GaySaint
-
Posts
545 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by GaySaint
-
-
PC: I agree with your comments on celibacy, and do think it is the most viable option to the gay Mormon conundrum. But I do think I need to point out that there would undoubtedly is a difference in elective celibacy and expected celibacy. Even priests have the option to choose celibacy or not, depending on if they feel they are called to or capable of the celibacy calling. No one looks down on them for choosing to love instead. Even those who “ignore” the priesthood calling and choose to marry instead are not viewed as sinful.
ALL homosexuals are EXEPCTED to accept celibacy as their only solution (or marriage to a woman, I suppose, which I would argue is even worse and highly immoral – at least for me). Forced celibacy is a much different story, and I’m not sure it would have the same godly blessings that elective celibacy (in order to serve God and the church) would have.
Something about accepting a “gift” begrudgingly comes to mind :)
-
Prince: Maybe I'm just a perfectionist
Ok. I AM a perfectionist...I don't know how to respond other than that without taking the topic further off course...
-
Yes, but the church works to get only those families sealed which: a. already exist or b. desire to be exalted. No one who doesn't desire that is sinning.
Why would I want to be a member of the church if I wasn't aiming for exaltation?
-
I was working with the German poster's supposition that religious leaders who teach that SSA is a perversion, or a temptation to be denied, drive their gay adherents to commit suicide.
I think until there is a workable solution that is honestly discussed (celibacy, being one possibility), and until it is very clear that homosexuals aren't inherantly evil (something that is taught and assumed too often by religious leaders, and taken even further by their followers), yes, suicide becomes a workable solution. Is it the leaders fault if their congregants are left with only this one workable solution because no other has been presented? I think partially, yes.
-
It appears to me that – for whatever reason a person committing suicide is not finding relief even from those that say they support them. Or why would they consider suicide?
I agree with this! But where is a gay Mormon supposed to turn for support? The church really doesn't do a great job in this regard (policies are too unevenly applied, half-truths and fear still run rampant, bishops aren't trained, even LDS social services still doesn't know how to handle gay people), leaving only the gay community - which the church teaches is evil and sinful.
THIS is exactly the area of the church where I would LIKE to see change, and it wouldn't require any doctrinal adjustments at all.
-
Prince: I suppose it was a Mormon culture thing. Since I don't feel that way anymore I'm not sure I can adequately answer your question now other than to say that in the LDS culture, nothing but perfection and the best is good enough. Aiming for a “lower” qualification, even a lower “celestial” qualification would still seem like not being good enough; at least that is how I saw it back then.
Besides, if I’m going to be single in the celestial kingdom, why not be gay here on earth? I could still “possibly” end up in the celestial kingdom as a single person…
It just isn’t good enough when marriage and family is what is expected, where Godhood and Celestial exaltation are the goal.
But you are right, and perhaps if that aspect was stressed a bit more, it would be that much easier for gay people struggling to remain faithful to the church. But the fact is that it isn't. The ENTIRE goal of the church is to get families sealed... That is what is preached (you can hear single people of all sorts complain about this quite often, haha).
Obviously it is compounded in a teenage mind (or was, at least, in mine).
-
... They would rather die than obey God, when doing so meant literally denying their flesh. I do not diminish that celibacy is a tall order. But to reject God-given life instead? That cannot be blamed on ministers who preach what their Bibles tell them.
Ok. It's time for me to jump back on this wagon =)
PC: This is certainly not why I considered suicide, nor is it the reason most gay men I know have attempted, thought about, or commited suicide.
When someone believes that they, themselves, are evil, and have done everythign they possibly can to change, but are unable, the discouragement and hopelessness leads one to believe that it would be better to take their own life rather than risk continuing to live with the possibility that the very nature of your sexuality offends God.
In my case, I felt it would be better for me to die righteous than risk the possibility that change wouldn't happen and I would end up making a mistake and sinning. In the LDS culture, I felt that even not being able to marry (heterosexually) would be enough to not fill my purpose on earth according to the plan of salvation (namely, getting sealed to a woman and having children). As such, even INACTION was an offense to God.
I think that is the reason so many gay people took issue with "the talk." It encouraged that line of thinking. It suggested "change" without suggesting the method or the alternatives. The original could be interpereted by a young teenager struggling with their sexuality as calling even the "tendencies" sinful.
And that could lead the struggling youth to the same place I was when suicide seemed to be a very real option.
-
My bet is that the router and the larger network are using the same addressing scheme (and subnet: IE, the 192.168.x.x network), so the router isn't sure where to pass the traffic for the ip address of the printer. If it thinks the address is internal, it won't broadcast that out to the "internet/WAN" port on the back of your router (assuming you are using a "non professional home use router").
Internet traffic will still go out the "internet/WAN" port because your router knows that eventually you are trying to get an external address (thus it passes it to through the default gateway).
You can fix this by either using your router as an access point as was already suggested, or changing the address scheme on the router (The other private network addressing scheme is 10.x.x.x.x).
Did you figure this out yet JAG?
-
I agree, Apple. As I didn't get to hear most of (and haven't yet read any of) Conference this time around, I've tried to stay out of most of the discussions surrounding Elder Packer's remarks. My input has been to offer feedback on how people are treating each other, which has saddened me this week. I guess I've seen some pride, but more than anything, I think I've seen animosity.
This is the reason I've been MIA this week. I promise to return soon =)
-
Bytor: I am less concerned with how outsiders see us, and more concerned with how that view affects how we view ourselves. If a gay person is promiscuous because he believes he'll never be able to have a stable monogamous relationship (because that is what society tells him), I think that is sad. If society's accepted form of monogamy were available to us, then regardless of what someone said to that person, he could always say, "well, I can get married, so you're wrong; my relationship can mean something other than a 'feel-good-until-the-next-best-thing-comes-along' moment" His perception of himself then changes into something more positive.
And I don't know why we wouldn't want to promote that.
Or you can look at it this way: how many people have had to rely on the fact that they made a promise to their spouse in order to stay with that person? How many times, in a relationship, does that promise actually come into play? I think a lot. I think people on these forums have commented as to how they are working toward their marriage, through many trials, because they are married and want to stay married.
Gay people don't get that. They don't get society's backing to help them work things out and stay together. Now obviously society doesn't really care about you and your marriage, particulalry, but being a part of that greater institution gives you the perception that it does. Does that make sense?
In the church it is even more greatly evident. You view marriage the way you do because of how the church 'society' views it. It is stronger to you not because your love is any greater for the person you care about than someone married outside of the church could have, but because it is 'percieved' to be greater because of the sealing.
Am I just rambling now?
-
Bytor: Of course it is more complicated than that, and to give the full impression of what I mean when I say that we might have to have a face to face conversation that would be very lengthy... haha. But yes, as Soulsearcher alluded, the fact that regardless of how we act or what we do, society doesn't accept a monogamous gay couple AS a couple, some even going as far as to say we don't deserve the word "family," does lead to the attitude a lot of gay people had, especially during the 60s and 70s, that monogamy was "heteronormative" and therefore "undesired."
In other words, as Ronald Gold has said, "Nothing is more likely to make you sick than being constantly told that you are sick."
-
I've got two easy ones for you. The first is a crock-pot roast recipe that is super easy and very good. Get a roast, put it in the crock pot, add two cans of Campbell's French onion soup and one package of Lipton's onion soup powdered mix. Sounds like a lot of onion, but it turns out really nice. Get a big roast and use the leftovers for shredded beef tacos the next night.
The next is my famous Broccoli Cheese soup. Even people who won't eat broccoli love this recipe, works great on a winter night, is amazing served in bread bowls, and only takes about 20 minutes start to finish:
Pot 1:
16oz bag frozen chopped broccoli (or use fresh, but the frozen really works fine)
4 chicken bullion cubes
2 cups of water
Onion powder to taste (have a heavy hand here)
Combine the ingredients of pot one, and allow to simmer on the stove while you work with pan 2.
Pot 2 (Big enough to hold contents of both Pots!)
½ cube (¼ cup) butter
½ cup flour
2 cups milk (1 or 2% works best)
1 cup grated tightly-packed cheddar cheese (at whatever sharpness is your favorite)
Melt the butter in the pan, and add the flour. Stir until blended well. VERY SLOWLY add the two cups of milk, stirring constantly so the mixture stays smooth (it will start off very pasty - this is where messing up can lead to disaster. Add a little bit of milk, and mix until blended. Repeat). After all the milk is blended, add the cheese and continue stirring until entire mixture is smooth and the cheese is melted. Add pot 1 to pot 2.
Serves 4 to 6. Doubling this recipe works great, but I wouldn’t go more than that. If you need more soup, make multiple double batches.
-
For what it is worth, the gay blogs have been burning up with anger about how these stats have been represented. The report all these stats are based on says the following: "Finally, these findings are limited to men who frequented MSM-identified venues (most of which were bars [45%] and dance clubs [22%]) during the survey period in 21 [metropolitan statistical areas] with high AIDS prevalence; the results are not representative of all MSM. A lower HIV prevalence has been reported among MSM in the general U.S. population.”
I'm certain that if I went to any bar or dance clubs, I would find a higher level of promiscuity among these people than I would if I surveyed the general population, and most likely a higher rate of STD infection.
Also, it should be noted that it is currently socially acceptable for gays to be promiscuous. It isn't an excuse, obviously, but not allowing gays access to society's accepted form of monogamy doesn’t exactly promote monogamous gays. I'm reminded of this quote from Thomas Moore:
"For if you suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners to be corrupted from their infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be concluded from this, but that you first make thieves and then punish them.”
Just my two cents. Obviously the causes for all of this is complicated, but I don't think we can ignore society's role in not promoting monogamous gay relationship (nor do I think we can ignore the fact that, as Prince pointed out, promiscuity is simply immoral).
PS: I prefer cherry, if someone is making pies :)
-
Ram: Do you know this for sure? Is there some doctrinal source or do you have personal experience dealing with this? I'm just wondering because what I read didn't specify the need for a person to return to the gender they were at birth.
Does everyone think that perhaps what you believe in regards to whether or not a body can physically reflect the wrong gender of the spirit has something to do with how things would be handled by a church authority? In other words, if you don't believe a man can be born in a woman's body, then every transgendered person is wrong... but those who believe it is genetically possible (and probable in regards to XXY individuals) may take the "between God and the person" view?
My personal opinion is that if there is a possibility for a "genetic mistake" resulting in an XXY chromosome, why couldn't that same type of mistake result in the outward gender not matching the spiritual gender? And I suppose we could talk about those who are XXY, whose parents select one gender because it is, perhaps, more dominant - only to be found out later they chose wrong (or did they?).
Slamjet: That is, in essence, my original question. As a man, would I have to marry a FTM transgendered person, or a MTF transgendered person to maintain my membership in the church (assuming I was a member and married a transgendered individual who was baptized)?
-
These personal experiences are actually kinda what I was hoping for... and a bishop and stake president's opinion :).
Thanks for the discussion so far. Very interesting...
Moe: I specified that members of the church who undergo elective surgery are exed - because that is what I thought it said in the handbook of instructions... but if you have one there you can check and see if it still says that (will you let me know - if that's allowed?). Although I'm sure the word "elective" could mean different things to different people, it makes sense that there would be consessions for medical reasons (or intersex people like the example provided by Tarnished).
I suppose, as Hordak mentioned, it would actually BE a medical reason from the point of view of the person (making their body match what they believe to be their true gender), but I wonder how much of this point of view the church would take into consideration. I know, I know... it's up to the local leaders, haha.
-
I’ve had a question about this for a long time.
I can’t quote the Church Handbook of Instructions, right?
Ok, as I understand it, a person who undergoes an elective transsexual operation as a member of the church is excommunicated.
But I also understand that persons who have already undergone an elective transsexual operation may be baptized if they are otherwise found worthy in an interview with the mission president or other priesthood leader assigned (I’m assuming this means area authority, or whoever would be needed to grant such permission).
I also understand that this person will not be able to get a temple recommend, or hold the priesthood regardless of gender at birth or current gender expression.
But what about marriage? Is this person allowed to marry and does the church recognize that marriage (civilly - the same as they would recognize any civil marriage)? Could that person’s spouse get a temple recommend? If they consummate the marriage, is it still considered sinful like it would be if a married same-sex couple did?
Now before anyone worries, I am NOT considering any sort of operation, haha – I’m just curious as to how this all fits together, and if anyone knows the way the doctrine or policy currently leans in this regard.
-
Yay! I was used as an example. Does this mean I’m highly evolved? Or was the comparison more along the lines of a single-celled organism?
Bytor, I’d disagree with you if this was the time or the place, but this is neither the time nor the place.
I haven’t been following this discussion, but I thought I’d add:
Just because something has the potential to lead someone away from God doesn’t speak to its truth. Some scientists choose to discount God because of scientific truths, but that is simply an interpretation, and doesn’t speak to the “righteousness” of those truths. The same could be said of Darwin’s teachings – if they are true (I tend to believe that micro-evolution is a truth, and as such, macro-evolution makes sense if you look at two periods of time that are far enough apart. I also see no reason why God wouldn’t use the laws of physics to help his creation process along when he uses them and obeys them everywhere else).
The Bible has the potential to lead people away from the LDS church if interpreted incorrectly, but that doesn’t speak to the truthfulness of the Bible, only to the incorrect interpretation thereof; interpreting science, or evolution, or any truth, to disprove God seems to fall along that same line, in my opinion.
-
I was listening to Dr. Laura yesterday (shock!) and a woman called in with a similar problem. I actually agreed with Dr. Laura’s advice, which gave the woman five options:
1. View sex like you view cleaning the toilet: something that isn’t fun but has to be done (although she admitted that while sex might start out like a chore, it usually would end up being entertaining for both parties)
2. Get your husband a subscription to porn and introduce him to his hand
3. Find him a girlfriend on the side
4. Set up a budget for hiring a girl on the weekends
5. Let him go, and move on yourself
Since 2, 3, and 4 obviously go against Christian principles, I only see 1 and 5 as an option for you.
-
As someone who has a LOT of experience talking about very personal stuff with a copious amount of church leadership, my advice is to free yourself of the guilt and tell the bishop everything. He's not going to be sad or disappointed that you withheld things - he's going to understand: and trust me, he's heard it all before (probably from ME! haha).
Let's say that everything you've done does end up disqualifying you from serving a mission, or your repentance process takes long enough that you are no longer eligible. Ask yourself this question: Do you want to be a worthy non-missionary, or an unworthy missionary?
As to your parents/family, stop telling them stuff unless you think being accountable to them will help. Saying something like "I've got issues that I'm working on and I'm getting things taken care of following the principles the Lord has set up. I would appreciate it if you would show me some support as I go through this rather difficult time in my life" will usually get them to stop bothering you and just support you. All they need to know is that you are taking responsibility and working through your issues with the proper authority. Ask you bishop if he thinks this is a good position to take with them, especially if they are making life harder on you.
We all make stupid choices. You can regret them, or you can learn from them. Integrity and personal accountability are things you can't learn if you are being dishonest.
-
This was posted on a similar post a few weeks ago, I think...
To me, it answers the question pretty clearly about why some people have revelation regarding the truthfulness of the church withheld from them.
President Ezra Taft Benson in a 1972 address quoting Orson F. Whitney from a 1928 general conference address:
Perhaps the Lord needs such men on the outside of His Church to help it along. They are among its auxiliaries, and can do more good for the cause where the Lord has placed them, than anywhere else. … Hence, some are drawn into the fold and receive a testimony of the truth; while others remain unconverted … the beauties and glories of the gospel being veiled temporarily from their view, for a wise purpose. The Lord will open their eyes in His own due time. God is using more than one people for the accomplishment of His great and marvelous work. The Latter-day Saints cannot do it all. It is too vast, too arduous for any one people. … We have no quarrel with the Gentiles. They are our partners in a certain sense.
-
Orrinian: I don't think anyone would make light or disrespect your story, and obviously your story is horrendous; but with all due respect, that man may have been a homosexual, but he was a PEDOPHILE who HAPPENED to be a homosexual...
The homosexuals who wish to get married (which the BYU letter was addressing) wish to do so with other adult, consenting, homosexuals.
I'm not naive enough to believe that homosexuality COULD be caused on occasion by a tramatic childhood experience, but that is not the marority... nor or homosexuals anymore likely to abuse children. To equate the two is just as bad as saying heterosexuality is bad because heterosexual pedophiles exist - and we all know that isn't true.
I am sad that this childhood experience has caused you to view all homosexuals as evil people - but I do understand why you feel the way you do.
-
Orrinian: While I highly disagree with your theory as to the causes of homosexuality, I very much appreciate you view of the BYU letter and your honesty.
-
Rubondfan: I'll PM you so we don't get off topic.
-
JAG: Why would BYU remove the offending pieces, then post the letter, then remove the letter, instead of just not posting the letter to begin with? That's what I don't get... If they asked him to water it down, and then were satisfied enough with the watered down version to post it, why then take it down?
I can see why BYU would take down the letter had the offending portions been there. After all, if claim were that it is dangerous precident to follow the prophet, I can see their reasoning...
But to change the tone to be "you voted on this not for substatial evidence but because the prophet told you to" rings pretty true to me. I would think most LDS people would respond "If I did, so what?"
If a church member has issues with their religious beliefs not getting respect in the intellectual world I've got news for them - religion doesn't really make a whole lot of scientific sense. But isn't that the point? Is faith still faith if it is able to be scientifically proven?
I don't know if I'm saying what I'm trying to say clearly. It has to do with they type of people who would be offended by the idea that they are following the prophet without evidence. They are the people who need to be validated intellectually - which to me would show a lack of religious faith...
Does that make sense? Sort of? Am I wrong?
lds backlash from gay community cnn.com
in General Discussion
Posted
Prince: While I highly disagree that homosexuals are being asked to do the same thing as unmarried heterosexuals in the church (heterosexuals aren't asked to CHOOSE to be celibate or deny themselves any romantic connection or involvment - they are asked to keep looking), I do agree with your last paragraph.
Strangely, it seems like item C in your list is where gay members who are trying to change are lacking... it's also the one area over which they have no control. I think a lot of members of the church assume that gays who don't change are lacking in either A or B - and I think that's a gross misconception.
I would have loved to have seen President Packer address this issue (although it was addressed in God Loveth His Children).