Questions about my eternal future and destiny (am gay).

[HappyGuy989]

The fact that you are here, at an LDS website seeking advice and possible answers is a very large indicator that your sexuality is in fact changable. You are in fact toying with the idea that you could possibly change. Why else would you be here? And I can and have applied this notion to myself. My sexual attraction has always been towards females but what types of females has changed several times. What I used to find really attractive isnt as much as what I find attractive now. And it will likely change again. I bore easily.

As for same sex attraction; we ALL possess that. No guy here can say they have never admired the physical features of another man. And every woman will admit they have a friend or saw another woman that they felt was the most gorgeous woman they have laid eyes on. The difference is not following that attraction into desire or lust.

Bottom line though. Either you believe in God or you do not. And if you do He has made his position clear. "Chose ye this day whom ye will serve"

If you have no desire to change yet you feel like you need our acceptance then either you're needy and are the kind of person that wants everyone to like you or... you really do sense that there is a right and wrong to your situation.

There's really no way around that. None of us are posting on a Swingers website trying to validate a position of hetrosexual monogamy within the bonds of legal marriage.

And reference your "Edit"--- Your brothers can not marry anyone they want unapposed. For instance, if they chose to try to marry me, there would be some major oppositon! HAHA :) But you're smart you realize that what you're saying is silly. Its like saying its unfair that Tap dancers can express the dance with every part of their body while Irish Folk dancers must keep their arms to their sides stiffly and only dance from the waist down. ITS NOT THE SAME DANCE. Adam was not allowed to marry Steve and remain acceptable to the Lord and neitehr are you... or me... or your brothers.

Another possible example is Why can cops carry guns around openly and the rest of us can not? Because the cops have submitted to and achieved sertain requirements to do so. And they have the sanction of the Governing authority behind them. You say you want the kind of life your brothers have? Well, then you must do what you have seen them do. They have submitted to the will of the Lord and have done what is required of them also. And within that they have the backing of His authority to validate their relationships. The Law says cops can carry guns. The Lord says men may only marry women.

You do not have to accept this truth but do not expect to be carrying a gun around town or marrying a man without certain social consiquences. The only way you can change this reality is to change who is in charge and whos decision is final. And I think most of us here agree that God is difficult at the very least to dethrown. :)

Sorry, but I strongly disagree with basically everything you said in that post. EDIT: Except the replacing god part lol.

Edited March 26, 2010 by HappyGuy989

[HappyGuy989]

I don't have too much to add that hasn't been said already. I do, however, want to add my testimony as someone who also struggles with ssa. I want to tell you not to apply labels to yourself, labels limit. I'm not gay because I don't sleep with men. I'm celibate because I don't sleep with anyone. If I find a wife someday who I can love and will love me in return I suppose I will be srtaight but like I said labels limit. Also want to adress the sexual release issue. Having sex does not relieve sexual tension it only feeds it. The way to be free from those desire is to not feed them but let them starve.

I admire you for your evident personal strength and conviction. I hope you find happiness in this life if you haven't already and the next.

[HappyGuy989]

Either that or your perfected body will enable designer clothing to look simply marvelous on you.

[HappyGuy989]

Your spiritual future is what you make it. If you refuse to even try to allow God change you--which was the vibe I was getting from your previous post--then you won't change. It's that simple.

If I misread you, then I apologize.

You missed my point in that post, if it was gods will for me to have this trial for some purpose why would he want me to circumvent that?

[HappyGuy989]

I don't know. I can't find the source for this actual statement, but from what I've read it looks as though BYU scientists did experiment with electric aversion therapy in the 1970's, even if the Church now accepts this was misguided.

Also it would be stupid to assume that everything bad or (if you'll excuse the pun) shocking reported about LDS members must be an anti-Mormon lie. After all, the Mountain Meadows Massacre really happened and was ordered by high-ranking Mormons, even if their actions are now universally condemned.

[sorry Hordak - you posted while I was writing the above.]

(Pretends he didn't already know)

[pam]

Either that or your perfected body will enable designer clothing to look simply marvelous on you.

Sorry but I think this comment is rude and very stereotypical of comments made to those that deal with SSA and homosexuality.

[Moksha]

Sorry but I think this comment is rude and very stereotypical of comments made to those that deal with SSA and homosexuality.

Didn't mean it to be, but I apologize anyway. My sense of humor on this subject was no doubt warped by Armistead Maupin's comic novel, Tales of the City, beyond the point of knowing right from proper. Dealing with SSA should not be made worse by my doing.

[HappyGuy989]

Didn't mean it to be, but I apologize anyway. My sense of humor on this subject was no doubt warped by Armistead Maupin's comic novel, Tales of the City, beyond the point of knowing right from proper. Dealing with SSA should not be made worse by my doing.

I'm glad you find it so amusing.

[Elgama]

Sorry but I think this comment is rude and very stereotypical of comments made to those that deal with SSA and homosexuality.

actually its more likely to be a joke told by a gay man - sort of thing the gay men I know would say

[rameumptom]

You missed my point in that post, if it was gods will for me to have this trial for some purpose why would he want me to circumvent that?

HG989,

Actually he didn't miss your point. You are missing the point. God doesn't give us trials so we can indulge in them. He gives us trials so we can learn humility, and from that, obedience to God's will (Ether 12). This life is not the life to indulge in temptation, innate or otherwise. It is a probationary period, where we can learn to overcome things.

You do not have to marry in this life. You can be celibate and focus on the righteous things you can do.

When we are so focused on temptation as so many SSA seem to be (and not just them, but also addicts and those with other unhealthy sexual attractions), they are not taking up their cross and following Christ. Instead, they seem to insist that a loving God would accept them as they are, and should give them exaltation on their own terms.

It just does not work that way. I've had to give up lots of things in my life, including things inherent to my genetic makeup and nature. It has been tough, but it was definitely worth it.

[HappyGuy989]

HG989,

Actually he didn't miss your point. You are missing the point. God doesn't give us trials so we can indulge in them. He gives us trials so we can learn humility, and from that, obedience to God's will (Ether 12). This life is not the life to indulge in temptation, innate or otherwise. It is a probationary period, where we can learn to overcome things.

You do not have to marry in this life. You can be celibate and focus on the righteous things you can do.

When we are so focused on temptation as so many SSA seem to be (and not just them, but also addicts and those with other unhealthy sexual attractions), they are not taking up their cross and following Christ. Instead, they seem to insist that a loving God would accept them as they are, and should give them exaltation on their own terms.

It just does not work that way. I've had to give up lots of things in my life, including things inherent to my genetic makeup and nature. It has been tough, but it was definitely worth it.

There's a difference between being SSA and indulging in sin and temptation.

[marts1]

There's a difference between being SSA and indulging in sin and temptation.

You can't actually be thinking Ram does not realise this.

[Jamie123]

You can't actually be thinking Ram does not realise this.

It's surprising how many sensible-seeming people don't realise it.

[marts1]

Perhaps that is becuase we will be judged not only by what we do but also by whay we think.

[Finrock]

Good morning HappyGuy989. I hope you are doing well and happy! :)

There's a difference between being SSA and indulging in sin and temptation.

I don't think that rameuptom was making the claim that being SSA = indulging in sin and temptation. Rameuptom used very specific words that have specific meanings to make a point. I think if you look at what Rameuptom, myself, and others have said carefully you will realize that we are saying that all of us are born with certain inherent (carefully consider the meaning of "inherent") tendencies. Some of these inherent tendencies when acted upon produce actions that are good and some of these inherent tendencies when acted upon produce actions that are not good. People who may have an inherent homosexual tendency are not unique in having inherent tendencies that if acted upon results in sin.

For instance, it is held by many in the medical field that for some people there may be a genetic predisposition to alcoholism (Source). Now, I'm not trying to get in to a discussion to prove or disprove any genetic predisposition theories but let us assume for the sake of making a point that we accept that such conditions are unquestionably true because a part of the equation when speaking of SSA is that it is a question of nature as opposed to nurture.

Now, carefully consider the next few italicized statements, because they are at the crux of what we are trying to say: I think in the case of any genetic predisposition to alcoholism, most people would agree that having this "natural" predisposition does not justify acting on that predisposition. The Church and many of us here on this thread have been arguing the same point in regards to SSA. Having a natural predisposition to homosexual conduct does not justify one in acting on that predisposition. If God has commanded that sexual relations ought only to exist between a man and a woman within the bonds of matrimony then one is not justified in acting contrary to that commandment regardless of circumstances or predispositions. I contend and as well as others, that it is precisely God's command that sexual relations ought only to exist between a man and a woman within the bonds of matrimony. Therefore acting on any homosexual predispositions constitutes a violation of God's law. Further, just as one who may have a predisposition towards alcohol and alcoholism can learn from this "weakness" and turn it in to a strength, so also can a person who has a predisposition to homosexuality learn from their "weakness" and turn it in to a strength.

The simple truth is this: You do not have to act on your homosexual tendencies and only by setting aside God's commandments can you justified acting on your homosexual tendencies. Your choices are ultimately very fundamental in nature. Will you continue to obey God regardless of circumstance or will you reject God's commandments in order to act on your homosexual feelings. This principle of choosing to obey or disobey is what it comes down to for all of us.

Kind Regards,

Finrock

[Wisc]

I think we all need to rent the movie "As good as it gets"

[marts1]

I think in the case of any genetic predisposition to alcoholism, most people would agree that having this "natural" predisposition does not justify acting on that predisposition. The Church and many of us here on this thread have been arguing the same point in regards to SSA.

This kind of stuff reminds me how unbelievably hard it was for me to quit smoking and yet my brother found it very easy to do. I enjoyed and was addicted to smoking so much, it wasn't until I had a priesthood blessing that I was able to quit.

[Elphaba]

The fact that you are here, at an LDS website seeking advice and possible answers is a very large indicator that your sexuality is in fact changable.

That's nonsense. Coming to lds.net will not affect a person's sexual orientation whatsoever.

You are in fact toying with the idea that you could possibly change. Why else would you be here?

He has told us why he is here, and it doesn't include a desire to change his sexual orientation.

And I can and have applied this notion to myself. My sexual attraction has always been towards females but what types of females has changed several times. What I used to find really attractive isnt as much as what I find attractive now. And it will likely change again. I bore easily.

As best as I can tell, his issue is not who he, or you, is/are attracted to. His issue is that you, and other unmarried straight people, can hope to one day have a committed relationship with someone you love, including the sexual aspect of such. He will not, at least not if he wants to remain a faithful member of the Church.

He is a young man, and the idea of never being able to be in such a relationship with someone he loves causes him a great deal of grief, as it would anyone. Wanting to talk about that does not equate to wanting to change his sexual orientation.

As for same sex attraction; we ALL possess that. No guy here can say they have never admired the physical features of another man. And every woman will admit they have a friend or saw another woman that they felt was the most gorgeous woman they have laid eyes on. The difference is not following that attraction into desire or lust.

What you just described has nothing whatsoever to do with same-sex attraction.

Elphaba

[HappyGuy989]

Good morning HappyGuy989. I hope you are doing well and happy! :)

I don't think that rameuptom was making the claim that being SSA = indulging in sin and temptation. Rameuptom used very specific words that have specific meanings to make a point. I think if you look at what Rameuptom, myself, and others have said carefully you will realize that we are saying that all of us are born with certain inherent (carefully consider the meaning of "inherent") tendencies. Some of these inherent tendencies when acted upon produce actions that are good and some of these inherent tendencies when acted upon produce actions that are not good. People who may have an inherent homosexual tendency are not unique in having inherent tendencies that if acted upon results in sin.

For instance, it is held by many in the medical field that for some people there may be a genetic predisposition to alcoholism (Source). Now, I'm not trying to get in to a discussion to prove or disprove any genetic predisposition theories but let us assume for the sake of making a point that we accept that such conditions are unquestionably true because a part of the equation when speaking of SSA is that it is a question of nature as opposed to nurture.

Now, carefully consider the next few italicized statements, because they are at the crux of what we are trying to say: I think in the case of any genetic predisposition to alcoholism, most people would agree that having this "natural" predisposition does not justify acting on that predisposition. The Church and many of us here on this thread have been arguing the same point in regards to SSA. Having a natural predisposition to homosexual conduct does not justify one in acting on that predisposition. If God has commanded that sexual relations ought only to exist between a man and a woman within the bonds of matrimony then one is not justified in acting contrary to that commandment regardless of circumstances or predispositions. I contend and as well as others, that it is precisely God's command that sexual relations ought only to exist between a man and a woman within the bonds of matrimony. Therefore acting on any homosexual predispositions constitutes a violation of God's law. Further, just as one who may have a predisposition towards alcohol and alcoholism can learn from this "weakness" and turn it in to a strength, so also can a person who has a predisposition to homosexuality learn from their "weakness" and turn it in to a strength.

The simple truth is this: You do not have to act on your homosexual tendencies and only by setting aside God's commandments can you justified acting on your homosexual tendencies. Your choices are ultimately very fundamental in nature. Will you continue to obey God regardless of circumstance or will you reject God's commandments in order to act on your homosexual feelings. This principle of choosing to obey or disobey is what it comes down to for all of us.

Kind Regards,

Finrock

Your sentiments are extremely condescending. I am not acting on the tendencies. The whole crux of the argument was based on the idea that having the tendencies doesn't justify acting them out which I've already accepted. To repeatedly reemphasize that to me suggests you don't believe that, which I find personally insulting.

Edited March 27, 2010 by HappyGuy989

[Elphaba]

people forget that this was in the middle of the utah war and atrocities happen in war. look at the civil war.

Comparing the Utah War to the Civil War is absurd.

There was no "war" in Utah. There was only the perceived threat of a war, which was understandable under the circumstances. But the Civil War's dead was in the hundreds of thousands while the Utah War's dead was a little more than a hundred, none of them LDS, and most of them men, women and children murdered in cold blood in the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

im not saying what happened was right but i think it get way over played.

How, exactly, is it "way over played"?

From what I've read it was only local leaders involved.

It is true the decision to murder the Fancher-Baker wagon train party was made by the local militia. But Young's and other church leaders' actions contributed to the hysteria that made the MMM possible. In other words, it is too simplistic to lay all the blame on the locals, but it would be incorrect to say Young actually ordered the murders.

Elphaba

[marts1]

It is true the decision to murder the Fancher-Baker wagon train party was made by the local militia. But Young's and other church leaders' actions contributed to the hysteria that made the MMM possible.

As it is many times impossible to get an exact account from history, what is your or others opinion on this. I havn't done much reading of this event (never did like history much but getting more interested). I would appreciate any answer from you Elphaba.

[Guest mysticmorini]

:offtopic:Comparing the Utah War to the Civil War is absurd.

There was no "war" in Utah. There was only the perceived threat of a war, which was understandable under the circumstances. But the Civil War's dead was in the hundreds of thousands while the Utah War's dead was a little more than a hundred, none of them LDS, and most of them men, women and children murdered in cold blood in the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

How, exactly, is it "way over played"? It is true the decision to murder the Fancher-Baker wagon train party was made by the local militia. But Young's and other church leaders' actions contributed to the hysteria that made the MMM possible. In other words, it is too simplistic to lay all the blame on the locals, but it would be incorrect to say Young actually ordered the murders.

Elphaba

this is very off topic but to clarify, you should check you history because there was a very real war in utah, in fact 1/3 of the us army was sent to utah, that being said i wasn't comparing the utah war to the scale of the civil war but to the type of war.

[Finrock]

Good evening HappyGuy989. :)

Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my post. I also appreciate the opportunity you have given me to clarify what appears to be a misunderstanding of my motives and intentions.

Your sentiments are extremely condescending. I am not acting on the tendencies. The whole crux of the argument was based on the idea that having the tendencies doesn't justify acting them out which I've already accepted. To repeatedly reemphasize that to me suggests you don't believe that, which I find personally insulting.

What is or isn't condescending is a subjective thing so it has always been hard for me to know if my words are going to be received in the way that I have intended them. I'm sorry you felt my remarks to be condescending. I can only tell you what my intentions were and they were not to be condescending or insulting. Also, I haven't consciously or purposefully made any accusations about how you have acted at all. I do not know if or if you have not acted in any particular way and I have no interest to know. I have only tried to reply to those things that you have written as it is the only thing that I can do.

In the particular post in question I was replying to your reply to rameumptom in which it seemed to me that you had misunderstood his point. Your post indicated that rameumptom equated having homosexual tendencies to indulging in sin when in fact that isn't what rameumptom said. Further, taking all of your posts as a whole where you've expressed your growing doubts about the truthfulness of the Church, your doubts in God's justice, and your doubts in the Plan of Salvation (to name a few items), I personally felt that my posts have been very relevant and appropriate. Then again it could be that I have completely misunderstood the meaning of the words you have written and your statements. If this is the case, then I apologize for my weakness to understand and communicate effectively.

Please allow me to unequivocally state that since I've read your OP and subsequent posts, I have never thought nor even considered that you have been acting on your homosexual tendencies. I honestly have not cared whether you have or have not and I don't mean to state that in a malicious way. It's simply just been something that is irrelevant to the points that I've been trying to express and until now I've not even considered the idea one way or the other.

Lastly, I sense from your comments that this is a very sensitive time for you and I suspect that because I do not agree with many of your sentiments you will likely find my words offensive and condescending. If you wish to continue discussing these things, please believe me when I say that I have no desire to offend you or cause you any harm in any way. If you cannot believe this I would rather remove myself from this discussion than risk being misunderstood and/or unintentionally being a cause for any more emotional hurt to you.

Kind Regards,

Finrock

Edited March 27, 2010 by Finrock
Clarified meaning. Fixed grammar.

[Elphaba]

this is very off topic but to clarify, you should check you history because there was a very real war in utah, in fact 1/3 of the us army was sent to utah, that being said i wasn't comparing the utah war to the scale of the civil war but to the type of war.

So as not to hijack this thread, I have started a new one here.

Elphaba

[JudoMinja]

Good evening HappyGuy989. :)

Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my post. I also appreciate the opportunity you have given me to clarify what appears to be a misunderstanding of my motives and intentions.

What is or isn't condescending is a subjective thing so it has always been hard for me to know if my words are going to be received in the way that I have intended them. I'm sorry you felt my remarks to be condescending. I can only tell you what my intentions were and they were not to be condescending or insulting. Also, I haven't consciously or purposefully made any accusations about how you have acted at all. I do not know if or if you have not acted in any particular way and I have no interest to know. I have only tried to reply to those things that you have written as it is the only thing that I can do.

In the particular post in question I was replying to your reply to rameumptom in which it seemed to me that you had misunderstood his point. Your post indicated that rameumptom equated having homosexual tendencies to indulging in sin when in fact that isn't what rameumptom said. Further, taking all of your posts as a whole where you've expressed your growing doubts about the truthfulness of the Church, your doubts in God's justice, and your doubts in the Plan of Salvation (to name a few items), I personally felt that my posts have been very relevant and appropriate. Then again it could be that I have completely misunderstood the meaning of the words you have written and your statements. If this is the case, then I apologize for my weakness to understand and communicate effectively.

Please allow me to unequivocally state that since I've read your OP and subsequent posts, I have never thought nor even considered that you have been acting on your homosexual tendencies. I honestly have not cared whether you have or have not and I don't mean to state that in a malicious way. It's simply just been something that is irrelevant to the points that I've been trying to express and until now I've not even considered the idea one way or the other.

Lastly, I sense from your comments that this is a very sensitive time for you and I suspect that because I do not agree with many of your sentiments you will likely find my words offensive and condescending. If you wish to continue discussing these things, please believe me when I say that I have no desire to offend you or cause you any harm in any way. If you cannot believe this I would rather remove myself from this discussion than risk being misunderstood and/or unintentionally being a cause for any more emotional hurt to you.

Kind Regards,

Finrock

Just to expound a bit on this post from Finrock- I do not believe anyone who has posted thus far has made any assumptions as to whether or not you've been acting on your homosexual tendancies. The simple fact of the matter is that addressing the action is an important part of answering your original question.

You seem concerned that simply having this tendancy may inhibit your spiritual growth. What we have been trying to help you understand is that simply feeling same-sex-attraction will NOT inhibit your spiritual growth, and in fact may strengthen it. It all depends on how you approach it.

If you recognize that this attraction is a weakness of your imperfect flesh and take it upon yourself to master said weakness, the Lord will work with you and help you turn it into a strength. This does not necessarily mean your sexual orientation will change, only that you will find yourself easily turning away from the temptation to act on your unrighteous desires.

If you do nothing, then you make no headway in either direction. You will remain as you are now, spiritually stagnant.

If you indulge in your homosexual feelings, you are submitting yourself to the weakness of the flesh and allowing yourself to be bound in the chains of sin, giving Satan control over your life.

You are no less of a person, no matter what you choose. No one here (so far as I can tell) means to belittle or demean you. We do not mean to judge you, only offer the advice you seek to the best of our ability using our own imperfect knowledge and understanding of the matter.

No matter what the trial, life can become very difficult and depressing when a goal seems out of reach. You feel as though being gay will stop you from reaching salvation, and I will tell you that this will only happen if you LET it happen. We all have weaknesses that will limit our growth- IF we let them. No one here can perfectly understand your personal trial as we are not going through it with you, but we can empathize by comparing it to our own trials.

Christ, however, does understand. And he has told us that we will never be given a load too heavy for us to bear. There is no trial we cannot overcome with his help. There is no inherent weakness that will cut you off from salvation, if you will but humble yourself before him and let him help you turn that weakness into a strength.