Same Gender Attractions: A "Special" Adversity?

[GaySaint]

Saturn my dear, I don't think your desire to be with another woman is selfish.

[Traveler]

No I do not believe that sexual attractions are completely genetic, but I do believe that genetics are a very heavily weighted part of the equation.

What's more, I believe that this component is genetic and not hereditary as you describe it. There are a number of traits that are hereditary (eye and hair color, for example) and even a select number of genes that are hereditary (BRCA1, for example). But hereditary traits tend to involve relatively few genes and are heavily influenced by the combination of two alleles.

*Edit* Removed to Preserve Copyright for Publication

So again, maybe you should go back and look at the things I have said, because I've explained how this relates to homosexuality already and linked to it at least twice in this thread.

Well I'll take a look at the article and hopefully it will make a decent attempt at explaining your point instead of applying circular definitions and "well if you don't agree with me I can't explain it to you" logic.

Much more interesting post – I am an engineer and scientist and specialize in Automation, robotics and artificial intelligence. Also during the Vietnam era I served with an “intelligence” unit that dealt directly with controlling behaviors of captured combatants.

One of the first things I tell company executives is that in order to change any operations in their company we must first devise a method of metrics from which to evaluate it. We must be able to measure operations before we can understand it and we must understand it before we can modify it (improve it). Without metrics we cannot determine if any changes made effect the outcome sought.

With the experience in my background (as it relates to our discussion) it appears reasonable to me that there is a difference between contributing factors and determining factors. For example, I have a heart condition that made me probable for heart failure by time I was 40. But because I have spent my life commuting to work by bicycle I have out lived my projected risk by greater than 50%. Here is another thought – although there may be genetic factors in substance abuse – the likely hood of substance abuse increases dramatically with cognitive exposure to a culture environment of drug abuse.

But I would point you in another direction. Especially connected to sexual attractions. We have well over 2,000 years of art. Both in our western society and other disconnected societies in history. Among this art are various images that are by intent sexual – including same gender sexuality. One thing that is most apparent in the thousands of years of sexuality in art is that culture has a profound effect on sexual attractions. Just in the last 75 years the “pin-ups” have undergone emphasis of what is considered attractive. This strongly suggests cognitive conditioning as a major contributor to sexual attractions and arousal. There are studies (animal breeders) that strongly suggest that without cognitive conditioning, individuals are not even capable of sexual attractions and arousals.

But what concerns me most is when in discussions like these are the implications that there is not nor can there be cognitive executive responses (mental functions) in humans capable of overriding and controlling sexual behavior. Regardless of how powerful an attraction or arousal is the other party should have the right to decline. But I am hearing that is not the case – unless the attraction is satisfied the one experiencing the attraction can never in their lifetime be “happy”. I am concerned with this avenue of thinking – and I am not willing to accept it as an argument for behavioral justification.

Edited April 10, 2010 by pam

[GaySaint]

Traveler: Can I cut in here and say something about your last post?

While I don't believe the "attractions" need to be satisifed by acting out on them to the degree that someone would be going contrary to the church, I am someone who believes that the attractions need to somehow be satisfied. That doesn't necessarily mean that those attractions need to be satisfied by unwanted behavior, but in therapy (and that article you gave me spoke greatly to how you might feel about reparative therapy, but currently it is important to note that this is how it is done TODAY by counselors who are sponsored/endorsed by the church), I was told that it simply is not enough to "white knuckle" - which was the actual phrase used - through same sex attraction.

For those of us who are homosexual and members of the church, we live our lives with a giant pink elephant in the room. It is impossible and impractial to ignore the pink elephant. Doing so just gives him more power, because we have to divert so much energy into simply pretending like the elephant isn't there. So when it dances, sings, stomps, and gets in our faces, just the amount of energy we have to feed it to symbolically avert our eyes is damaging.

My counselors approach was learning to "manage the attractions differently," meaning in a way that the church would approve, while not ignoring the attractions all-together.

If I had it to do over again, and knowing what I know now, I do think I could be successful as a gay member of the church, but I certainly wouldn't claim to be anything else but a GAY MEMBER of the church.

Some have asked why I don't implement this now, but the reason is simple: At this point I'm not prepared to sacrifice the family I have built, the love of my partner, etc. But I am quite confident in saying that if something ever happened between me and my partner, I would be try, yet again, but not by "overriding" my attractions, but by embracing the parts of them the church can accept even more strongly than I perhaps have to now.

Edited April 9, 2010 by GaySaint
clarified my point...

[Bini]

Saturnfulcrum, thanks for sharing that :]

My nephew is in the same situation. He told the family last year that he wasn't interested in women, period. And he refuses to lead a false lifestyle (i.e. getting involved with a woman he'll never feel that "special connection" with). Which I agree is a wise decision based on his sexual preference. It just wouldn't be fair to start a life with someone you don't truly love and bring kids into the picture. Too often you hear about homosexuals that have been pressured into this lifestyle, only to finally throw their hands up and say "I just can't live this lie anymore", and leave their spouse and kids. What's left? But a lot of anger, hurt and a broken family.

[LocalFarms]

I'm tired of my posts being picked apart and judged by the standards of men. I thought this was an LDS site held to LDS standards. I guess I was wrong. As for me I have too weak of a testimony to be able to stay here in a place where it is under threat. It is through tears that I bid adieu.

Edited April 9, 2010 by LocalFarms
grammatical errors and spelling

[GaySaint]

Ug. Local. I’m so sorry.

I’m the one always saying I’m here to bolster people just like you, those who deal with SGA and want to remain faithful to the church. In my quest to “help” others try to understand what you are going through (and what I went through), I allowed myself to further polarize the discussion by debating insignificant points of doctrine while both undermining your feelings and arguments, and giving others ammo to do the same.

This is the perfect example of what I view as the major flaw between the relationships of members of the church and LGBT people (specifically, those who are members – and in fact, with all members who struggle). I should have supported you better in your desire to acknowledge and accept your homosexual attractions, and the members here should have supported you better in your desire to acknowledge and accept your testimony.

Instead we attacked each other and tore you down in the process.

Perhaps, Finrock, you should request that this thread be closed. Hopefully you’ve found something in these forums to help your understanding – and if not, I’m sure you can always address any other questions under another topic.

[LocalFarms]

I want to apologize for the above post and any others I have said in a spirit of contention. I will be coming back to look at future post but will attempt to refrain from posting unless I feel I am doing it in the proper spirit. Again I am sorry.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Traveler: Can I cut in here and say something about your last post?

While I don't believe the "attractions" need to be satisifed by acting out on them to the degree that someone would be going contrary to the church, I am someone who believes that the attractions need to somehow be satisfied. That doesn't necessarily mean that those attractions need to be satisfied by unwanted behavior, but in therapy (and that article you gave me spoke greatly to how you might feel about reparative therapy, but currently it is important to note that this is how it is done TODAY by counselors who are sponsored/endorsed by the church), I was told that it simply is not enough to "white knuckle" - which was the actual phrase used - through same sex attraction.

For those of us who are homosexual and members of the church, we live our lives with a giant pink elephant in the room. It is impossible and impractial to ignore the pink elephant. Doing so just gives him more power, because we have to divert so much energy into simply pretending like the elephant isn't there. So when it dances, sings, stomps, and gets in our faces, just the amount of energy we have to feed it to symbolically avert our eyes is damaging.

My counselors approach was learning to "manage the attractions differently," meaning in a way that the church would approve, while not ignoring the attractions all-together.

If I had it to do over again, and knowing what I know now, I do think I could be successful as a gay member of the church, but I certainly wouldn't claim to be anything else but a GAY MEMBER of the church.

Some have asked why I don't implement this now, but the reason is simple: At this point I'm not prepared to sacrifice the family I have built, the love of my partner, etc. But I am quite confident in saying that if something ever happened between me and my partner, I would be try, yet again, but not by "overriding" my attractions, but by embracing the parts of them the church can accept even more strongly than I perhaps have to now.

I'm sure that you will see it differently but I think how one deals with these attractions greatly depends on what stage of life they are in with them and what they have done to foster any attraction. If one is truly trying to control those attractions the last thing that person would want to do is be around anyone who has similar attractions. I'm sure that it becomes impossible at some point when one's lifestyle is surrounded by support for that attraction. And after the attraction is lived out it would be even more difficult to stop.

I don't know if I have the gene for alcoholism, I may ... but I don't want to find out. I wouldn't start to do it even though I have often times wondered about it and even wished I could when all my friends were. But now that desire to drink alcohol is a fleeting desire.

If one really truly has the desire to stop any behavior, like Elder Holland said, one would have to cut all reminders of it out of their lives, to run away from it.

To discuss what one does when it is already a part of one's life though is a different topic that is way beyond me ... I agree, that would be a "pink elephant in the room."

Just like any attractions in life, most start at a very young age, 5-6 and become more formulated with maturity, whether its sexual attraction of any kind, attraction to cigarettes or alcohol or eating large meals or sports ... it all starts young, that's the crossroads of life and then the age of accountability begins. After the pathway is more set in stone, by about puberty, yes I agree, then it would be very difficult to change. It would be as hard as an obese 5 year old avoiding diabetes.

[Saturnfulcrum]

If it makes you feel better Local, I've been skipping over a lot of what Finrock and MOE have been arguing about these past few pages. Not because I don't find it interesting, but because they're using big words and I really can't understand what they're saying. It sounds political, and I never could follow politics very well.

That and to me they sound like debaters on a debate team, and I usually fall asleep when I hear/read debates...

No offence to you guys of course, I just really can't follow what your saying. I'm just not smart enough.

How about we all take a calm breath, say a prayer and start over? We're getting hurt feelings on this thread guys, mostly from us who ARE struggling with SSA.

Either that or close the thread. I really do feel guilty for posting my earlier thread because all this arguing came from my post about me trying to come to terms with my SSA. I probably shouldn't have done that considering that this has turned into a political debate on who's argument has straw men, false accusations and any other literary term you guys use to destroy arguments. Forgive me.

For all of those who posted their opinions, thank you. It really does help us to know all the different opinions out there about homosexuality being a special adversary or not (that IS what this thread is about right...?). We really need the encouragement from you in our struggles, and we will definitely help you through yours if you ever need someone.

I love you all and say this with all the love I have.

~SF

Edited April 10, 2010 by Saturnfulcrum

[GADBabaganoosh]

You would do well to read the articles referred to throughout this thread. It has been made abundantly clear that not every homosexual will be able to "overcome" same sex attraction in this life.

And while it is agreed by all that pursuing homosexual relations is a choice made by the individual, it is much less clear if being attracted to the same gender is as much of a choice as you make it out to be.

Your unfamiliarity with the statements by Church leaders makes your tactless and flawed explanation rather offensive.

You choose to be offended. I do need to read statements made by church leaders. That was my opinion, and my understanding of things. I obviously don't know everything. If you could post the list of every link or whatever, i and others, may find that very useful. :)

[marts1]

If it makes you feel better Local, I've been skipping over a lot of what Finrock and MOE have been arguing about these past few pages. Not because I don't find it interesting, but because they're using big words and I really can't understand what they're saying. It sounds political, and I never could follow politics very well.

That and to me they sound like debaters on a debate team, and I usually fall asleep when I hear/read debates...

No offence to you guys of course, I just really can't follow what your saying. I'm just not smart enough.

How about we all take a calm breath, say a prayer and start over? We're getting hurt feelings on this thread guys, mostly from us who ARE struggling with SSA.

Either that or close the thread. I really do feel guilty for posting my earlier thread because all this arguing came from my post about me trying to come to terms with my SSA. I probably shouldn't have done that considering that this has turned into a political debate on who's argument has straw men, false accusations and any other literary term you guys use to destroy arguments. Forgive me.

For all of those who posted their opinions, thank you. It really does help us to know all the different opinions out there about homosexuality being a special adversary or not (that IS what this thread is about right...?). We really need the encouragement from you in our struggles, and we will definitely help you through yours if you ever need someone.

I love you all and say this with all the love I have.

~SF

Now that was a very good post.

[Finrock]

Good evening Saturnfulcrum. I hope you are doing well! :)

If it makes you feel better Local, I've been skipping over a lot of what Finrock and MOE have been arguing about these past few pages. Not because I don't find it interesting, but because they're using big words and I really can't understand what they're saying. It sounds political, and I never could follow politics very well.

That and to me they sound like debaters on a debate team, and I usually fall asleep when I hear/read debates...

No offence to you guys of course, I just really can't follow what your saying. I'm just not smart enough.

How about we all take a calm breath, say a prayer and start over? We're getting hurt feelings on this thread guys, mostly from us who ARE struggling with SSA.

Either that or close the thread. I really do feel guilty for posting my earlier thread because all this arguing came from my post about me trying to come to terms with my SSA. I probably shouldn't have done that considering that this has turned into a political debate on who's argument has straw men, false accusations and any other literary term you guys use to destroy arguments. Forgive me.

For all of those who posted their opinions, thank you. It really does help us to know all the different opinions out there about homosexuality being a special adversary or not (that IS what this thread is about right...?). We really need the encouragement from you in our struggles, and we will definitely help you through yours if you ever need someone.

I love you all and say this with all the love I have.

~SF

Thank you for your kind post. I know your intention is to bring some kindness back in to what you perceive to be a tense and unkind situation.

The reason why I didn't post any more on your thread was because I understood that my topic would likely result in a debate. In fact, this thread was created with the intention of there being respectful debate and discussion about the position I offered. I hope you understand that in creating this thread I wanted to avoid distracting your thread which was intended as a means for you to seek help, understanding, and support. In other words, I wanted create a sphere where we could debate and discuss a topic while leaving you in your sphere where you could get support and help in your struggle. Of course I don't mean to imply that you aren't welcome to participate in this thread, but understand that this isn't the "support" thread, it's the debate thread. :)

Now, I have not been personally offended or angered by anything here. However, I do want to keep the discussion respectful and charitable because when they are, it fosters understanding and the debate is more likely to be edifying and helpful. Unkind words or such serve no purpose but to foster feelings of ill will and resentment and people are less likely to accept any opposing views or work towards understanding in such an environment. So, in that respect I totally concur with your post.

Kind Regards,

Finrock

[crazypotato]

Saturn,

I completely agree with you. I was even asked by a head moderator to get off of this thread if I did not think a "debate" or "discussion" was useful. To keep my opinions to myself once they were stated. But then others go on and off with scientific and personal theories, that just leads to subtle contention, hurt feelings, judgements. It opens the door for Satan to wedge in and start slowly entering his lies mixed with the scriptures. I cannot see the value in it. People can find the same types of debates anywhere on the internet.

I feel that if someone is struggling with SSA or any other problem and wants to come to a forum, it would be ideal if they are given comfort and hope and compassion rather than theories and speculation that directly conflict what our prophets have said. The logic and science of mankind is flawed. The only way to know the truth is to go to God and to learn more about the atonement.

To focus on our Savior and how he bled from every pore and suffered for our afflictions and pains, to focus on hope in Christ. We were commanded to be perfect. And then we were created with weaknesses. It is absolutely impossible for us to be perfect or overcome our sins, weaknesses, pains, and temptations without the Savior. Focus on the Savior in more of your thoughts to find comfort in your life. You are loved and cherished by him.

[Adomini22]

I know this thread is beaten to death already, but I just got on and started to read a little bit of it and wanted to give my two cents. (Even though my two cents are worth nothing, essentially)

I feel confused on the issue, and struggle to reconcile all doctrinal points regarding SSA. I always have. I have friends both LDS and non-LDS who have SSA. Of course, all tell me it is a choice to live it, but it is not a choice to have that attraction. I do not see any error in that declaration.

Regardless of what I do not know, I am assurred that God's grace is sufficient for all, He forgives all, and He gives us our weaknesses. Sure, we have our part to play, but He is behind alot of the "circumstancial" instances on this position. I dont know what else to say at the moment.

[Elphaba]

Yes, I read that article from Elder Holland.

Which you ignored because it doesn't fit your paradigm.

I think Elder Oaks speaking about same-sex attraction summarizes the issue well by stating, "[t]here are differences, of course, but the contrast is not unique."

I disagree in that the experience of the Mormon who is a true homosexual is unique from that of most Mormon heterosexuals. I explain why below.

Elder Wickman gives the example of his daughter who is handicapped and who, if she could, presumably would be married to a man. However, she will not have an opportunity to marry in this life. Because she does not have the "hope" of ever marrying in this life, in order to live the law of chastity, she will have to be celibate her entire mortal life. So, the circumstances of what is preventing a person from having a hope for marriage might be different, but the struggle of living the law of chastity without the hope of an "outlet" in this life is the same.

Yes, I know what Elder Wickman said, as I've read and commented on the interview a number of times. However, I disagree with him in that a person who is homosexual’s chance to marry while mortal is nil. That makes their experience unique in the Church. .

There are many individuals in life who have no hope of marrying and who are not homosexuals and who are expected to remain celibate despite their circumstances. In this way the struggle of a homosexual person is no more unique than anyone else who must remain celibate.

I got that from your first post. I got it every time you repeated it. I disagree, because in the bigger picture it is not the same, which I explain below.

I agree that supporting the position that homosexuality is a unique condition does not equal "to insisting on special accommodations." As I stated in my post, however, and I emphasize here, in my experience this position has almost always lead to insisting on exceptions from the law of chastity for homosexuals.

And in my experience, this is rare.

Further, I certainly was not intending to question anyone's motives, I simply was using point 1 of my post as one reason why I find the position "homosexuality is unique" to be problematic.

Again, I get it. No need to keep repeating it.

In other words, it seems to me from my exposure to this topic, that the line of reasoning that homosexuality is unique easily turns in to a call for exceptions to the law of chastity and marriage. I wholly acknowledge that my experience might be anecdotal.

It is anecdotal, as are my experiences. In light of your position, which I assume prompted this thread, I think that's okay.

Oh, I think you've misunderstood my application of 1 Cor. It is my fault because I didn't emphasize which part of that scripture I was using to support my claim. Please allow me to try and clarify my point.

　

My claim is that the struggle that homosexuals experience, of not being able to marry yet having to remain celibate, is not a unique struggle. To claim otherwise I feel contradicts the scripture in 1 Cor. 10:13 which states that there has "...no temptation taken [us] but such as is common to man..." In other words, the struggle that homosexuals struggle with is a temptation that is common to man. It isn't unique and consequently we can withstand the temptations. I assumed because I was speaking against the uniqueness of the homosexual struggle that people would understand how I was applying the scripture. I apologize. I hope you understand what I mean to say now.

　

I wasn't making any claims as to whether a person could "stop" being homosexual in mortality or otherwise. Although I certainly think because their struggle is but one of many struggles that are common to man it is within their power to control their actions just as all persons can.

　

In point 3 I was saying that there is hope for people who struggle with homosexual tendencies to enjoy intimate physical relations in this life. I've encountered many individuals who struggle with homosexual tendencies but who have been able to control their feelings, find a spouse of the opposite sex who they love and are attracted to, and enjoy married life within the bounds God has set. This doesn't mean that this will always be the case just as it is not always the case for heterosexual people, but, I think it is folly to claim that there is no hope for homosexuals to enjoy intimate physical relations the way God has intended.

　

The dialogue I quoted answered the exact same position that I feel is problematic that I presented in my initial post. As a reminder, here is the problematic position:

　

"As opposed to heterosexual church members, homosexual church members have no hope of ever being able to have intimate physical relations while still maintaining the law of chastity. Therefore the struggle of an LDS homosexual is a unique or uncommon struggle."

　

The dialogue demonstrates that the struggle is not unique. And what is the struggle? To remain celibate your whole life. Any person, whether homosexual or heterosexual, who is unable to marry has the same struggle to remain celibate outside of the bonds of marriage. Further, homosexuals are not unique either in that they have little hope of getting married, because there are many heterosexuals who for various reasons, have little hope of getting married as well. In each case, if they wish to obey God they will need to remain celibate for the rest of their life with little hope of that changing in mortality.

This is where your post gets nonsensical.

　

First, you acknowledge that a person who is homosexual cannot stop being homosexual during mortality or otherwise.

　

(Elders Oaks and Wickman say that once a person has passed on, he will no longer be homosexual. Interestingly, they only addressed male homosexuality, but not female. But I'm sure their words apply to them as well.)

　

Then you go on to say people who are homosexual can have enjoyable sex with the opposite gender. Because of this, I get the impression that you don't understand true homosexuality, as what you say is simply not possible.

　

A true homosexual, could only enjoy sex with the opposite gender if s/he stopped being homosexual. But that is impossible, as a true homosexual will never be attracted to the opposite sex, and therefore, would never enjoy relations with him/her.

The person you describe is bi-sexual, not homosexual. People who are bi-sexual are able to make a choice to remain homosexual or heterosexual. But a person who is truly homosexal cannot.

This sentiment is part of what I'm trying to get across.

Honestly, I do agree that being Mormon and a homosexual is, in many cases, no different for a person who is heterosexual who, for whatever reason, will never be able to marry.

　

However, comparing a person who is homosexual to all heterosexuals who are not married is misleading, in that those who are heterosexual can hope for marriage, and in many cases, eventually they will marry. That will never happen if one is homosexual.

　

Additionally, as I explained in my last post, Mormons who are heterosexual can behave in ways people who are homosexual cannot. For example, two people who are heterosexual can become a couple, and they can show their affection for each other by sitting closely together in the chapel, holding hands, dancing together, etc. These behaviors are banned for a person who is Mormon and homosexual. Even for those who, for whaever reason will never marry, the same behaviors are not banned. That is why a Mormon homosexual's experiences are unique.

　

No, I make no such insistence. I think you've misunderstood some of my points that I have now hopefully clarified.

Actually, I find your post very confusing, as you jump from one position to another.

You have, in fact, insisted people who are homosexual may one day enjoy relations with the opposite sex, yet you also insist you’re not saying people who are homosexual can stop being homosexual. The two positions contradict one another.

Again, the only time a person who is truly homosexual could enjoy relations with the opposite sex is if s/he were to stop being homosexual. This is not possible for many, and I would say the majority, of people whose true sexual orientation is homosexual.

　

Elphaba

[GADBabaganoosh]

"There is some widely accepted theory extant that homosexuality is inherited. How can this be? No scientific evidence demonstrates absolutely that this is so. Besides, if it were so, it would frustrate the whole plan of mortal happiness. Our designation as men or women began before this world was. In contrast to the socially accepted doctrine that homosexuality is inborn, a number of respectable authorities contend that homosexuality is not acquired by birth. "

Then heres the best part. "The false belief of inborn sexual orientation denies to repentant souls the opportunity to change and will ultimately lead to discouragement, disappointment, and despair." -James E. Faust

Now i know you didn't mention the beleif of feeling like you were born with it. But from what i read and understood on a few things is you imply that a homosexual has absolutely not choice in the matter (which is why i posted that quote because it still applies.)

"The person you describe is bi-sexual, not homosexual. People who are bi-sexual are able to make a choice to remain homosexual or heterosexual. But a person who is truly homosexal cannot."

Again, theres always a choice. I beleive for one who claims to be homosexual is one who has the strongest SSA. I don't know for certain, but its a theory. I was afraid to post more on the subject because i've already said a lot.... blehh... this is probably one of the last things i'll post in this topic.

[marts1]

"The false belief of inborn sexual orientation denies to repentant souls the opportunity to change and will ultimately lead to discouragement, disappointment, and despair." -James E. Faust

was wondering if you have a link to that

[GADBabaganoosh]

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/31421-trying-serve-lord-without-offending-devil.html

[Intrigued]

"There is some widely accepted theory extant that homosexuality is inherited. How can this be? No scientific evidence demonstrates absolutely that this is so. Besides, if it were so, it would frustrate the whole plan of mortal happiness. Our designation as men or women began before this world was. In contrast to the socially accepted doctrine that homosexuality is inborn, a number of respectable authorities contend that homosexuality is not acquired by birth. "

Then heres the best part. "The false belief of inborn sexual orientation denies to repentant souls the opportunity to change and will ultimately lead to discouragement, disappointment, and despair." -James E. Faust

This isn't doctrine. Besides.. he seems to be saying that there is no scientific evidence that absolutely demonstrates that homosexuality is inborn.. and then he goes on to accept that "a number of respectable authorities contend".. he's not holding both sides of the coin to the same standard.

Our best guess is that it's a combination of genetic and environmental issues. I doubt there is a single 'gay gene' but studies have repeatedly shown that genetics almost positively play a large role. Whatever the cause.. it's clear that homosexuals cannot swap their sexual orientation.

Edited April 12, 2010 by Intrigued

[WillowTheWhisp]

I have great admiration for those who struggle with same sex attraction but choose to follow Gopel teachings and endure to the end.

I have a teenage daughter who has made the opposite choice. She says that she is bi-sexual but has chosen a lesbian relationship over her membership in the church and this breaks my heart. I want to be sealed to her as well as her late father and her sister for all eternity. Without her our family is incomplete. My other daughter aspires to being married in the Temple. Her sister will not be able to attend.

I have tried to explain to her that she can choose to dismiss her feelings for other girls and just go with her feeling for boys in much the same way as her heterosexual sister would dismiss any attraction she may feel towards a married man and just go with her attraction to the single guys, but she doesn't want to hear that. She knows that what she is doing is wrong in the Church's eyes so now she has chosen not to come to church with us.

I am finding this very hard to cope with. Bishop says I should not condone the relationship and I have said the girl in question is no longer welcome to sleep over but all this has led to my daughter self harming and ending up in hospital and I just feel like crying all the time.

[FunkyTown]

Is your daughter in late high school/early university?

Know that, as strange as this sounds, it's not something unique to your child. Many people go through same sex attraction at that age. It's rebellious, it's being pushed on them as 'Cool'.

When I went to University, you couldn't throw a stick without hitting someone claiming to be bisexual. IMPORTANT: Do not say this to your daughter. It's dismissive, but true.

I would be less concerned about that than the self-harm.

Self-harm is often a symptom of poor self-esteem coupled with a complete feeling of powerlessness. The use of self-harm is as an empowerment. It makes people feel strong as they can choose to do something nobody wants them to. I used to hang out with all the punks and goths, the rebellious. I saw my share of this. It often leads to extensive tattooing, problems having real relationships and extensive problems. If anything, the self-harm is far more dangerous than someone thinking they may be bisexual.

IMPORTANT: I am not dismissing sexual misconduct. I understand the serious nature of those in the eternal perspective. However, I have seen far more people who claimed to be bisexual end up realizing they aren't than I have seen self-harmers end up with healthy psyches.

I have great admiration for those who struggle with same sex attraction but choose to follow Gopel teachings and endure to the end.

I have a teenage daughter who has made the opposite choice. She says that she is bi-sexual but has chosen a lesbian relationship over her membership in the church and this breaks my heart. I want to be sealed to her as well as her late father and her sister for all eternity. Without her our family is incomplete. My other daughter aspires to being married in the Temple. Her sister will not be able to attend.

I have tried to explain to her that she can choose to dismiss her feelings for other girls and just go with her feeling for boys in much the same way as her heterosexual sister would dismiss any attraction she may feel towards a married man and just go with her attraction to the single guys, but she doesn't want to hear that. She knows that what she is doing is wrong in the Church's eyes so now she has chosen not to come to church with us.

I am finding this very hard to cope with. Bishop says I should not condone the relationship and I have said the girl in question is no longer welcome to sleep over but all this has led to my daughter self harming and ending up in hospital and I just feel like crying all the time.

[Gwen]

Bishop says I should not condone the relationship and I have said the girl in question is no longer welcome to sleep over but all this has led to my daughter self harming and ending up in hospital and I just feel like crying all the time.

to get off track of the thread for a second.... willow, as much as many lds respect and want to follow their bishop it is important to know what his stewardship is and where the lines are. if you "condone" the relationship or not is up to you and it's not the bishop's stewardship. if/when your daughter wants to repent then he will have some say. as a parent i would not let a teen child of mine have a sleepover with anyone they were romantically interested in. yes this girl may have stayed over in the past but once you know they are romantically involved they change the ground rules. i would try to explain this to my daughter as best as i could. this is not about banning her from the house but sleeping over. if it were my daughter (i know that's very easy to say when it's not) i would treat this girl the same as i would if it were her boyfriend. let the girl come to dinner or fhe. let her spend time with the family as someone that is important to your daughter. no sleepovers. she needs to know she has mom's unconditional love. things important to her are important to you. mom is going to be there and have her back, no matter what.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Gwen, I cannot be a hypocrite which I would have to be to welcome my daughter's lesbian girl friend into our home as she would not be here just as a platonic friend. In my own heart I cannot feel happy or comfortable about the relationship. To me it is just wrong. It is contrary to what my daughter has been brought up to know as true. I can happily welcome a gay friend into our home, to church even to our wedding but that was not someone in a homosexual relationship with any member of my family. He has chosen to be celibate.

I'm also not sure about this 'unconditional love' stuff. I keep hearing that Heavenly Father loves us unconditionally but I don't understand that. It is my understanding that he loves us so much that he doesn't want us to do wrong but is prepared to forgive us when we repent, not accept us in our sins. That seems to me to be conditional upon our repentance, something my daughter is not prepared to do.

I really don't understand why you say this is not the Bishop' stewardship. It has always been my understanding that the Bishop is the father of the ward and as such we go to him for help, counsel and advice. I know he was guided by the spirit to phone me the day my daughter was in hospital having her wound stitched. I wasn't able to talk to him right then, being in the emergency room, but knowing how much he cared I felt able to phone him later that evening and cry for help. I know he has only ever acted under the guidance of the Holy Ghost and not from personal opinion. He has been a great help spiritually and emotionally.

If I were to condone this relationship of my daughter then I would be commiting a sin myself by doing so. The scriptures make that perfectly clear. I really cannot understand what you are trying to say here. I cannot tell her that things important to her are important to me when this relationship is the most important thing to her and simply cannot be imporant to me. I wish the girl did not exist and that my daughter had never met her.

FunkyTown, my daughter is in the last year of High School and will be starting college next year. I hope that you are right and that she will grow out of this and want to change. It saddens me that schools seem to push "gay rights" and promote equality for people of all persuasion, even making it seem more attractive to be gay than straight.

She is supposed to be being referred to a counsellor by the hospital in connection with the self harming. She said that part of the reason is the pressure from school to acheive high exam result (she is really very clever) and part of it is that she is a disappointment to me because she is bi-sexual. I told her the exam results don't matter to me, that's not the end of the world as she has a college place ready and waiting based on what she has already done but I cannot pretend that about her choice of a gay relationship. I told her it isn't just me who is upset by it, but her late father who would be looking forward to being re-united with her one day, and Heavenly Father who wants her to return to live as his daughter in the Celestial Kingdom. None of that seems to matter to her though.

[FunkyTown]

Hmm... Last year of High School. Difficulty with church. Scared of the future. Very intelligent.

Sounds like she's got a lot on her plate. How're her friendships in the church?

I can tell you that, within the church, being someone without friends in the YW or YM program brings a whole host of problems. When I was Young Men's President, I made a point of interviewing all the kids one on one to see how things were going. I needed them to trust me and they let me know a lot of things. Feelings of alienation or frustration were rampant among those less popular. It often leads to less activity.

Have you considered that there may be things she isn't comfortable telling you? Have you tried talking to the Young Women's leader and see what she thinks?

It's possible she needs encouragement. Believe it or not, some people think it's their parents jobs to be encouraging. When a random stranger compliments you, it can make your day. Your family? Not so much.

FunkyTown, my daughter is in the last year of High School and will be starting college next year. I hope that you are right and that she will grow out of this and want to change. It saddens me that schools seem to push "gay rights" and promote equality for people of all persuasion, even making it seem more attractive to be gay than straight.

She is supposed to be being referred to a counsellor by the hospital in connection with the self harming. She said that part of the reason is the pressure from school to acheive high exam result (she is really very clever) and part of it is that she is a disappointment to me because she is bi-sexual. I told her the exam results don't matter to me, that's not the end of the world as she has a college place ready and waiting based on what she has already done but I cannot pretend that about her choice of a gay relationship. I told her it isn't just me who is upset by it, but her late father who would be looking forward to being re-united with her one day, and Heavenly Father who wants her to return to live as his daughter in the Celestial Kingdom. None of that seems to matter to her though.

[Gwen]

willow, i apologize for offending you. i'll share my perspective just so you might be able to make some since of my comments. take them for what they are worth (an anonymous post on a message board). i hope you are able to find the comfort you need in this situation.

when i got married nearly 10 yrs ago my little brother had his mission call in hand. today he never went on that mission, he has piercings and tattoos that make him look very different than the guy in my wedding pics, he's a single dad of 2 sons. i don't say this to say he's got a "bad" life. just very different from how we were raised. some of the family members have disassociated from him. i have not. i do not agree with some of his life choices and he knows that. but i've also had occasion to talk to him about those that have stopped being around him. it hurts. he will cry in pain because of the ppl that he thought he was supposed to be able to count on. that their love is so conditional that they would stop being around him because he didn't agree with their religion. he's never talked negatively about the church. he even openly tells my kids when they ask about his tattoos and such that they don't want them. he tries to wear clothes that cover most of his tattoos when i'm there with my kids, when he needs a smoke he goes for a walk and does not smoke around my kids. if my kids see him he tells them that it's bad and addictive and to never start. he supports the things i try to teach my kids. i support him, when they ask me i reaffirm that we don't do that, i reaffirm agency, and that we love their uncle. after the first time that happened he came to me later with tears in his eyes thanking me for telling my kids we love him, that he's ok and part of our family just as he is.

my sister has a girlfriend. she was very very hesitant to tell me about her at first. she knows how the church sees things and did not know if i would still let her be part of our life as she had been. some of the family has disassociated with her. she respects my teaching my kids. they do not kiss or hold hands or anything that appears to be a relationship. if my kids were to ask they would direct them to me to answer the questions. my kids know that the girlfriend is important to their aunt. one day they will figure it out, i figure they will do so when they are capable of understanding it, at that time we will have a more detailed discussion of the nature of the relationship. for now it's enough for them to know that this person is important to my sister. they look forward to seeing both of them when we go to visit. when they say prayers they pray for both of them. when we come and go there are hugs for both of them. i am grateful for the things they do for our family when we visit.

the fact that there are differences in beliefs does sometimes make things awkward, we have had to work some things out, others we are kinda waiting till that time comes to address it. it's not perfect. but i know my brother and sister cares about us and is willing to try to work this out, they know that we feel the same. to me that's what is most important.

as for my comment about the bishop i've had personal experiences where well meaning bishops give counsel they were not in the stewardship to give and it made things much much worse for everyone involved for yrs to come. i do know that is not always the case and am very glad to hear that your bishop has been a guide and comfort to you. i apologize for jumping with my emotional reaction from my experience.

again, i hope you find the peace you need in this situation. god bless you and your family.

gwen