Breaking the Law of Chastity, and homosexuality

[Elphaba]

The following is a conversation with Xzain that started on another thread. He asked me to start a new thread if I wanted to respond.

I decided to pursue it because of something I feel more strongly each time the subject comes up.

I find members tend to think homosexuality is a sin. It is not. Breaking the Law of Chastity is a sin.

I have mentioned before I had a good friend who is gay and finally quit attending Church out of desperation because he was ostracized by people in his branch. At the time I believed the Church condemned homosexuals, which was evident by his experience.

But I believe I was wrong. The Church does not condemn homosexuality. It condemns breaking the Law of Chastity. This applies to people of both sexual orientations.

In my ramblings around the net, I have discovered quotes from General Authorities that I think demonstrate this.

So, I've brought the conversation to my new thread, and hopefully some of you will get through this monster. If you do, you'll no doubt disagree with me here and there, or everwhere. I repeat my belief that homosexuality is the sexual orientation you're born with, and I know many here disagree with that.

But more importantly, you'll find it has a lot of insight from Church leaders about the Church's stance on homosexuality. Basically, it's "hate the sin, love the sinner stuff," but it actually is more profound than that.

Xzain: The Church says that in most cases same sex attraction is not severe enough to overrule all healthy heterosexual affection. Indeed, you said so yourself.

No, the “Church” does not say this, nor do I.

From the Newsroom interview where Elders Oak and Wickham answered questions about SSA:

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: If somebody has a very powerful heterosexual drive, there is the opportunity for marriage. If a young man thinks he’s gay, what we’re really saying to him is that there is simply no other way to go but to be celibate for the rest of his life if he doesn’t feel any attraction to women?

ELDER OAKS: That is exactly the same thing we say to the many members who don’t have the opportunity to marry. We expect celibacy of any person that is not married

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nowhere in this interview does Elder Oaks say people with SSA can overcome it. He does say if they “feel a great attraction for a daughter of God,” then they can marry. But a person who is homosexual is not going to feel that attraction, not if he is truly homosexual.

Our difference in viewpoint is that I see homosexuality as a temptation to be dealt with; you see it as an immutable part of someone's nature. (I think; I may be wrong here. Please correct me if I am) If a temptation is inhibitive to righteous living, it is better for a man to 'pluck out his eye' rather than let it offend him.

Well, then don’t drink, smoke or play Crazy Eights, or you may have to get your beebee gun out.

Yes, I do see homosexuality as part of an immutable part of someone’s nature. People are born gay, they don’t decide to be gay. However, homosexuality is a person’s sexual orientation, not a bad gambling habit.

Here’s the thing. You call homosexuality the “temptation.” It’s not. The temptation is to break the Law of Chastity--not homosexuality.

You mentioned you have a girlfriend, so I assume you’re not married. You know you cannot break the Law of Chastity with her, or any other woman.

It is the same for members who are gay--they cannot break the Law of Chastity. Therefore, if a member is gay and has a strong testimony, she knows she will have to lead a life of celibacy. Exactly the same as all other single members in the Church do. There is no difference.

In fact, in the interview, Elder Oaks says:

“What’s more, merely having inclinations does not disqualify one for any aspect of Church participation or membership, except possibly marriage as has already been talked about. But even that, in the fullness of life as we understand it through the doctrines of the restored gospel, eventually can become possible. “ (emphasis mine)

While said in jest, this brings up the point that I have dealt with, and continue to deal with, SSA. It's not as powerful as other people's cases, but had I given into it earlier in my life I can assure you I would no doubt label myself 'gay' . . .

It would not have mattered one way or the other. You are not gay.

You are probably bisexual, which enables you to be attracted to women, while having some SSA. Even if you had “given into it in your earlier life,“ you still would have been attracted to women as well.

Unfortunately, he gave into it and then decided- yes, decided- he was gay. Out of respect for him I will not say too much; let it suffice to say that he continued to seek heterosexual experiences and when the 'ultimate' wasn't enough he had to turn to a greater extreme- homsexuality.

Your friend did not decide he was gay. He is gay. If he weren’t, then his heterosexual experiences would have been satisfying for him. They were not, because he‘s gay.

Show me the quote, please. [that President Hinckley said men with SSA should not marry in their lifetime.] I remember once he said that with the clarifying clause 'if they cannot overcome it'. If we're thinking of the same talk, you've seemed to forgotten an important part. I admit I cannot cite my exact source this time, but you brought it up.

Yes, I did bring it up, and no I haven’t forgotten an important part.

From the Newsroom interview:

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Is heterosexual marriage ever an option for those with homosexual feelings?

ELDER OAKS: We are sometimes asked about whether marriage is a remedy for these feelings that we have been talking about. President Hinckley, faced with the fact that apparently some had believed it to be a remedy, and perhaps that some Church leaders had even counseled marriage as the remedy for these feelings, made this statement: “Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices.” To me that means that we are not going to stand still to put at risk daughters of God who would enter into such marriages under false pretenses or under a cloud unknown to them. Persons who have this kind of challenge that they cannot control could not enter marriage in good faith.

I remember Elder Oaks saying not to let homosexuality define one's personality- I agree with him- but I also remember him saying that homosexuality is, in most cases, conquerable.

You may have heard him say this, but he does not say this in the interview. Not even close.

It is also important to note that feelings of SSA, no matter to what degree, may be related to, but not the ultimate factor in, a lack of heterosexual attraction.

Well, I suppose you could say a if a man is not attracted to a blond, this won’t keep all men from being attracted to blondes.

If a man is gay, he is not going to be attracted to women. There is no getting around that. A man may be bisexual, and therefore will be attracted to women, but not if he is homosexual.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Another poster in the other thread mentioned Elder Holland had spoken about homosexuality. Below are his comments from his interview with Phyllis Whitney, of “The Mormons.”

Whitney: Another anguishing issue that faces you and every church: homosexuality. On a personal level, how do you counsel people dealing with that?

Holland: ... The emotion and the pain and the challenge of [dealing with homosexuality] has to rank among the most taxing, most visceral of any of the issues that any religious group wrestles with. As others of my colleagues and brethren have, I have counseled hundreds -- I don't know how many hundreds -- of these young people. I say young people because often that's the group that come to us most, but there are people of every age struggling. ... The counsel I have given is that God loves them every bit as much as he loves me; the church loves them. We do have doctrine; we do have borders; we do have foundational pieces on which we stand. And moral chastity -- heterosexual ... and homosexual -- are areas where God has spoken and where the church has a position. ...

I spoke earlier about the price everyone has to pay for the blessing of the covenant, to be counted within the institutional circle of the blessings of the church. ... I have spent a significant portion of the last few years of my ministry pleading to give help to those who don't practice [homosexuality] but who are struggling with the impressions and the feelings and the attractions and the gender confusion. Or if they do practice or are trying to deal with it, that group I have spent scores of hours with, if nothing else, just saying: "Hang on, hope on, try on. ... Get through the night; get to the light." ...

I believe in that light, and I believe in that hope, and I believe in that peace. So I offer it without apology, but I know sometimes that's thin to people who would want more. Any more than I can see it compromising on its heterosexual position of chastity before marriage and fidelity afterward, I don't anticipate it that [the church] would change on homosexual behavior. But none of that has anything to do with my belief in the value of that soul and the love that God has for that person.

But it's just that ... there is a quid pro quo in terms of wanting the church's blessing on our lives. If someone chooses behavior that goes in a different direction, people choose that every day. And while that may make me weep, ... people are free to do that. ...

I believe with all my heart that it's divine language; it's a divine commandment. There really are "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots" in life. And in this world, in some contemporary life, thou shalts and thou shalt nots are not popular on the face of it; it wouldn't matter what subject. But we'll always have some, and we'll try to help each other master that and embrace it and see it through and be exalted on the other end.

Whitney: It's tough being gay anyplace in society, in any church, but especially here in yours.

Holland: Absolutely. I don't think there's any question about that. And it's true of so many other things about the church. We're so defined by marriage and family. ... So it's got that added component of pain in a church where we do advocate and expect and encourage marriage -- traditional marriage, man to a woman, woman to a man -- and family and children. And for anyone in whatever gay or lesbian inclination may exist, ... the marriage I have and the marriage I've seen my children have and I pray for my grandchildren to have, they say, "For me it's an experience I'll never have." And true to the Holland tradition, I burst into tears, and I say, "Hope on, and wait and let me walk with you, and we'll be faithful, be clean, and we'll get to the end of this."

I do know that this will not be a post-mortal condition. It will not be a post-mortal difficulty. I have a niece who cannot bear children. That is the sorrow and the tragedy of her life. She who was born to give birth will never give birth, and I cry with her. ... I just say to her what I say to people struggling with gender identity: "Hang on, and hope on, and pray on, and this will be resolved in eternity." These conditions will not exist post-mortality. I want that to be of some hope to some.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Me: I think Elder Holland is saying the same thing as Elders Oaks and Wickman.

If you are gay, you cannot break the Law of Chastity. This means you must remain celibate during your mortal life, but that once you have passed on, you will partake of the blessings, including marriage and family, that you aren’t able to here on earth.

Technically, this is true for all single members of the Church, no matter what the reason.

Personally, I think too many people think homosexuality is the sin, and treat their fellow SSA members as if this were so. I know in my own family there are some who would, and some who would not. But I can't seem to get the ones who would to understand the difference between "being a person who is, among other things, homosexual," and "being a homosexual."

No offense Elphaba, but being a faithful, studying member of my Church who attends all the classes I can, listens and ponders the words of the leaders, and prays to my God above, I believe I know more about what the Church actually teaches than someone who is not.

Playing the “Member” card doesn’t phase me kiddo. I’ve been a member, and probably would still be one if I could find a way to be an atheist and a member at the same time. But that’s the great thing about this board. Apostates like me can come here, spout off, and you get to ignore me, or listen. Either way is good.

Elphaba

http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/same-gender-attraction

[Hemidakota]

Again, as the brethren spoke often about, it is not the promptings that is a sin but the action of the promptings [offensive type] that is a sin.

[Vanhin]

Is it sin to fornicate, or to commit adultery? Is it sin to engage in gay sex? Is it sin to dwell on immoral thoughts constantly? You betcha!

Is it sin to have drives and tendencies? No. It's only sin when we dwell on immoral thoughts and act upon them. We have to learn to control our desires and appetites, and conform them to the will of God. That's part of the reason we are here in mortality.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Hemidakota]

Vanhin, read closer - the word is PROMPTINGS. These are not the thoughts you dwell on or it was create by that individual through lust or desires. Promptings comes by either by the Spirit [righteounes sake] or by evil spirits, in having that individual to commit a sin.

Perhaps, I was clear enough...hmm.

[Vanhin]

Vanhin, read closer - the word is PROMPTINGS. These are not the thoughts you dwell on or it was create by that individual through lust or desires. Promptings comes by either by the Spirit [righteounes sake] or by evil spirits, in having that individual to commit a sin.

Perhaps, I was clear enough...hmm.

Your first post was pretty clear. Now, with this post, I'm not sure what you are talking about. :) Take this sentence, for example:

These are not the thoughts you dwell on or it was create by that individual through lust or desires.

What does that sentence mean?

As far as my post, I was pretty much agreeing with your first post. I just wanted to add some more thoughts on the matter. What I am saying can be summed up like this.

It's only sin when we dwell on immoral thoughts and act upon them.

Isn't that what you were saying too?

Regrads,

Vanhin

[Hemidakota]

I do apologize....

[Vanhin]

I do apologize....

Rock on brother.

[MsMagnolia]

Elph, you are amazing as always. Thanks for this beautiful post.

[Moksha]

Elf, way to pin back the ears of those whipper-snappers. However, when you have the word from the horse's mouth, it takes the fun out of speculating. Oh well, sometimes we need the official stuff too.

Thanks for being knowledgeable.

[MorningStar]

The difference is, if a girl and boy are holding hands in church, no one will think anything of it, but two men holding hands would be frowned upon. For the girl and boy, one day it will be OK for them to take their relationship further (if they get married), but not for the two men.

[Guest leeanntheonetoo]

The difference is, if a girl and boy are holding hands in church, no one will think anything of it, but two men holding hands would be frowned upon. For the girl and boy, one day it will be OK for them to take their relationship further (if they get married), but not for the two men.

Or two Women for that matter.

Leeann;)

[Guest Topspin]

Well there it is in black and white, Holland saying to Whitney in his interview that . At least Holland admits that the church causes pain in our lives by its very strong stance on marriage and family since we can't even marry while we have the challenge with the same gender feelings.

He also admits as well that this will finally be resolved in 'eternity'. won't be a post mortal condition but will be a condition for us to deal with here in mortality... Even though some are told they will overcome the condition to the degree they are able to marry, others have to wait, So what Holland says reinforces what I've already said.... Holland is Telling us in this mortal life we just can hang on, hope, on pray on, it's very clear to me that some of us won't even overcome the challenge of same gender feelings in this life but will be resolved in the next.

[Rico]

Holland is Telling us in this mortal life we just can hang on, hope, on pray on, it's very clear to me that some of us won't even overcome the challenge of same gender feelings in this life but will be resolved in the next.

I think that is called enduring to the end.

[Andrew777]

Homosexuals are OK Morningstar as long as they do everything in their power to not act, think or feel as if they are homosexuals.

[Moksha]

The difference is, if a girl and boy are holding hands in church, no one will think anything of it, but two men holding hands would be frowned upon.

Of course there is alway that matter of accidently walking into a room and finding two guys with their hands on top the head of a third guy.

[Elphaba]

The difference is, if a girl and boy are holding hands in church, no one will think anything of it, but two men holding hands would be frowned upon. For the girl and boy, one day it will be OK for them to take their relationship further (if they get married), but not for the two men.

Hi MorningStar,

I almost added the issue you made in your comments, but I had already written a "book" about this, and thought I needed to stop.

I also think it is different in the sense that many single people still hope to be married to someone who is as involved in the church as they are. Gay people will never have that hope wihile on earth. To me, that is sad, but it is what Church officials have said gay people must do to remain members in standing.

I also think if a gay person has previously had gay relations, they should not be shunned either. They should still look at him as a member to love and support. That is, if he goes through the repentance process.

I have wondered if a gay person confesses, does that warrant an excommunication. I really don't know.

Thanks for adding that to my thread.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

Of course there is alway that matter of accidently walking into a room and finding two guys with their hands on top the head of a third guy.

Moksha, as always you crack me up!

Elphaba

[utcowboy]

Of course there is alway that matter of accidently walking into a room and finding two guys with their hands on top the head of a third guy.

It funny that this is humorous to you and others, yet you will also sit there expecting and demanding respect for your beliefs and traditions.

Just my humble opinion....

[sixpacktr]

UTC,

In case you haven't noticed, it seems that some always try to make light of sacred things. Don't know why...they must think they are being cute or something...

[Finrock]

Greetings Elphaba!

I can appreciate your perspective. I also appreciate the effort you put in to state your case. I, on the other hand, feel that the scriptures bind us to condemn homosexuality, as we should condemn any other sin. I agree that committing homosexual sex is also breaking the Law of Chastity, but, if scriptures are to be believed, homosexuality is a sin in it's own right. Here is a sample of the doctrine:

Lev. 18:22

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind; it is an abomination"

Deut. 23:17

"There shall be no sodomite (a direct reference to homosexuality) of the sons of Israel..."

1 Cor. 6:9-10

"Abusers of themselves with mankind will not inherit the kingdom of God..."

And there are others. But, I think the scriptures are clear on this issue. Homosexuality is a sin in it's own right just as viewing pornography is a sin in it's own right.

One question that has not come up in the discussion thus far, at least I have not seen it, is what of countries or states that allow homosexual marriage? The Law of Chastity is that we shall have no sexual relations outside marriage and only have sexual relations with your spouse within marriage. If persons of same gender are legally and lawfully wedded, and have sex, they would no longer be breaking the Law of Chastity, however they would still be violating the prohibition against homosexuality in God's laws.

Because of a lack of time, I can not iterate my point sufficiently. I recognize that there are points that require more support or fleshing out. If there are points that are unclear or lacking, I apologize. When able, I will come back and see if there have been any issues raised regarding my post and attempt to clarify. Thank you for taking the time to read my post. I wish you a wonderful rest of the evening.

Regards,

Finrock

[Guest Topspin]

". I, on the other hand, feel that the scriptures bind us to condemn homosexuality, as we should condemn any other sin. "

Wrong.... The Church has said it only condemns homosexual BEHAVIOR, it does not condemn homosexual feelings and

inclinations that are not acted out upon, there is no church discipline for this..... Those who have those feelings but who do

not act on them are worthy just like any other church member. But those who act out on their feelings, THAT'S when

church discipline comes into the picture.

[Andrew777]

Of course there is alway that matter of accidently walking into a room and finding two guys with their hands on top the head of a third guy.

Ha, that was great. One of the times that they did this to me, I opened my eyes to take a quick peak around and the guy standing directly in front of me had his fly undone.

[Andrew777]

UTC,

In case you haven't noticed, it seems that some always try to make light of sacred things. Don't know why...they must think they are being cute or something...

It's because some people have a sense of humour, sometimes even about their own beliefs and traditions.

[Hemidakota]

Topspin what is thought on this article:

Transgression, Not Sin

President Joseph Fielding Smith (1876–1972) said: “I never speak of the part Eve took in this fall as a sin, nor do I accuse Adam of a sin. … This was a transgression of the law, but not a sin … for it was something that Adam and Eve had to do!” 1

Regarding this distinction, Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles observed: “This suggested contrast between a sin and a transgression reminds us of the careful wording in the second article of faith: ‘We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression’ (emphasis added). It also echoes a familiar distinction in the law. Some acts, like murder, are crimes because they are inherently wrong. Other acts, like operating without a license, are crimes only because they are legally prohibited. Under these distinctions, the act that produced the Fall was not a sin—inherently wrong—but a transgression—wrong because it was formally prohibited. These words are not always used to denote something different, but this distinction seems meaningful in the circumstances of the Fall.” 2

Even though Adam and Eve had not sinned, because of their transgression they had to face certain consequences, two of which were spiritual death and physical death. Physical death came to Adam and Eve at the end of their earthly lives, but spiritual death occurred as they were cast out of the Garden of Eden, being cut off from the presence of God (see Alma 42:9). []LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Fulness of the Gospel: The Fall of Adam and Eve

[Andrew777]

You don't know the difference between Temptation and Transgression and assume that when one is

tempted with homosexual feelings or inclinations that they are sinners. They are not, for the church has

told us that if we have homosexual inclinations and feelings but do not act upon them, then we have not

committed any transgression that would warrant church discipline. For church discipline only applies to

those who give into the temptation of those feelings. It does not apply to those who don't act upon

their inclinations. So you need to get your facts right

Jesus said that even if you think the wrong thoughts, you've commited sins. I had this explained to me as he set the bar higher so that we are to not just commit the act of breaking the law of chastity but to be ever vigilant about even thinking about breaking it or breaking any of the churches other commandments. My personal belief is that Jesus was saying that we need to change our thinking before our acts will follow and that he was warning against our thoughts and emotions leading us to sin. The church members I talked to said I was wrong though and that it's just the act of actually thinking that causes the sin.