Looking for realistic advice

[NeuroTypical]

Some comments about comparing a gay couple to a man who brings his "shack up honey" (Too much Dr. Laura?). I think a gay couple is far less sinful than a man who took vows and not only broke them, but injured and destroyed a family in the process.

I only saw one such comment - mine. And if you read the whole post in context, I'd hope you realize that I presented a list of different sins, with two examples of sinners. Their attitudes (gleaned by their outward behaviors) are what dictated my responses - not the sins themselves.

The intent of my post was missed by you, bytebear, and also by TheOgre.

The point is, we didn't turn anyone away. And we shoudn't.

Exactly. Those who are disfellowshipped (think about what that word means - removing fellowship) or excommunicated are given a path back - it's up to them to remove or overcome the roadblocks and pitfalls on that path. Should they embrace their sin, it's they who are turning away from church, not the other way around.

Finally, when discussing homosexuality, just know that there are lots of different sins out there, and just because this is one that is making headlines, doesn't mean you are any better in your life.

No argument here. I don't think I've posted anything to the contrary, and I know I don't believe the contrary.

You can judge righteous judgement without comparing yourself to the person being judged.

I know it's true, but I just can't get past my [hormones / urges / baggage / denial / lust / pain / addiction / anger / apathy / easily offended nature / fear / ignorance / ego / pride]

I am glad sarcasm is alive and well, by saying this I'm sure you recognize nothing is as simple as this line of reasoning.

I wasn't being sarcastic at all, and although I put it simply, I didn't mean to imply that overcoming any of these things should be as easy as flipping a light switch. But I stand by the line of reasoning. If you have a testimony, but figure you're locked in some various trap of sin, if you figure you can't escape from it, then of course you're in a world of hurt. But regardless of how painful the world of hurt is, the solution remains the same. Overcome.

Again, most of us can usually understand that no matter how deep the addiction, how grave the sin, how often we've engaged in it, the answer is to forsake the sin. But for some reason, we get sheepish about understanding the same thing about innapropriate sexual urges of a same-sex nature.

Again, phooey.

LM

Edited May 7, 2009 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[bytebear]

Loudmouth, I didn't mean to single you out. I just think, particularly with this being a hot topic politically and socially, we tend to assume it is the big sin, but in reality, there are so many problems with families these days that are now so common, that we the Saints tend to diminish the harm done by heterosexuals who don't cherish their fidelity and chastity.

[Vort]

Loudmouth, I didn't mean to single you out. I just think, particularly with this being a hot topic politically and socially, we tend to assume it is the big sin, but in reality, there are so many problems with families these days that are now so common, that we the Saints tend to diminish the harm done by heterosexuals who don't cherish their fidelity and chastity.

Not sure what part of the US you live in, but I assure you that nothing could be further from the truth in the places I've lived, both in the western US and in the East. The last time we addressed the evils of homosexuality as a topic of discussion in Priesthood meeting was...well...never. In contrast, we address problems and evils found in heterosexual relationships all the time -- as in, every week. Literally.

Perhaps you live in an area where homosexuality is so endemic and so publicly accepted that the Church leaders or membership feel the need to spend time pointing out what ought to be obvious: Homosexual relations are wicked and lead to personal and societal destruction. But I have never lived anywhere that such a thing was so poorly understood as to be a problem, where (as you say) the Saints diminish the harm done by heterosexuals who don't cherish their fidelity and chastity. On the contrary, that's what our youth and adults are warned against constantly, like an incessant drumbeat. The topic of homosexuality as an evil practice never comes up except as a "by the way".

I don't pretend that my experience is necessarily typical, but I have lived in many places in the US and have never seen the problem you describe. LoudMouth was speaking what seemed to me obvious common sense; I don't quite understand why you took exception to anything he wrote.

[Vort]

There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of Homosexuals. To quote the famous saying by Rabbi Hillel, "If not me, then who?".

If not We the LDS Church, then who?

:confused:

Your confusion confuses me. Did someone claim that the Latter-day Saints didn't, or shouldn't, minister to the spiritual needs of homosexuals?

There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of pedophiles.

There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of rapists.

There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of carjackers.

There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of embezzlers.

There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of wifebeaters.

There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of liars.

There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of cowards.

There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of cheaters.

There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of child abusers.

There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of shoplifters.

There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of emotional abusers.

There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of dishonest folks.

There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of those who curse.

There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of jaywalkers.

There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of people who pick their noses.

Whatever gave you the idea that anyone thought that Latter-day Saints consider homosexuals any different from any of the other sinners listed above? All need to come unto the Lord and repent of their wickedness and carnality, whether homosexuality or something else.

[Islander]

I understand the desire to be supportive and express care for friends that have same gender attraction. But the situation described in the OP is not attainable. It would be the same as me cheating on my wife and bringing my girlfriend to church. Sin remains sin regardless of our desire to minimize its impact, ignore the social backlash or our longing for the comfort of the Spirit.

The domestic situation of this same sex couple does not diminish the fact that they remain unrepentant and living in sin. Unmarried people would be advised to abstain from taking the sacrament, praying for the congregation, officiating or speaking. This is no different.

If I break the covenant I lose the privilege of partaking of the sacrament, exercising my priesthood, officiating, serving in the temple and even perhaps my exaltation. Sad and tragic as it may be I have nobody to point fingers to or blame but myself. I brought it upon myself. Harsh reality but unavoidable. We will not be saved in our sins. The ONLY way to regain our standing before God is to repent and sin no more.

[Kawazu]

Your confusion confuses me. Did someone claim that the Latter-day Saints didn't, or shouldn't, minister to the spiritual needs of homosexuals?

There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of pedophiles.

There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of rapists.

There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of carjackers.

There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of embezzlers.

There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of wifebeaters.

There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of liars.

There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of cowards.

There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of cheaters.

There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of child abusers.

There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of shoplifters.

There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of emotional abusers.

There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of dishonest folks.

There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of those who curse.

There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of jaywalkers.

There needs to be someone to minister to the spiritual needs of people who pick their noses.

Whatever gave you the idea that anyone thought that Latter-day Saints consider homosexuals any different from any of the other sinners listed above? All need to come unto the Lord and repent of their wickedness and carnality, whether homosexuality or something else.

Hi there,

I respect that this is a politically/socially charged topic and also realize that opinions expressed on on this forum do not constitute official statements from the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints. Moreover, I do not know you, personally. Mainly, I was curious why the first 12 items on your list indicated harmful actions toward other people?

Thank you for your time.

Regards,

Kawazu

[Vort]

Hi there,

I respect that this is a politically/socially charged topic and also realize that opinions expressed on on this forum do not constitute official statements from the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints. Moreover, I do not know you, personally. Mainly, I was curious why the first 12 items on your list indicated harmful actions toward other people?

Cowardice is a harmful action toward other people?

I suppose I listed examples of sin that harmed others because when thinking up examples of sinful behavior, that's what came to mind.

Why do you ask?

[Kawazu]

Cowardice is a harmful action toward other people?

I suppose I listed examples of sin that harmed others because when thinking up examples of sinful behavior, that's what came to mind.

Why do you ask?

Howdy,

Well, your answer got me to thinking how I would respond to a homosexual person who expressed interest in the Church. I just do not think I would be acting on impulse of the love of the Savior to respond with, "Sure. We wholeheartedly share the Gospel with child abusers, wife beaters, and gays."

If you were to extend an invitation to attend Sacrament Service to a practicing homosexual--who had no interest in celibacy--what would you say, (other than articulating the Church's position on homosexuality?)

May you feel the Spirit, always.

Regards,

Kawazu

[Vort]

Well, your answer got me to thinking how I would respond to a homosexual person who expressed interest in the Church. I just do not think I would be acting on impulse of the love of the Savior to respond with, "Sure. We wholeheartedly share the Gospel with child abusers, wife beaters, and gays."

Good point. Neither you nor I would respond that way to a homosexual with interest in attending sacrament meeting.

Of course, I was not responding to a homosexual with interest in attending sacrament meeting, but to a fellow Latter-day Saint who was proclaiming that we as Latter-day Saints needed to minister to the spiritual needs of homosexuals. Since no one had suggested otherwise, I found this heart-rending plea a tad bizarre. We are to minister to the spiritual needs of everyone, regardless of the particular sin or evil they struggle with. To illustrate this obvious (I thought) fact, I made up a quick list of sins and evils. Different situations call for different arguments.

If you were to extend an invitation to attend Sacrament Service to a practicing homosexual--who had no interest in celibacy--what would you say, (other than articulating the Church's position on homosexuality?)

I would probably say something like, "Sacrament meeting starts at 10:00. Would you like to come?" If he responded in the affirmative, I would probably give him a short heads-up on expectations.

[rameumptom]

Moksha seems to be good with establishing cliches for us to comment upon.

I agree with Vort that the gospel and Church are for the healing of all spiritually sick. Now, the question for any spiritually sick person is this: do they recognize their sickness and their need to repent/overcome/endure a temptation/etc?

I had in a previous ward a member who spent 10 years in prison, because his wife claimed he had sexually abused their daughter. In later years, the daughter denied it, but he still had to finish his 10 years in jail. And it is in his Church file for this life, so he cannot hold certain callings with the youth, etc. He is still welcomed by most members in that ward, and they reach out to him. Still, he's expected to follow certain rules, such as not be alone with any of the kids in the ward.

God reaches out to us, but he has expectations that go along with that reaching. We cannot be like Lucifer, who offered to be God's wingman, but with a list of changes to the flight plan that included an entirely different flight plan AND a change to the flight leader.

So it is with a ward. The bishop will welcome in anyone who accepts a basic list of expectations. But if a homosexual, or any other sinner enters in with the intent of disrupting the program with an insistence of being who they "really are", then the bishop's responsibility is to ask the person to follow the basic rules or not attend until they are ready to abide by those rules.

It does no good to help build a Celestial people by dragging everyone down to a telestial level. Rather, we invite all to join us, but at least while they are in the services, they need to abide by a terrestrial law at the bare minimum.

It becomes an issue of God's order versus Chaos. God formed this world out of chaos. The tradition is of 3 levels of the world: the underworld, the earth, and the heavens. God separated the three and keeps them in their place, so that chaos stays in check. Sin causes chaos to run rampant, which is what happened with the Flood, as the waters in the underworld rushed forward into our realm. With Sodom and Gomorrah, the sin of those cities to impose their sexual sins upon others caused chaos to drop fire from the skies upon them. Only when the sinners are destroyed can the chaos be restrained and put back in its proper place again.

Now, imagine what kind of a church it is that celebrates sexual sin of any kind. Sadly, many Christian churches of today do just that. It is one thing to love the sinner, it is another thing to embrace the sin along with the sinner.

[glow_inthe_dark_girl]

I do not. Not an LDS church, anyway.

If my friend who smokes wanted to come to Church. he would be welcome, but I would tell him that he needed not to smoke at Church. If my friend who cursed constantly wanted to come to Church, he would be welcome, but I would likewise mention that harsh language was out of place. If my drug addict friend wanted to come to Church, he would be welcome, but I would expect him not to talk about the glories of his drug usage or model such behavior at Church, especially in front of children. Common sense, really.

I agree with this

[honestabe]

I do think (common sense really) that one day the church will change their stance on this topic just as they did on the african american issue in 1978 & others. There are same sex couples that are in happy monogamaus relationships. I don't expect alot of support on this issue from this forum but....I do not consider all homosexuals to be sinners or living sinful lives, just as I did not get a choice in the fact that I was born with the attraaction to females...I think given time people will stop being so narrow minded and judgemental towards this group of people. There was a time where the church discrimanted against black people (the doctrine still does, unfortunately) but I believe "don't throw the baby out with the bath water". Another one that comes to mind " let he who has no sin...cast the first stone". I believe people in general try to be good...I do not condemn other groups of people based on THERE CHOICES in life. I think it is about someones intentions and if two people truly love each other & treat each other with respect, who am I to tell them they are sinners. I think that it is sad that people feel the have the right to do this. I have a very close friend in the church that told once " if sins had a smell this whole church would stink". Given that this is a hot topic I'm ready for the bashing!!!!lol

[estradling75]

This thread was over two years dead... the OP has not been on in over a year therefore thread closed