t know whether or not we will choose to sin in the next life (as Ram pointed out), but I do think there will probably be some things one could do that would not violate a telestial law that someone in the celestial kingdom living a higher law would not be able to do, and greater gifts given to those who abide the celestial law, rendering them the ability to do things people in the lower kingdoms won’t be able to do (IE, have sprit children). We’ve already been told that this world is currently a telestial world, and there is a lot that goes on here that isn’t necessarily sin, but that wouldn’t be accepted, say, in the temple. Just my thoughts.

Tell them the CIA needed the dogs for a special mission :)

Good point, Skippy.