Spiritual Needs of Homosexuals

[Justice]

Well, it's a fact that those who are struggling with various types of sin are disfellowshipped or excommunicated. So, from that stand point, I can see what is meant. It's not that anyone isn't welcome AT Church, it's that they may not be invited to participate in everything, based on their level of repentance.

Repentance has ALWAYS been a condition for anyone to be welcome into full standing with the Church in all ages.

[Moksha]

Sorry that the twice quoted sentence didn't read as I intended.

Should have been: "I doubt that such unwelcomeness is written anywhere in the LDS canon." Meaning that I have not found the spirit of making anyone feel unwelcome in the LDS canon.

[Dravin]

Sorry that the twice quoted sentence didn't read as I intended.

Should have been: "I doubt that such unwelcomeness is written anywhere in the LDS canon." Meaning that I have not found the spirit of making anyone feel unwelcome in the LDS canon.

I wondered about that but I wanted to show off my mad Scriptures search skillz. :)

[TruthSeekerToo]

I didn't read it that way and I just re-read it but mabey?????

I could be worng. I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt...

It just makes me so sad if people really think that sinners shouldn't come to church. That is a sure way to empty the building.

[Moksha]

I wondered about that but I wanted to show off my mad Scriptures search skillz. :)

Don't apologize Dravin, they were great scriptures. Hope everyone has a chance to reflect on them.

[Snow]

Murderers are Children of God who just happen to be predisposed to taking the lives of others. So are we indeed ministering to their spiritual needs, if they do not choose to make themselves abstain from the spilling of blood?

That's a pretty vile thought - comparing homosexuals to murders. Try to have a little charity/light of Christ won't you please.

[Just_A_Guy]

That's a pretty vile thought - comparing homosexuals to murders. Try to have a little charity/light of Christ won't you please.

You are right in that there's a difference between a murderer (who by definition has already acted) and a homosexual (who has not necessarily acted).

But then, the more apt comparisons--to pedophilies, kleptomaniacs, sadists, megalomaniacs, narcissists, and others who struggle with a host of sundry psychological challenges--generally fall prey to the same kind of condemnations as you've offered above.

[Jim108]

Why should the homosexuals sin be any different than the sin we are guilty of. They are loved by God equally to us. We all need to repent, forigive and love each other. Believe in Jesus and repent.

[cofchristcousin]

Do you ever ask gays what their spiritual needs might be?

[Maxel]

So, when I see this care for a group of sinners not happening, it does indeed raise questions in my mind. Some values do need clarifying. As we have heard from the ancients, an unexamined life is not worth living.

I don't follow you on this claim that the sinners aren't being cared for, as if this were a worldwide Church epidemic. The article that Justice linked specifically states that all those suffering from same-sex attraction are welcome at the Church.

At best, there are good and bad people in the Church- which is to be expected.

From what I have heard fellow members say at the ward and posters on LDS forums. If I as a bystander can get that impression, I imagine those who are Homosexual (or their family members) having extra sensitivity to this issue could pick up on this as well. I doubt that such unwelcomeness is written anywhere in the LDS canon.

It's the reality we live in. I agree that the LDS in general can be exclusive- but my experience is that Mormons tend to be more inclusive than you paint them out to be (I've never lived in Utah, though- you might). As far as someone being particularly sensitive about an issue- I feel for them and know how that is, to a small extent. However, I don't see the need to whitewash the doctrine or current official practices- you may or may not be opposed to that idea.

By the way, in no way do I feel that the best way to increase the inclusiveness of the LDS populace is to specifically preach acceptance of sinners (or people prone to a specific type of sin), except in rare cases where there is a definite problem (and I mean on the local level). The best way to increase the inclusiveness of the members is to preach the doctrine of Christ so that they can receive the teachings by the Holy Ghost and have His doctrine written on the fleshy tablets of their hearts. Only then will those members be truly inclusive of the lost sheep.

Being accorded the fellowship same as anyone else.

I agree with you here- however, I am limiting 'fellowship' to the attendance of meetings by practicing homosexuals. Those suffering from SSA who remain chaste are more than welcome to do everything another worthy Church member can do because they are, in fact, no less worthy than any other worthy member of the Church. Suffering from SSA does not equate to acting on those feelings.

Cast the lost sheep aside, eh?

No, actually. When I said 'the Church', I meant the practices and doctrine- not the interactive social behaviors of its members. The more accurate witty paraphrase of my statement would be 'Don't change the doctrine and practice to make sinners feel better, eh?'

I have been lead to believe that a good shepherd will look to all the sheep. Dorjem had a lot of wisdom insisting that the Church should be a hospital for sinners rather than a resort for the perfect.

I'm immensely curious about this Dorjem- on which forum did you discuss with him? I'd like to read his words.

---------------------------------------------------

In case anyone was wondering about my analogizing practicing homosexuals to murderers, thieves, and liars- doing so was to illustrate that an unrepentant person, no matter his/her sins, are not welcome to officiate in the Priesthood nor take the Sacrament (I assumed this was the 'ministering to [the] spiritual needs' of homosexuals that Moksha was referring to). Please note that the quote that list was in response to included the phrase "if they don't make themselves like eunuchs"- which implies an active practice of homosexuality (if I misread that, I apologize). See 3 Nephi 18:28-32.

Edited May 11, 2009 by Maxel
Removed unsolicited mention of another poster; My apologies

[Faded]

Why should the homosexuals sin be any different than the sin we are guilty of. They are loved by God equally to us. We all need to repent, forigive and love each other. Believe in Jesus and repent.

In the eyes of God and believers in God, their sins are no different than any other sin. Their pathway to God is no different than anyone else.

The trouble is that there is a lot of social pressure out there telling us that homosexuality is a perfectly natural and normal sexual behavior and that it is not sinful at all. Therein lies the confusion and controversy. They want to all religions everywhere to acknowledge homosexual relations as acceptable before God. Obviously, that's asking believers in God to speak for Him (which we have no right to do) and to contradict what God has already taught on the matter (which we absolutely do not have the right to do.)

We love the sinner, not the sin. It is not any different. But it is sin. How can we defy what we have already received from God by saying it is not sin?

[Jim108]

In the eyes of God and believers in God, their sins are no different than any other sin. Their pathway to God is no different than anyone else.

The trouble is that there is a lot of social pressure out there telling us that homosexuality is a perfectly natural and normal sexual behavior and that it is not sinful at all. Therein lies the confusion and controversy. They want to all religions everywhere to acknowledge homosexual relations as acceptable before God. Obviously, that's asking believers in God to speak for Him (which we have no right to do) and to contradict what God has already taught on the matter (which we absolutely do not have the right to do.)

We love the sinner, not the sin. It is not any different. But it is sin. How can we defy what we have already received from God by saying it is not sin?

".....The trouble is that there is a lot of social pressure out there telling us that homosexuality is a perfectly natural and normal sexual behavior "

You are right. The sin is no worse, but if you do not repent and continue to live the life then you are in big trouble with God. I hope no one thinks of me as a hater of anyone. I love all my homosexual brothers and sisters, but God is very clear on this subject. Their beef is not with me.

[Dravin]

Do you ever ask gays what their spiritual needs might be?

One would assume they'd pretty much be the same as everyone else's depending on how broad or narrow you want to define spiritual needs.

[cofchristcousin]

One would assume they'd pretty much be the same as everyone else's depending on how broad or narrow you want to define spiritual needs.

yep. Fellowship, compassion, safety, belonging, love, truthfulness, accountability, kindness, mercy, justice, peace, mission, purpose, etc, etc

[Misshalfway]

Everything in this church is anchored to the Atonement. We all need healing and reconciliation to God. So why on earth would the message need to be specialized for gays? It is already as comprehensive as it needs to be.

[Moksha]

In case anyone was wondering about my analogizing practicing homosexuals to murderers, thieves, and liars- doing so was to illustrate that an unrepentant person, no matter his/her sins, are not welcome to officiate in the Priesthood nor take the Sacrament (I assumed this was the 'ministering to [the] spiritual needs' of homosexuals that Moksha was referring to).

Ministering to their spiritual needs is much broader than presiding over something in Priesthood - I am not even sure that is a need but more of a responsibility. Taking the Sacrament is a bit more dicey, since all Christians want to express their remembrance of Christ. However, I do understand the position of both the LDS and the Catholic Church in not wanting people who have sinned without confession (or in the sole case of the LDS Church, excommunication) to take the Eucharistic Sacrament. I therefore assume that their spiritual needs would have to be met via group worship and prayer and learning about the Gospel together with the Heterosexual members of the ward.

Spiritual needs would apply to both those with SSA who do not act on their feelings and active Homosexuals. The vast majority of both these groups tending to be active Homosexuals.

.

[Jim108]

Everything in this church is anchored to the Atonement. We all need healing and reconciliation to God. So why on earth would the message need to be specialized for gays? It is already as comprehensive as it needs to be.

Very true!

[Maxel]

Ministering to their spiritual needs is much broader than presiding over something in Priesthood - I am not even sure that is a need but more of a responsibility. Taking the Sacrament is a bit more dicey, since all Christians want to express their remembrance of Christ. However, I do understand the position of both the LDS and the Catholic Church in not wanting people who have sinned without confession (or in the sole case of the LDS Church, excommunication) to take the Eucharistic Sacrament.

You've told me what the 'spiritual needs' of homosexuals are not- would you mind saying what you think the spiritual needs are? As stated before, no homosexual is barred from attending meetings or feasting upon the word of Christ at Church; a practicing homosexual should be forbidden from partaking of the Sacrament for his/her own sake to avoid coming under condemnation. I remind you that the point of the Sacrament is far more reaching than simply a symbolic 'remembrance of Christ'- it is a renewal of the baptismal covenants. If a person is not living in a way that reflects an honest attempt (and some relative success) of fulfilling those covenants, a person should not be partaking of the Sacrament. I refer you to the scriptures from 3 Nephi I linked in my previous post.

I therefore assume that their spiritual needs would have to be met via group worship and prayer and learning about the Gospel together with the Heterosexual members of the ward.

That sounds like a really good idea to me. In fact, that seems the ideal situation- since the majority of people on earth (and in the Church) practice heterosexuality, and making separate homosexual wards would be a really, really, really, really bad idea IMO.

I'm still hazy as to what you mean when you say "spiritual needs" of homosexuals. cofchristcousin gave IMO a very accurate list that reflects the spiritual needs of all people:

Fellowship, compassion, safety, belonging, love, truthfulness, accountability, kindness, mercy, justice, peace, mission, purpose, etc, etc

do you agree with it? If so, I posit that anyone suffering from SSA can achieve all of these things if they have a repentant heart and come to the Gospel of Christ. Any members who would seek to bar them from said spiritual nourishment based on human prejudice stands seriously condemned- but the needs listed by cofchristcousin can be met with the current practices of the LDS church.

Spiritual needs would apply to both those with SSA who do not act on their feelings and active Homosexuals. The vast majority of both these groups tending to be active Homosexuals.

The vast majority of "those with SSA who do not act on their feelings" are in reality "active homosexuals"? That's a contrast by definition, if you mean that "active homosexuals" are those actively engaged in homosexual relations. Have I misinterpreted your statement? Edited May 9, 2009 by Maxel
Clarification

[Moksha]

The vast majority of "those with SSA who do not act on their feelings" are in reality "active homosexuals"? That's a contrast by definition, if you mean that "active homosexuals" are those actively engaged in homosexual relations. Have I misinterpreted your statement?

Perhaps I could rephrase it then. If you took the total number of people with Homosexual feelings, the number who act on their feelings is larger than the number who do not act on their feelings.

[Vort]

Those who have same-sex attraction are still welcome to join the church - as long as they lead a celibate lifestyle

So they aren't welcome otherwise??????

Correct.

what about those fornicating... are they not welcome....

Correct.

should there be a sign . Only specified sinners allowed

Where would this sign be posted? Beside the baptismal font? If so, then the sign should read Only repentant sinners allowed.

In any case, why on earth would a practicing homosexual (or fornicator) wish to bind himself/herself by covenant to practice a lifestyle s/he is openly flouting? That doesn't even make any sense.

I really don't understand your confusion on this point. Seems perfectly obvious.

Edited May 9, 2009 by Vort
tpyo

[Vort]

Perhaps I could rephrase it then. If you took the total number of people with Homosexual feelings, the number who act on their feelings is larger than the number who do not act on their feelings.

How do you know this?

Moksha, your attitude in this thread, indeed on these discussion topics in general, is uniformly in scorn or condemnation of the (perceived) imperfections of the Church membership. Why is that?

Exactly how do you think the Church membership should "minister to the needs of homosexuals" beyond what they already do?

[Moksha]

If so, then the sign should read Only repentant sinners allowed.

In any case, why on earth would a practicing homosexual (or fornicator) wish to bind himself/herself by covenant to practice a lifestyle s/he is openly flouting? That doesn't even make any sense.

I really don't understand your confusion on this point. Seems perfectly obvious.

Vort, in this case I am sure you would agree that even these unrepentant sinners still have spiritual needs. Where would you suggest they go to address their spiritual needs?

.

[Vort]

If so, then the sign should read Only repentant sinners allowed.

In any case, why on earth would a practicing homosexual (or fornicator) wish to bind himself/herself by covenant to practice a lifestyle s/he is openly flouting? That doesn't even make any sense.

I really don't understand your confusion on this point. Seems perfectly obvious.

Vort, in this case I am sure you would agree that even these unrepentant sinners still have spiritual needs. Where would you suggest they go to address their spiritual needs?

I would suggest they go to the Lord, the only source to satisfy spiritual needs. As has been pointed out ad nauseam, they are welcome to join LDS worship services, so long as they comport themselves appropriately.

But this has already been stated many times, Moksha. Why are you asking me yet again?

As for the specific point under consideration: Do you think that unrepentant homosexuals ought to be baptized?

• If not, then we agree. So what is it about my post that you failed to understand, prompting you to ask yet again what the unrepentant are to do?
• If so, then we disagree. Are there any sins so grevious that you think an unrepentant sinner ought not to be baptized, or are you under the belief that anyone, regardless of present spiritual state or intent, ought to be welcomed into the waters of baptism?

[Jim108]

Folks, Jesus died for all sin. Homosexual sin is no different then our sins that we "think of as lesser", but are not. He took on the sin of the world, past, present and future. All are able to receive forgiveness. We must repent however. We must conform to what God has told us and not bend the word of God to fit our needs. We must change and repent and forgive. We must allow homosexuals into our churchs and to love them and to be TRUE to them. We let other sinners in. What makes their sin so much worse than our dirty laundry. Lets love each other and be TRUE to each other. God is very clear that acting out homosexual act is a sin. So let the sinners into the church. This is where they belong because Jesus loves them and us equally. Because you know what, they are a part of us.

[prospectmom]

So Vort your perspective is you can not attend church if you are a sinner??????? I think your misunderstanding....... I am not saying get baptized or take sacrement.... I am saying attending church and the functions provided should be open to all sinners or not..... you seem awfully judgemental to me.