Spiritual Needs of Homosexuals

[Maxel]

It's pretty straight forward.

My sarcasm-detector went off because you used the smiley-face at the end of the post in question. I'd like to hear you flesh out your statement too.

[Pintail]

Someone stated that it's not our place to judge their behavior. Except the church decided to make it our place when the church dumped millions of dollars into a campaign to fight something that was in conflict with the churches belief.

[Maxel]

Someone stated that it's not our place to judge their behavior. Except the church decided to make it our place when the church dumped millions of dollars into a campaign to fight something that was in conflict with the churches belief.

Judging behavior does not equate to judging a person. The statement in question dealt with judgments made against the people practicing the behavior; Proposition 8 was about passing some sort of judgment on the behavior itself (particularly homosexual unions).

Behaviors are not people.

[Pintail]

Judging behavior does not equate to judging a person. The statement in question dealt with judgments made against the people practicing the behavior; Proposition 8 was about passing some sort of judgment on the behavior itself (particularly homosexual unions).

Behaviors are not people.

You say tomato I say tomatoe I guess. By judging ones actions you are indeed indirectly judging them. I'm not stating what is right and what is wrong, I just don't buy the circular logic of behavior vs. an individual participating in the behavior. Seems a bit wishy washy.

[Maxel]

By judging ones actions you are indeed indirectly judging them.

True, but what is the ultimate end of judging people vs. judging actions? Every one must judge principles and general behaviors if they want to grow as spiritual beings; we are told not to judge people because we do not know 'the whole story', nor is it our place to pass judgment. Christ does know the whole story and it is His place; He will be the ultimate judge.

I'm not stating what is right and what is wrong, I just don't buy the circular logic of behavior vs. an individual participating in the behavior. Seems a bit wishy washy.

I don't see the logic as circular at all. Principles and actions are not the people which integrate said principles and actions into their lives. We don't know exactly what causes person A to exhibit behavior X and therefore cannot lawfully judge person A with an eternal judgment; we can lawfully judge behavior X according to the doctrines of the Gospel.

Even though someone is forgiven of their sins, they cannot escape the worldly consequences of their sins because certain actions bring certain judgments (either blessings or cursings) upon the person acting.

For example: will a kleptomaniac who steals because he cannot stop himself receive the same eternal judgment as a man who steals because he covets his neighbor's goods? It is written 'thou shalt not steal'; is the judgment blindly administered?

Will a person who kills to protect himself from a robber with murderous intents receive the same eternal judgment as a person who kills to get gain? It is written 'thou shalt not kill'; is the judgment blindly administered?

Do either of the preceding examples justify the striking from the law the phrases 'thou shalt not kill' and 'thou shalt not steal', or living and acting in a manner that discourages killing and stealing? No; neither does the action of passing judgment against the general actions of stealing or killing equate to passing judgment on all who do steal or kill.

In the same manner, passing judgment on homosexual behaviors and lifestyles does not equate to condemning those who exhibit said behaviors, or live said lifestyles.

At any rate, that is the logic I employ in the situation.

[Just_A_Guy]

What, pray tell, is the problem with judging people?

[Moksha]

I am wondering about those reports from some of the former missionaries on this thread that talked about avoiding bringing the Gospel either to people they suspect of being gay or entire neighborhoods that have a high concentration of gay people. Does this derive from a conscious decision that "we don't want those people"?

[Just_A_Guy]

Without having reviewed the comments you allude to: People with a history of involvement in homosexual behavior had to be interviewed by the mission president in order to be baptized.

To be perfectly blunt, in high-baptizing areas some missionaries may not feel baptizing such individuals is worth the administrative hassle.

(Not saying it's right; just saying that's what I saw happen in my latin-American mission).

[Dravin]

Does this derive from a conscious decision that "we don't want those people"?

Actually its probably an example of time management. Tracting in such a neighborhood is likely to be less productive than other places. For instance I always found trailer parks and the like more productive then the neighborhoods around golf courses, course it was not mission policy that we didn't tract rich neighborhoods but generally preference baring any other input (such as revelation) was given to more 'humble' areas.

Also, there may be other things at play, if for instance said neighbor hood had a high incidence of the missionaries being pelted with rotten tomatoes, threatened with violence or people following them around jeering them to the point they couldn't really work (or was just plain dangerous, the whole don't go there after dark policies some areas get*) I could see such a policy. Of course that would apply regardless of the sexual orientation of the neighborhood at large. Or the experience was Missionaries would just call them names and 'condemn' them to burning in hell (19-21 year olds are not always the most sensitive of people) and nothing was getting done so a general, just leave'm alone policy went into effect. It could of course have been something that wasn't inspired, Mission Presidents are entitled to revelation but they aren't infallible.

*I don't know the areas being referenced, but if a dangerous neighbor hood got put on the don't go there list and it happened to be mostly Latinos/Black/Canadian it isn't that we don't want Latinos/Blacks/Canadians in the church its caution.

[Guest Apostate]

Continuing to pander to this issue or the person who brought it up is pretty sad in my book

[havejoy]

Correct-Hence the millions of dollars thrown at California's Prop 8 campaign by the church.

Do you have sources proving the Church spent millions of dollars? My understanding is that individual members spent their own money and not the Church's money.

[skippy740]

I am wondering about those reports from some of the former missionaries on this thread that talked about avoiding bringing the Gospel either to people they suspect of being gay or entire neighborhoods that have a high concentration of gay people. Does this derive from a conscious decision that "we don't want those people"?

I think it has more to do with missionary safety. Do we teach and tract gang members in South Central Los Angeles? (My guess is no.) I think Watts might not be accessible to missioanries for safety concerns and not that we don't desire the repentance of every single child of God.

In some areas, just being there can stir up contention, and I would guess that certain parts of San Francisco would be like that.

As far as "pandering" to the original poster... hey, we've had an intelligent conversation (for the most part). The LDS has a culture of our own, so how would we react if we "shook things up" a bit? I thought the discussion has some merit.

[YellowLight]

Yellowlight was that order from your mission president? As far as I understand that's not an official church stance. Is it??????

I know that was the official stance of the mission president, which took orders from the GA's. However, I think the "official" stance of the church is members can speak with them about the gospel but unless they are willing to change the missionaries shouldn't waste their time. That is just in my experience, I can't say that is accross the board.

[Pintail]

True, but what is the ultimate end of judging people vs. judging actions? Every one must judge principles and general behaviors if they want to grow as spiritual beings; we are told not to judge people because we do not know 'the whole story', nor is it our place to pass judgment. Christ does know the whole story and it is His place; He will be the ultimate judge.

I don't see the logic as circular at all. Principles and actions are not the people which integrate said principles and actions into their lives. We don't know exactly what causes person A to exhibit behavior X and therefore cannot lawfully judge person A with an eternal judgment; we can lawfully judge behavior X according to the doctrines of the Gospel.

Even though someone is forgiven of their sins, they cannot escape the worldly consequences of their sins because certain actions bring certain judgments (either blessings or cursings) upon the person acting.

For example: will a kleptomaniac who steals because he cannot stop himself receive the same eternal judgment as a man who steals because he covets his neighbor's goods? It is written 'thou shalt not steal'; is the judgment blindly administered?

Will a person who kills to protect himself from a robber with murderous intents receive the same eternal judgment as a person who kills to get gain? It is written 'thou shalt not kill'; is the judgment blindly administered?

Do either of the preceding examples justify the striking from the law the phrases 'thou shalt not kill' and 'thou shalt not steal', or living and acting in a manner that discourages killing and stealing? No; neither does the action of passing judgment against the general actions of stealing or killing equate to passing judgment on all who do steal or kill.

In the same manner, passing judgment on homosexual behaviors and lifestyles does not equate to condemning those who exhibit said behaviors, or live said lifestyles.

At any rate, that is the logic I employ in the situation.

I don't see the logic as circular at all. Principles and actions are not the people which integrate said principles and actions into their lives. We don't know exactly what causes person A to exhibit behavior X and therefore cannot lawfully judge person A with an eternal judgment;

***My point doesn’t revolve around the discussion of an eternal judgment. The action of homosexuality is indeed the person itself and I do believe the church has even stated that homosexuality can be a born trait. Under this belief, judgment is then made simply by his/her propensities. Judgments are made by people’s actions. They are related as one doesn’t exist without the other.

For example: will a kleptomaniac who steals because he cannot stop himself receive the same eternal judgment as a man who steals because he covets his neighbor's goods? It is written 'thou shalt not steal'; is the judgment blindly administered?

***Poor example. Let’s re-word it to-If a male homosexual engages in a relationship because he cannot help himself will he receive the same judgment as a man who has relations with his neighbors husband which he covets? I would say not quite because one commits the sin of homosexuality and the sin of coveting.

Will a person who kills to protect himself from a robber with murderous intents receive the same eternal judgment as a person who kills to get gain? It is written 'thou shalt not kill'; is the judgment blindly administered?

***Poor example-Homosexuals are not victims of circumstances due to another’s actions which we don’t have control over.

> In the same manner, passing judgment on homosexual behaviors and lifestyles does not equate to condemning those who exhibit said behaviors, or live said lifestyles.

Your right, it’s only condemning those who exhibit said behaviors to inequality under the current laws of the land (for some states anyways). Judgments are made by people’s actions. They are related as one doesn’t exist without the other.

[Aesa]

Where is this city of "gay lisps" that homosexuals all seem to hang out in?

All? Are you kidding me? I am sure you can find plenty of gay people who do not have a lisp.

As I said, it's their environment. They pick up a different tone of voice from hanging around with a lot of girls in their earlier years especially, because women tend to gravitated to gay men (or vice-versa) as friends.

Just as you or I might speak a lot like our father, because we spent a lot of time in the same environment as him. Just as I will have a French 'lisp' if I go and live there for 10 years...

[Maxel]

***My point doesn’t revolve around the discussion of an eternal judgment. The action of homosexuality is indeed the person itself and I do believe the church has even stated that homosexuality can be a born trait. Under this belief, judgment is then made simply by his/her propensities. Judgments are made by people’s actions. They are related as one doesn’t exist without the other.

Regarding the eternal judgment- I'll give you that point; we do not render eternal judgments here on earth. However, in my previous post I was not claiming that we do; it was a response to your quote that "by judging actions you indirectly judge them". I was speaking of the general action of 'judging' that we are commanded to do as disciples of Christ; not of the judgment of the laws of the land.

Regarding your stance that "the action of homosexuality is indeed the person itself", I quote from the interview with Elders Oak and Wickman that Justice linked earlier. This is part of Elder Oaks' response to the question "Let’s say my 17-year-old son comes to talk to me and... tells me that he believes that he’s attracted to men... He just feels he can’t live what he thinks is a lie any longer, and so he comes in this very upset and depressed manner. What do I tell him as a parent?"

Elder Oaks:

I think it’s important for you to understand that homosexuality, which you’ve spoken of, is not a noun that describes a condition. It’s an adjective that describes feelings or behavior. I encourage you, as you struggle with these challenges, not to think of yourself as a ‘something’ or ‘another,’ except that you’re a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and you’re my son, and that you’re struggling with challenges.

In other words, the very word 'homosexuality' is somewhat of a misnomer because it's not a "state or condition". The better term is "same-sex attraction" because, after all, our sexual orientation is not all (or even a major part of) who we are. It is part of who we are in this mortal probation; as much a part of us as any desire is.

Also in the article, Oaks states that the Church's official stance on the 'nature vs. nurture' question (regarding homosexuality being an inescapable inborn trait) is:

"The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions — whether nature or nurture — those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on."

For example: will a kleptomaniac who steals because he cannot stop himself receive the same eternal judgment as a man who steals because he covets his neighbor's goods? It is written 'thou shalt not steal'; is the judgment blindly administered?

***Poor example. Let’s re-word it to-If a male homosexual engages in a relationship because he cannot help himself will he receive the same judgment as a man who has relations with his neighbors husband which he covets? I would say not quite because one commits the sin of homosexuality and the sin of coveting.

This specific example is not meant to be applied to the realm of homosexuality. The scope and purpose of the example is give a rebuttal to your statement that the "logic of behavior vs. an individual participating in the behavior" is "circular". This example leads to the conclusion that someone being unduly pressured (psychologically) to commit a sin- stealing- will receive less punishment for it than someone who is not under so much psychological pressure to do so.

It is an example where the individual must be separated from the sin; one cannot make a wholly just, sweeping condemnation of all thieves (or any other type of sinner, for that matter) because each thief commits the sin for different reasons. It is always wrong- but it is not always as wrong. D&C 82:3 reads:

For of him unto whom much is given much is required; and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation

Will a person who kills to protect himself from a robber with murderous intents receive the same eternal judgment as a person who kills to get gain? It is written 'thou shalt not kill'; is the judgment blindly administered?

***Poor example-Homosexuals are not victims of circumstances due to another’s actions which we don’t have control over.

Again; the example was not meant to equate to a specific instance of homosexual behavior. In this example, a person is forced to commit what is normally a sin to protect himself against another who would take his life if not stopped. While the undue pressure is external in this example (as opposed to the other), the pressure and circumstances still exists and will come into play when the man is judged for that action.

> In the same manner, passing judgment on homosexual behaviors and lifestyles does not equate to condemning those who exhibit said behaviors, or live said lifestyles.

Your right, it’s only condemning those who exhibit said behaviors to inequality under the current laws of the land (for some states anyways).

Here we've shifted between God's eternal laws and the temporal laws of the land. They are not the same ("For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."- Isaiah 55:90). I will not pick up the discussion about the legalization of same-sex marriage (you can peruse the "Preserving Marriage Between a Man and a Woman" thread to read up on that issue); I will comment on the following:

Judgments are made by people’s actions. They are related as one doesn’t exist without the other.

The justice administered by man is based solely on a person's actions (as it should be); and actions and judgments are related. However, the Lord has stated in D&C 137:9 that "I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts"- meaning that we will be judged by our works but the Lord will also weigh our honest desires.

Temporal laws cannot (and should not) pass judgments on thoughts and motives; the Lord can, should, and does.

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

I can feel this thread going waaay off topic- if you want, you can respond via PM, new thread, or on this thread- if you respond on this thread, however, I'm going to bring the convo to PM's. This has been discussed enough; if we go much further than the principles of judging; we have to get more into details about homosexual behavior, etc. and I think the community's sick of that.

Edited May 13, 2009 by Maxel
Clarified a quote's source

[Guest Apostate]

Maxel:

Thank you for your thoughtful, well reasoned views on this "issue'...Sadly, sane rational thought such as yours is lost on those who increasing feel the need to pander to the Homosexuals.

Homosexuality is a sin...Yes, we need to love the sinner and hate the sin. I have yet to see a Bishop, Branch President or GA stand at a pulpit and demand that homosexuals leave this Church. Yet to read many of the posts on this thread, you'd think that Beehive Clothing is sewing pink triangles for homosexual members...Shame on those on this thread, who take their obviously frustrations with this Church out on others, by pandering to the Homosexuals.

On one final note, I'm amazed that someone would rehash the lie about the Church donating trillions of dollars to the support of Prop 8...IT'S A LIE and those who continue to bring it up, dare I follow this to it's logical conclusion.

On a separate matter, I stand all amazed at the socalled good Latter Day Saints on this thread who howl like banshees that the Church is discriminatory towards Homosexuals, yet they've remained remarkable silent at the reign of terror brought on by the Homosexuals towards innocent Californians who only exercised they're 1st Amendment Rights. For once, I'd like to see these socalled open minded LDS, condemn the attacks on our Temples by these Homosexuals. I have lots of footage of Homosexuals out front of the LA Temple scream obscenities and howling kill mormons...Alas, you'd rather slag the Quorum of the 12, many of you, than ever defend a Mormon.

Sad, truly Sad

[Aesa]

Homosexuals are not victims of circumstances due to another’s actions which we don’t have control over.

I know I might be taking your words out of context, but in any case it'll make a relevant point. That is nonsense. People arrive at feelings of homosexuality in the same way they arrive at feelings of heterosexuality: their environment. It could be something as little as witnessing homosexual behaviour when young, or being called 'gay' as an insult constantly in the school-yard, talking to a gay person on instant messenger at a young age, etc,. Everything is influence.

Granted, heterosexuality is more prevalent because it brings more prosperity to the tribe (i.e., breeding).

[Moksha]

Where is this city of "gay lisps" that homosexuals all seem to hang out in?

Possibly near the city where they all have horns.

[Aesa]

Possibly near the city where they all have horns.

Where is the laugh button?

[Pintail]

I know I might be taking your words out of context, but in any case it'll make a relevant point. That is nonsense. People arrive at feelings of homosexuality in the same way they arrive at feelings of heterosexuality: their environment. It could be something as little as witnessing homosexual behaviour when young, or being called 'gay' as an insult constantly in the school-yard, talking to a gay person on instant messenger at a young age, etc,. Everything is influence.

Granted, heterosexuality is more prevalent because it brings more prosperity to the tribe (i.e., breeding).

Not to dismiss environment on being a probable cause but ever increasing scientific evidence refutes your opinion on this.

[cofchristcousin]

I know I might be taking your words out of context, but in any case it'll make a relevant point. That is nonsense. People arrive at feelings of homosexuality in the same way they arrive at feelings of heterosexuality: their environment. It could be something as little as witnessing homosexual behaviour when young, or being called 'gay' as an insult constantly in the school-yard, talking to a gay person on instant messenger at a young age, etc,. Everything is influence.

Granted, heterosexuality is more prevalent because it brings more prosperity to the tribe (i.e., breeding).

Gotta disagree. I grew up not knowing what "gay" meant, born in 1960. I knew I was attracted to girls but had no idea that was an option. Most of the gay folk in my church had the same experience. Some figured it all out after they married and realized "this is just not going to work".

[Pintail]

Thank you for your thoughtful, well reasoned views on this "issue'...Sadly, sane rational thought such as yours is lost on those who increasing feel the need to pander to the Homosexuals.

***I'm not pandering towards homosexuals. Please indicated where I have? I've only pointed out that people want to hide behind a PC attitude towards judging the sin without judging the sinner when in reality you are indeed indirectly judging an individual because of their actions.

On one final note, I'm amazed that someone would rehash the lie about the Church donating trillions of dollars to the support of Prop 8...IT'S A LIE and those who continue to bring it up, dare I follow this to it's logical conclusion.

****Who said trillions??? The church (which includes its members, not just sheer financial contribution coming from the church headquarters) was the main overall contributor to the campaign. It's estimated that millions were donated- Not to mention the promotion via the pulpit during services.

[Pintail]

All? Are you kidding me? I am sure you can find plenty of gay people who do not have a lisp.

As I said, it's their environment. They pick up a different tone of voice from hanging around with a lot of girls in their earlier years especially, because women tend to gravitated to gay men (or vice-versa) as friends.

Just as you or I might speak a lot like our father, because we spent a lot of time in the same environment as him. Just as I will have a French 'lisp' if I go and live there for 10 years...

Is this from experience? How did you come to this definite conclusion that gay men usually or sometimes develop "lisps" because they increasingly hang out with women?

What about the only boy in a family of all girls? That individual will be around these girls most of their lives. Do they have "lisps" as well? Should I be worried for my son because his two older sisters might cause him to develop a lisp during his early years of language development?

FYI-I have two friends who have lived in France (6 years) and Germany (15 years). Neither of them have "lisps" or even an accent when they speak english. Are you sure you don't want to re-think your hypothesis?

Edited May 14, 2009 by Pintail

[spiritseeker]

This thread has been going on for some time now. With the back and forth of , is the church doing enough and the whole is someone born homosexual or do they choose??? Here is the answer whether we like it or not!! Homosexuality is a sin. And as such it is incompatiable with Christianity. God has spoken through His holy scriptures and through His living Prophets. Hence it is settled... If a homosexual is willing to repent of this sin and come unto God and be made new. He/she is more than welcome to full membership in His holy Church. Perhaps they will be able to marry if not they will have to live a celibate life. But, their reward in the glories is no less than any other sinner. God loves all His children but like any good parent He can not sit by and watch His children destroy their lives. There are consequences when you break Heavenly Fathers Law. The only choice that is real is will you follow God or not .... It seems pretty simple to me.