LDS Position on Homosexuality & "Eternal Gender"

[Gatorman]

GATORMAN: Do you believe it's possible for human beings other than Jesus to live sinless lives?

Do you believe that human beings are inherently sinful?

Do you believe in the concept of original sin?

Yes, I do believe in original sin. I believe it existed until Christ died on the cross and over came death to settle that debt. I have always believed, even prior to joining the church, that young children are spotless, because Christ paid their debt for them and they are not old enough to accept responsibility for their own actions and choices. It is why our church waiting until the children are 8, or old enough to be accountable, they are not baptised.

I believe that, in our fallen state, we have a carnal or natural state that we are to overcome.

No, I do not believe any other person besides Christ can manage such a life. None were meant to. It would subvert the plan.

[desirexnoel]

Okay... I know this is probably obvious but...

If children are spotless until the age of eight, and natural man is an enemy to God, then...

children aren't natural? Or is it simply that natural man over the age of 8 is an enemy to God... so 9+...

[bytebear]

Okay... I know this is probably obvious but...

If children are spotless until the age of eight, and natural man is an enemy to God, then...

children aren't natural? Or is it simply that natural man over the age of 8 is an enemy to God... so 9+...

It's not that children don't sin. It's that they are still learning how to control and repent from their sin, so they are automatically forgiven, hence not held accountable for their sins (i.e. age of accountability, not age of sinful living).

[bytebear]

This is more a transgendered issue and not so much a homosexual one...

And I am not sure sex changes are allowed in the church...

yes, they are, as long as they are done with adequate counseling and the assessment of a reliable medical doctor. And there are ramifications if the person is married and has children, so those factors are taken into account, just as they would be with a divorce, or other family altering decision.

[Zowieink]

you know, having read this thread, I wonder about some of the responses. I believe very few people are "born" with a same-sex attraction. However, I do believe that in their earliest childhood, there was something that happened that fixed the brain into thinking it has this problem. Also, For those born Hermaphrodites (sp?) before DNA testing, it is possible that the parents chose the sex without knowledge or regard to their true makeup. After DNA testing was mainstream, most hermaphrodites' parents have the DNA test prior to surgery to remove the secondary genitilia.

For those trapped because of early childhood or other experiences that "set" their thought process....you can be a temple recommend holder with all the blessings....but it comes with the price of a celibrate lifestyle. Certainly doable, but difficult. Many people, I believe confuse lust with love, and many seek a father figure, because they lacked that in their lives. But, there a many, many reasons. We should not judge, but only help.

My business partner has a nephew that after a mission, decided to "turn" gay. Instead of working within the covenants that he made in the temple...he blithly threw them away, because he was lonely and girls just didn't have what it takes. So, he lives with his boyfriend, inactive, and feeling the pangs of sin, but unwilling to do anything about it.

It is a sad tale for many, many members of the Church. But, if you have it, then you have to decide if you are going to follow God or not. I do not believe that God cursed people with this affliction. But do believe that something in their early lives caused the mental thinking we call "homosexuality".

[Seeker7]

DESIREXNOEL:

Hi again, DESIREXNOEL. Thanks for your response.

But to put it simply:

-> If a person is born with ambiguous sex organs and grows up in a state of confusion (not knowing whether to identify as male or female, and not knowing whether to be attracted to women or men),

--> and as a result of their confusion, this person "experiments" with living both masculine and feminine lifestlyes

---> and dates both men and women,

----> has the individual sinned?

As far as I was taught... yes and needs to repent take no further actions toward anyone of the same sex.

Besides, if they are attracted to both men and women, they are bisexual and that is considered a sin as well...

I think we might have misunderstood each other. How can someone who has characteristics from both sexes, and is therefore neither fully male nor fully female, take actions toward someone "of the same sex"?

GATORMAN:

Thank you for the reply. You said:

No, I do not believe any other person besides Christ can manage such a life. None were meant to. It would subvert the plan.

You have just said yourself that only Jesus Christ can/could live without sinning. You've stated that no other human being "can manage such a life". You've admitted that it's impossible for humans not to sin.

I must point out the obvious conclusion:

If all humans are inherently sinful and cannot live sinless lives, then all humans are guaranteed to sin at least once. Therefore, sin is inevitable; it cannot be avoided. It must happen, and it will happen.

Thus, I do not understand your previous question:

You stated that Heavenly Father created people who 'had to' sin. Why?

According to your own beliefs:

1.) God created human beings.

2.) Human beings are incapable of living sinless lives. (Therefore, humans are guaranteed to sin. They will sin. They must sin. They "have to" sin.)

It seems apparent to me that, based on what you believe, the Heavenly Father did indeed create people who "had to" sin. What am I missing?

[Vort]

According to the websites I recently browsed through, Mormons place heavy importance on gender and family roles. It seems plausible to me that intersex or transgendered people might, in their struggle to identify themselves and take on functioning roles in society, commit some actions out of sheer confusion or indecision that constitute actual sins according to LDS doctrine.

I can't imagine what you mean. What sort of sinful actions could result merely from "sheer confusion or indecision"?

(To be clear: Fornication is always sinful, regardless of the person's actual or perceived sex. This has nothing to do with which sex the person thinks s/he is. If you are not married, sexual relations pull you away from God and are therefore sinful.)

(I have to admit, though, that based on what little I know of the Old Testament, God does not always act in ways that seem fair to the individual.)

I suspect this has less to do with God's lack of "fairness" and more to do with our imperfect understanding of the Old Testament's imperfect record of events.

Not at all. I agree that, according to the Bible, things like fornication and gluttony are considered sins. Thus, it seems reasonable to me that the Christian god would deem such actions sinful. After all, he himself proclaimed them to be. But should imperfect human beings who are guaranteed to live sinful lives (and, in fact, cannot escape wrongdoing) be punished for succumbing to weaknesses that God personally instilled within them?

Excellent question. The answer is: God did not instill sinfulness in anyone. Weaknesses, perhaps, but not sinfulness. That is a choice the person made, and God did not create the person's choice-making ability. That is self-existent and eternal.

But just for the record, I will say it does seem unfair to me that human beings are supposedly born with sinful natures we cannot evade, which basically renders it impossible for us not to sin; and in addition to that, God ostensibly programs powerful sinful tendencies within each of us (like gluttony); and then when we sin, we are held responsible for those actions and punished for not leading flawless lives -- a goal that is unachievable for us in the first place.

I understand your feelings, and in fact largely agree with them. However, I reject the premises on which those feelings are based.

I would hope that God might individualize his judgments for even such a small percentage of his children.

Clearly, a just God by definition judges justly.

But as for basing our laws on the hardships experienced by intersex or transgendered people, I never said anything about that.

Nor did I mean to imply you did. I brought that up as a parenthetical comment.

Thank you, but I was already aware of this.

Well, you asked my opinions, and I was seeking to explain them. I can't read minds, however amazing I may seem :), so I explain as best I can.

But our present forms? I was merely pointing out that these flawed bodies we currently inhabit are not said to be eternal.

On the contrary, Christ was resurrected with the same physical body he possessed at his death. We, too, are promised that, when resurrected, not a hair of our heads will be missing -- though our bodies will be "glorified and perfected". Nevertheless, our bodies right now are literally the habitation for our spirits now and (with some updates, so to speak) in the eternities. Our bodies are sacred and, ultimately, eternal, like our spirits.

Certainly, according to what I've read of LDS beliefs, we'll have eternal bodies to house our souls after we die, but they won't be these bodies.

In fact, according to LDS doctrine, they will be exactly these bodies (albeit in a perfected form).

Our genders, however? Apparently, they will be with us in the premortal existence, the mortal existence, and the Spirit World after death -- and they will remain the same during each stage, not like our physical bodies. This seems a rather trivial point, though, so I'll let it rest.

I think it is not a trivial point. I think it is a profound point, and one that you rightly bring up. Our sex is indeed an eternal part of our being. What to make of those of indeterminate sex? I don't know. Their existence does not suggest to me that sex is not in fact an eternal characteristic, any more than brain damage suggests that thought is not an eternal characteristic. As I wrote before, such people have my sympathies, and I have no desire nor intent to pass judgment on them. But again, their existence does not somehow negate the meaning of God's teachings on sex.

And he's given us lists of moral rules which, should we violate them somehow, would constitue a sin... hasn't he? (Ten Commandments, anyone?)

I am not making myself understood on this point. Not sure if I can do better, but I'll try.

For many people, Christians and otherwise, the word "sin" seems to mean any breaking of seemingly arbitrary commandments of God. For example, if God says don't eat meat on Friday, then eating meat on Friday is a "sin". I don't disagree with this, but I think it's a naive way of viewing the topic. A more helpful way (IMO) of viewing sin is that sin is an action that removes us from God. Certainly, any deliberate disobedience of God removes us from him and is therefore sinful; but in addition, even if God has not spelled out every single thing we might do that's wrong, there are still actions or thoughts that will take us out of his presence. These things are sin, regardless of whether they are included in some list of commandments.

[Vort]

This is fascinating. Tell me, has "Denise -> Dennis" been ordained to a Priesthood office since the operation? (Or before?)

Reposting for FT to answer.

[Vort]

Do you believe it's possible for human beings other than Jesus to live sinless lives?

Yes, in the sense that I think it's possible for someone to walk a tightrope across the Pacific Ocean while blindfolded and with his hands tied behind his back. I think it's possible in principle, but in practice no accountable human will actually accomplish the feat.

Do you believe that human beings are inherently sinful?

Difficult to answer because I don't know what you mean by "inherently". From the fall of Adam, we have become carnal by nature, and the natural man is an enemy to God. In that sense, I would say yes, perhaps we do have an inherent tendency to sin. But, for example, little children are pure and spotless before God, even if they're "naughty". So humans are not sinful merely by the fact of their existence.

Do you believe in the concept of original sin?

Not as the larger Christian world understands it, no.

But to put it simply:

-> If a person is born with ambiguous sex organs and grows up in a state of confusion (not knowing whether to identify as male or female, and not knowing whether to be attracted to women or men),

--> and as a result of their confusion, this person "experiments" with living both masculine and feminine lifestlyes

---> and dates both men and women,

----> has the individual sinned?

When I dated my wife, we went out to movies and to restaurants, went hiking, visited with friends, and went on picnics. When we became serious, we even kissed. If you are talking about "dating" in that sense, then no, I don't see any sinfulness in what you have described.

However, if by "dating" you mean "fornicating", which is how the term "dating" is often used today, then yes, fornication is always sinful.

[Vort]

Also...

-> If a person is born with the body of a male, but grows up thinking and feeling like a female,

--> and this person is attracted to men and wishes desperately to be a woman,

---> so, as a result, the person acts and dresses like a woman, and dates men,

----> has the individual sinned?

I don't know. I know that if my son found out he were dating such a person, I would be livid (as would my son). But if the person is truly gender-confused, what is the resolution? I'm not sure. My tendency is to say, You're a man, accept it and live your life as such, and if you can't live as a heterosexual, then live as a celibate. But I am happy to leave the final judgment in such matters to God, and the ecclesiastical judgment to a bishop and/or stake president.

What if the person gets a sex change? Is that a sin, or would it make dating men and living a feminine lifestyle not a sin?

What do you think?

I suspect that, in general, a so-called "sex change" is merely a mutilation of our bodies, and thus a bad thing, certainly not something that thereafter justifies homosexual relations. But I understand that there have been some cases that have been judged differently in the Church, so I'm happy to withhold judgment on the matter.

[HEthePrimate]

Oh, how disappointing--I thought this thread was about sex positions! *wink*wink*

While I'm here, I will say that I have a friend who has an intersex friend, who got a chance to sit down and talk with a high ranking Church leader (I won't name names). This Church leader was sympathetic, but said "I don't know" to their questions about gender. Although it's often comforting to have our questions answered, some things we just don't know, and I think the best we can do is allow people to make their own choices, follow their own path, and treat them with the kindness and respect all of God's children deserve.

Peace,

HEP

[Seeker7]

VORT:

Hi again, VORT. Thanks for your response.

I can't imagine what you mean. What sort of sinful actions could result merely from "sheer confusion or indecision"?

I was going to say that dating people of both genders could be considered a sin, but then I read this:

When I dated my wife, we went out to movies and to restaurants, went hiking, visited with friends, and went on picnics. When we became serious, we even kissed. If you are talking about "dating" in that sense, then no, I don't see any sinfulness in what you have described.

So I can clearly see that you don't consider such actions to be sinful (although I know some people who do). Whether or not those things can be considered sinful by LDS doctrine is up for debate, I guess, since the Mormon church might not actually have an official stance on that issue. I really don't know enough about Mormon beliefs to make a conclusion, which is why I began this thread in the first place.

...God did not create the person's choice-making ability. That is self-existent and eternal.

Please forgive my confusion. I'm still relatively unfamiliar with the LDS concept of man's "agency". On The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I read this quote by David O. McKay: "To man is given a special endowment, not bestowed upon any other living thing. God gave to him the power of choice." Upon reading that passage, I immediately got the impression that mankind's decision-making ability was something with which God gifted him after the act of creation, although I know it doesn't specifically say that. It's just that when I think of the word "gift", I always imagine the recipient of the gift existing first, and then accepting it at some later point in time. (I guess that would be because I've never seen a gift given any other way.) How should I think of man's agency instead?

Clearly, a just God by definition judges justly.

Without question. Now, is the Christian god just? I know, of course, that you will say yes, and will assert that if any of his actions seem unfair, it is only because of my limited ability to comprehend them. I accept this rationalization as a legitimate possibility, but I'll refrain from saying any more on the subject because I'm still trying to form my own opinion about it.

On the contrary, Christ was resurrected with the same physical body he possessed at his death.

So, do Mormons believe that there are scars on the body Jesus currently inhabits?

In fact, according to LDS doctrine, they will be exactly these bodies (albeit in a perfected form).

Then they won't be "exactly these bodies". In order for our bodies to be utterly perfect, quite a lot of things would have to change. (At least, I know that is true of my body. ) But I understand what you mean.

Yes, in the sense that I think it's possible for someone to walk a tightrope across the Pacific Ocean while blindfolded and with his hands tied behind his back. I think it's possible in principle, but in practice no accountable human will actually accomplish the feat.

Thanks for sharing your views. I'm afraid I must admit, though, that my "injustice sense" is tingling. The task you've just described is indeed theoretically possible, and perhaps even possible in a practical sense as well, but it would be so absurdly difficult to accomplish that it might as well be deemed an unattainable goal. I would never punish someone for falling off of that tightrope and therefore failing to complete his journey across the Pacific Ocean. That would be unfair. And yet human beings are supposedly punished for failing to live a life free of sin, which is just as unreachable a standard? To me, that seems ecxeedingly unjust. Perhaps you could offer some insights on this subject; if so, I'd be happy to hear them.

Thanks again for your reply.

Edited August 20, 2009 by Seeker7

[Seeker7]

So I can clearly see that you don't consider such actions to be sinful (although I know some people who do).

I should probably clarify that statement a bit more. I know people who would consider such actions to be sinful if they took place between members of the same sex (holding hands, kissing, etc). But for heterosexual couples, it would be okay.

[FunkyTown]

This is fascinating. Tell me, has "Denise -> Dennis" been ordained to a Priesthood office since the operation? (Or before?)

I have no idea, to be honest. I left the ward before he was given the priesthood. I would imagine if the First Presidency agreed, it would make sense. After all, this person was born with both male and female genitalia and felt the Doctors made a mistake.

Did they get the Priesthood? I don't know, but if the First Presidency let them get baptized, I would say that's a pretty big sign.

[Gatorman]

Seeker: Saying that Heavenly Father created us to sin is like saying Ford, Dodge, and Chevy build cars specifically to fail. They don't, regardless of what some people think. However, chances are, every car will break down, etc. It will happen. They will require maintenance.

The Pacific Ocean example, you know, drowning is a STRONG possibility. And, Heavenly Father does not punish us for 'sinning', per se. We are punished for not repenting. Now, I know, that is a GROSS generalization. There are all sorts of ways you can argue back about it. But, we were sent here to fall, that we might be able to learn good from evil. But, the choice was given unto us. And, we have to choose to accept repentence.

As to the scars of Jesus question, I honestly believe that he could have had his scars healed, but chose not to. It served his purpose and need.

[desirexnoel]

My business partner has a nephew that after a mission, decided to "turn" gay.

... u_u

... I don't think the decision was to be gay, especially considering half the gay men out there really want to be straight. On top of that we have a really high suicide rate in teens because they think that they might be gay.

It is a sad tale for many, many members of the Church. But, if you have it, then you have to decide if you are going to follow God or not. I do not believe that God cursed people with this affliction. But do believe that something in their early lives caused the mental thinking we call "homosexuality".

Actually it is proven to not be a mental disability at all. They are already looking into genetic factors in gay men, and have made progress.

[MobyMule]

I disagree. Homosexuality is a huge issue. Unfortunately it isn't something that can be dealt with through a forum... u_u We wont come to an agreement here.

It all comes down to living the law of chasity. It is simple. A member can have same sex attractions. It is when he acts upon them or dwells on them that he will cross the line as is the same for any other person. If any members lusts after another person other than their wedded spouse did not Christ say that was tantamount to adultery. It isn't about someone being homosexual it is about them living the commandments.

[desirexnoel]

Oh, how disappointing--I thought this thread was about sex positions! *wink*wink*

While I'm here, I will say that I have a friend who has an intersex friend, who got a chance to sit down and talk with a high ranking Church leader (I won't name names). This Church leader was sympathetic, but said "I don't know" to their questions about gender. Although it's often comforting to have our questions answered, some things we just don't know, and I think the best we can do is allow people to make their own choices, follow their own path, and treat them with the kindness and respect all of God's children deserve.

Peace,

HEP

I LOVE this answer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOVE it!

[MobyMule]

Oh, how disappointing--I thought this thread was about sex positions! *wink*wink*

While I'm here, I will say that I have a friend who has an intersex friend, who got a chance to sit down and talk with a high ranking Church leader (I won't name names). This Church leader was sympathetic, but said "I don't know" to their questions about gender. Although it's often comforting to have our questions answered, some things we just don't know, and I think the best we can do is allow people to make their own choices, follow their own path, and treat them with the kindness and respect all of God's children deserve.

Peace,

HEP

I agree there should always be kindness and respect. It is just that those who break covenants homosexual or not have to pay the consequences of those actions. Just because someone has one weakness as compared to anothers doesn't make them exempt from living God's standards.

[desirexnoel]

I agree there should always be kindness and respect. It is just that those who break covenants homosexual or not have to pay the consequences of those actions. Just because someone has one weakness as compared to anothers doesn't make them exempt from living God's standards.

But they will eventually, correct? Of course they aren't exempt from any standards but it isn't for us to judge. Judgment it for God alone, and we can't even definitely say one way or another what God thinks about them.

It has nothing to do with us. It isn't our life, and we should let people live theirs in a way that makes them happy.

[Hemidakota]

Are there some statistics or speculation on the percentage of LDS who accept gltb and their unions/marriages? I would doubt there are polls, we don't have them either. I had heard that 30% of LDS or maybe cultural Mormons struggle or are against the current LDS position.

and seeker7, I like the link you have provided. Christianity is not of one mind on gltb issues. As Biblical and contextual scholarship enters the mainstream more and more I think we will soon be seeing more denominations dropping the barriers to the Sacraments. imo.

It doesn't matter if there were 75-percent opposed the leadership position. It is whether you follow a called Prophet as to follow the Savior's teaching.

This is the notable difference of those who will inherit the highest order of the Celestial Kingdom and those who will not when we listen to the Spirit vice the world or friends.

Edited August 20, 2009 by Hemidakota

[Hemidakota]

I disagree. Homosexuality is a huge issue. Unfortunately it isn't something that can be dealt with through a forum... u_u We wont come to an agreement here.

Who is your GOD? What gospel do you follow? Are you willing to surrender your 'will' to the FATHER? H or L is not an issue at all when you can honestly answer to whom do you serve.

[desirexnoel]

Who is your GOD? What gospel do you follow? Are you willing to surrender your 'will' to the FATHER? H or L is not an issue at all when you can honestly answer to whom do you serve.

I think it is only not an issue if you aren't homosexual. Some homosexuals can repress their feelings and others can't. I am just speaking on behalf of those who can't.

[bytebear]

I think it is only not an issue if you aren't homosexual. Some homosexuals can repress their feelings and others can't. I am just speaking on behalf of those who can't.

Repress your feelings is a poor choice of words. I would prefer you said control your actions. And anyone can control their actions.

[desirexnoel]

Repress your feelings is a poor choice of words. I would prefer you said control your actions. And anyone can control their actions.

But none the less it is the same thing as repressing your feelings.