Gay but clean?

[Gwen]

since gays can never go to the temple and aren't striving for that higher covenant it's "safer" for them to risk that temptation.

Did you really mean that? Gays can go to the temple as long as they are worthy.

what is the reason we excommunicate ppl from the church? because they have a lifestyle that will not allow them to keep the covenants they have made. being excommunicated is a "gift" of sorts. it relieves them of the covenant and obligations. with the idea that when they can live it they will come back but we all know that doesn't always happen. it's the same idea as the flaming sword at the tree in eden, least they take of it again and die in their sins. (something like that) i really don't think i'm that off base in saying that if someone endowed breaks the law of chastity they are "worse off" or of a "greater sin" than someone that has not been to the temple. this is evident in how it's handled by church discipline.

[carlimac]

To MOE- I don't have time to figure out how to quote just a few lines. If you'd like to instruct me I would appreciate it.

What you call "cultural behavior among church members" is not church wide. I've never before heard of a yw leader calling a girl "sweet 16" in a tone of voice that hurts the girl. I can guarantee it's not in the YW maual. Nor has that kind of thing gone on with any of my 3 yw age daughters. What Gwen was describing really can't even be called "cultural behavior of the church". It's just "people behavior".

The doctrine of Jesus Christ should be our focus. What does Jesus say about dating, kissing, physical intimacy? Don't know that he's said anything specifically. So I guess it's one of those things we need to figure out on our own with the help of the Holy Ghost. We shouldn't need to be commanded in all things. We know if we're getting aroused and we're not married, or even if we are married but it's not an appropriate time or place, then it's time to back off!!

I beg to differ that the boundary is going to be the same for those in the same circumstance. Some people have a short fuse. They may not even be able to kiss or hold hand with someone without getting inapporpriately aroused. They need to set their own standard. There are cultural differences, too. As someone mentioned, the Latin American culture kisses casually a lot! Those same kisses are going to mean differnt things depending on a person's background and what they've learned it means. Though boys and gilrs double kiss all the time in Argentina and it's just simply friendly, we were instructed as missionaries not to do that with the opposite sex, even though it may not mean anything more than friendship. If an aquaintance in America came up to me and double kissed me, I'd go "Holy cow- he's coming onto me!" So the worldwide church can't possibly set a world wide standard. We're to use the spirit (or simply our concience if we're not worthy of the gift of the Holy Ghost) to determine if we're overstepping our own personal boundary.

I have to say MOE that you come across as really uppity and full of yourself sometimes. I'm trying not to be offended by being talked down to by you. Not doing so well at that, though. Sheesh! If you don't think I have anthing "substantitive" to say, please feel free to bypass my posts.

ANd finally- let me spell this out...Gay saint said: "I don't think anyone would argue that someone who wants to remain a member of the church should not form a gay celibate relationship - because it would be even more difficult to abstain forever than it would be for a celibate person to do the same. So are gays somehow less able than a celibate person (meaning a single straight person , I assume??) to remain chaste? Do they lack self restraint when it comes to physical relationships? Do they lack that whatever it is in their minds that tells them they are getting too aroused? Why would it be harder for them to remain celibate than a straight person? Fair question!

[ronism99403]

Whether you're gay or straight, sex drive is sex drive. Where there's sexual attraction combined with emotional intimacy, I'm extremely dubious that the relationship will remain platonic for long.

I'm not so dubious. I've been in this relationship 3 years now, and sex is no longer an issue. The friendship, however, is very important to me. I do not want to leave Don. Would I have to leave him to regain activity in the Church, even though there is no longer any sexual activity going on?

Edited June 10, 2010 by ronism99403

[Soulsearcher]

ANd finally- let me spell this out...Gay saint said: "I don't think anyone would argue that someone who wants to remain a member of the church should not form a gay celibate relationship - because it would be even more difficult to abstain forever than it would be for a celibate person to do the same. So are gays somehow less able than a celibate person (meaning a single straight person , I assume??) to remain chaste? Do they lack self restraint when it comes to physical relationships? Do they lack that whatever it is in their minds that tells them they are getting too aroused? Why would it be harder for them to remain celibate than a straight person? Fair question!

Fair question except it means you've missed the entire point of this thread. Wv've been asking is it possible for us to have relationships of a semi intimate nature, stopping well short of having sex. Can we hug, hold hands and kiss and still be with in the church standards. There have been no clear answers so we are looking at the question of, while straight people can do all those things and still be accepted, there are a number of people who say we can't. So yes if we can't even hug or kiss someone we love then there is a huge difference and the definition of being chaste for us is different and a harder standard to live by far.

[bl8tant]

I mean this in the nicest possible way... but I don't think anyone here is qualified to answer that question with authority. Seems like that would be something for you to take to the Lord directly.

[carlimac]

Thank you soulsearcher for clearing that up. I don't really think I missed the whole point of the thread though. I'm understanding it quite well.

[TheAngelPalmoni]

I think it'd be a better world if "straight" men could hold hands and kiss without being afraid of being labelled "homosexual"

I have seen Many European men show affection by holding hands and a kiss lol but if you called them gay they would KILL you.

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm not so dubious. I've been in this relationship 3 years now, and sex is longer an issue.

To each his own, I guess.

The friendship, however, is very important to me. I do not want to leave Don. Would I have to leave him to regain activity in the Church, even though there is no longer any sexual activity going on?

If you're cohabiting, then I think your local authorities would look at you the same way as they'd look at me if I were living with a female who was not my wife. (I realize this is an over-simplification, and it begs the question of whether gays can/should have roommates at all, and if so, which gender.)

If you're not cohabiting: Generically speaking, I doubt it's a problem if you hang out. But when you get into hand-holding and other physical contact: it seems to me that those are willful manifestations of sexual attraction. The attraction itself isn't sinful; but making the conscious decision to entertain and even, to a limited extent, gratify it, is--at minimum--not wise.

But the former romantic relationship, I think, complicates things. Think of it this way: If your current partner kept hanging out with an ex-romantic interest of his, would you believe him for a minute if he said that the relationship was strictly platonic?

Edited June 10, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[carlimac]

From Gwen

as for the experiences i mentions the sweet 16 and makeout couch that has everything to do with the church. the thing that happened to me was in a yw's meeting on a wed night. if i had injured myself the church would be "responsible" how is that any different? the other was from leadership in that position.

But what happened was not "the Gospel". THere is a vast difference sometimes between the gospel and the "culture of the church" . Too bad but it's often true. If any church leader did something inappropriate or offended a youth, they should be approached by the offendee first of all, and if it can't be resolved then it should go to higher ups like ward and stake leaders, and on up. If it was never reported, "the church" cant take responsibility for it. "The Church"- meaning the general leadership of the church can't possibly keep tabs on all the teachers and ysa bishops all the time. My guess is that they would have put the kabosh on the things you've mentioned if it were ever reported all the way up to say ...President Monson. Hopefully it would never have to go that far and would be resolved much lower down the totem pole of leadership. I don't know who your yw leader was or what her motive was, but I would hope that if she knew she had hurt you, she'd be mortified!! I'm going to have to watch what I say to yw and ym. Sometimes we older flolks forget how sensitive and impressionable youth can be. By the way, I was Sweet 16, too! LOL

Just my two cents.

Edited June 10, 2010 by carlimac

[MarginOfError]

To MOE- I don't have time to figure out how to quote just a few lines. If you'd like to instruct me I would appreciate it.

step 1: In the post you wish to quote, click on the "Quote" button.

step 2 option A: highlight the text you wish to talk about and click the "bold" button (the big large B at the upper left of the text editor)

step 2 option B: erase all the text but that which you wish to talk about.

The advantage to quoting is a link is provided back to the quoted post allowing readers to go back and read the quoted statement in its original context.

What you call "cultural behavior among church members" is not church wide. I've never before heard of a yw leader calling a girl "sweet 16" in a tone of voice that hurts the girl. I can guarantee it's not in the YW maual. Nor has that kind of thing gone on with any of my 3 yw age daughters. What Gwen was describing really can't even be called "cultural behavior of the church". It's just "people behavior".

The fact that you haven't experienced something doesn't negate the multiple experiences and observations that others have seen and reported. It also doesn't negate the fact that when YW leaders say such things to teenagers, the teenagers listen. YW leaders (and YM leaders) can be frighteningly efficient at molding the attitudes and views of teenagers, for good or bad. And I've heard a great many stories very similar to Gwen's.

The doctrine of Jesus Christ should be our focus. What does Jesus say about dating, kissing, physical intimacy? Don't know that he's said anything specifically. So I guess it's one of those things we need to figure out on our own with the help of the Holy Ghost. We shouldn't need to be commanded in all things. We know if we're getting aroused and we're not married, or even if we are married but it's not an appropriate time or place, then it's time to back off!!

This entire thread has been about the doctrine of Jesus Christ. Specifically, it's been about how the doctrine of Jesus Christ is supposed to apply to those with same sex attraction. Throughout the course of the thread people have been posing hypotheses, suggestions, question, and implications trying to come to some kind of understanding. No one is claiming any grand unifying theory. What's more, each proposal has been weighed against the doctrine of Jesus Christ to see if it fits. This whole thread has been about exploring what is and isn't good. So I really don't understand how you can come in here and speak negatively about the discussion and then tell us we should be doing exactly what we have been doing.

I beg to differ that the boundary is going to be the same for those in the same circumstance. Some people have a short fuse. They may not even be able to kiss or hold hand with someone without getting inapporpriately aroused. They need to set their own standard. There are cultural differences, too. As someone mentioned, the Latin American culture kisses casually a lot! Those same kisses are going to mean differnt things depending on a person's background and what they've learned it means. Though boys and gilrs double kiss all the time in Argentina and it's just simply friendly, we were instructed as missionaries not to do that with the opposite sex, even though it may not mean anything more than friendship. If an aquaintance in America came up to me and double kissed me, I'd go "Holy cow- he's coming onto me!" So the worldwide church can't possibly set a world wide standard. We're to use the spirit (or simply our concience if we're not worthy of the gift of the Holy Ghost) to determine if we're overstepping our own personal boundary.

Whatever standard you apply, be it an action or an emotion (and you should take note that I never clarified whick), it applies across the board uniformly.

I have to say MOE that you come across as really uppity and full of yourself sometimes. I'm trying not to be offended by being talked down to by you. Not doing so well at that, though. Sheesh! If you don't think I have anthing "substantitive" to say, please feel free to bypass my posts.

The other option would be to elevate your discourse.

ANd finally- let me spell this out...Gay saint said: "I don't think anyone would argue that someone who wants to remain a member of the church should not form a gay celibate relationship - because it would be even more difficult to abstain forever than it would be for a celibate person to do the same. So are gays somehow less able than a celibate person (meaning a single straight person , I assume??) to remain chaste? Do they lack self restraint when it comes to physical relationships? Do they lack that whatever it is in their minds that tells them they are getting too aroused? Why would it be harder for them to remain celibate than a straight person? Fair question!

The problem with what you're saying is that you're extrapolating GaySaint's words in a way he never intended. He made no distinction between gay and straight. His point is that living a semi-celibate life is more likely to lead to sexual activity than living a fully-celibate life. That applies to both gay and straight alike. There was no need to throw in the distinction you artificially imposed onto his words.

Edited June 10, 2010 by MarginOfError

[Gwen]

From Gwen

as for the experiences i mentions the sweet 16 and makeout couch that has everything to do with the church. the thing that happened to me was in a yw's meeting on a wed night. if i had injured myself the church would be "responsible" how is that any different? the other was from leadership in that position.

But what happened was not "the Gospel". THere is a vast difference sometimes between the gospel and the "culture of the church" . Too bad but it's often true. If any church leader did something inappropriate or offended a youth, they should be approached by the offendee first of all, and if it can't be resolved then it should go to higher ups like ward and stake leaders, and on up. If it was never reported, "the church" cant take responsibility for it. "The Church"- meaning the general leadership of the church can't possibly keep tabs on all the teachers and ysa bishops all the time. My guess is that they would have put the kabosh on the things you've mentioned if it were ever reported all the way up to say ...President Monson. Hopefully it would never have to go that far and would be resolved much lower down the totem pole of leadership. I don't know who your yw leader was or what her motive was, but I would hope that if she knew she had hurt you, she'd be mortified!! I'm going to have to watch what I say to yw and ym. Sometimes we older flolks forget how sensitive and impressionable youth can be. By the way, I was Sweet 16, too! LOL

Just my two cents.

lol i understand better than most about the differences between the church and the doctrine, etc. in efforts to keep this on topic that's all i will say about that here.

my point is that even for straight members of the church the "rules" are not always clear. and in this case there does seem to clearly be a different expectation of the gay members than the straight. what i can't understand is why is something that should be clearly understood so confusing?

Edited June 10, 2010 by Gwen

[carlimac]

To MOE

Yes I probably am reading more into what people are saying. I've been in this discussion for quite awhile now and have picked up on bits and phrases throughout and have come to my own conclusions. In NO way did I criticize the discussion. I was only adding MY perspective. You don't seem to get it. Oh well.

[ronism99403]

I have seen Many European men show affection by holding hands and a kiss lol but if you called them gay they would KILL you.

That is indeed sad.

[ronism99403]

step 1: In the post you wish to quote, click on the "Quote" button.

step 2 option A: highlight the text you wish to talk about and click the "bold" button (the big large B at the upper left of the text editor)

step 2 option B: erase all the text but that which you wish to talk about.

The advantage to quoting is a link is provided back to the quoted post allowing readers to go back and read the quoted statement in its original context.

The fact that you haven't experienced something doesn't negate the multiple experiences and observations that others have seen and reported. It also doesn't negate the fact that when YW leaders say such things to teenagers, the teenagers listen. YW leaders (and YM leaders) can be frighteningly efficient at molding the attitudes and views of teenagers, for good or bad. And I've heard a great many stories very similar to Gwen's.

This entire thread has been about the doctrine of Jesus Christ. Specifically, it's been about how the doctrine of Jesus Christ is supposed to apply to those with same sex attraction. Throughout the course of the thread people have been posing hypotheses, suggestions, question, and implications trying to come to some kind of understanding. No one is claiming any grand unifying theory. What's more, each proposal has been weighed against the doctrine of Jesus Christ to see if it fits. This whole thread has been about exploring what is and isn't good. So I really don't understand how you can come in here and speak negatively about the discussion and then tell us we should be doing exactly what we have been doing.

Whatever standard you apply, be it an action or an emotion (and you should take note that I never clarified whick), it applies across the board uniformly.

The other option would be to elevate your discourse.

The problem with what you're saying is that you're extrapolating GaySaint's words in a way he never intended. He made no distinction between gay and straight. His point is that living a semi-celibate life is more likely to lead to sexual activity than living a fully-celibate life. That applies to both gay and straight alike. There was no need to throw in the distinction you artificially imposed onto his words.

Thank you MOE, and well said!

[Moksha]

If given a choice between a straight edge razor or a gay edged razor, how many of us would not opt for the gay edge razor to avoid nicking ourselves?

[GaySaint]

Carli: You asked if it was harder for gay people to be chaste. Honestly, I think this forum is a perfect example that it is. Whether doctrinal or cultural, gay people are held to a higher level of chastity – meaning we cannot do what an unmarried heterosexual couple can. We are asked to literally refrain from falling in love, or acting out our attractions in any way.

Would it be difficult for you in this same situation, if the church asked you to not act on any heterosexual desire you have, including dating, forming intimate (but non-sexual) relationships? You would be asked to control your desires for the opposite sex to the point where you must limit your interaction with them so explicitly so that you are able to maintain control of your feelings - even refraining from infatuation.

Even with unmarried heterosexuals in the church, they are not asked to do such things.

That said, if a heterosexual couple were unable to marry and feelings started to develop, it would also be a bad idea for them to form a non-sexual romantic relationship, because those feelings and actions lead to a deeper desire for intimacy – and without the outlet of marriage, it would be wise for this couple to limit their interactions.

I would say that if a gay person wants to remain faithful to the church, they should be prepared to do the same.

Does that help clarify my position and point of view?

Edited June 11, 2010 by GaySaint
Clarification

[Daniel2020]

What does the church think of people who are openly gay, but not sexually active. For example...you have a boyfriend, but you do not do anything with him that would be considered immoral. Like kissing, hugging, etc. Because gay sex isn't the sin, fornication is.

Wrong. Being gay is a sin--and it's time people stop sugar-coating this.

Contrary to the title of this thread, you can't be gay and clean. Think about it: If you were suppressing an urge to offer a human sacrifice to the ancient idol Moloch would you be clean? Would you be worthy to enter God's presence?

Being infatuated with somebody of the same sex, falling in love with somebody of the same sex, having a boyfriend/girlfriend of the same sex, etc. is immoral. Even if you don't engage in sexual activity such things are sexually perverted--and very contrary to God's plan for courtship and eternal marriage.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Daniel2020

[Voyager]

Okay, I have a question. If two men are gay and LDS and never have sex can they live together? If not, can they meet up with each other and do holidays together, or go camping or have a BBQ at the park? I understand that there would be a temptation if they did live together but there must be some who could go without sex.

At teh same time there are lesbians who live together and even get pregnant through fertility interventions. Could a couple where one or both are LDS still be members in good standing if they raised a family but never had sex?

[Dravin]

Wrong. Being gay is a sin--and it's time people stop sugar-coating this. Contrary to the title of this thread, you can't be gay and clean.

Really? Somebody should probably let Elder Jeffery R. Holland know (LDS.org - Ensign Article - Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction):

I paused, then said, “I need a little more information before advising you. You see, same-gender attraction is not a sin, but acting on those feelings is—just as it would be with heterosexual feelings. Do you violate the law of chastity?”

***

In saying this, let me make it clear that attractions alone, troublesome as they may be, do not make one unworthy. The First Presidency has stated, “There is a distinction between immoral thoughts and feelings and participating in either immoral heterosexual or any homosexual behavior.”2 If you do not act on temptations, you have not transgressed.

Edit: Your profile doesn't state your religious affiliation, if you aren't LDS then the statements of Elder Holland don't really affect you much, but realize this is a LDS centric board and the question was asked within the context of LDS Doctrine.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Dravin

[Boris_natasha]

Strangely enough, the most impure relationships I've seen in the LDS church have been in the heterosexual couples. Tell me, how honorable is it to leave a girl after you've gotten her pregnant. What makes straight couples think what they do is so much purer than gay sex?

[MarginOfError]

Strangely enough, the most impure relationships I've seen in the LDS church have been in the heterosexual couples. Tell me, how honorable is it to leave a girl after you've gotten her pregnant. What makes straight couples think what they do is so much purer than gay sex?

I'm not sure that's really a fair comparison. When was the last time you saw a homosexual male or homosexual woman knock up their partner?

[Daniel2020]

Why not seek answers to such questions from the cannon of scripture? The scriptures make it very clear that gays (the effeminate) “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” Here's what the apostle Paul said; it's been canonized:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind (1 Corinthians 6:9)

Note well the scriptures speaks both of the homosexual act (abusers of themselves with mankind) and the state of being homosexual (the effeminate) as being things that prevent a person from inheriting the kingdom of God.

Here’s the principle that teaches us why:

27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut if off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. (Matthew 5:27-30)

Before condemning what I posted you might reflect on:

…Do not say that I have spoken hard things against you; for if ye do, ye will revile against the truth...the words of truth are hard against all uncleanness…(2 Nephi 9:40)

Edited June 13, 2010 by Daniel2020

[Soulsearcher]

Why not seek answers to such questions from the cannon of scripture? The scriptures make it very clear that gays (the effeminate) “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” Here's what the apostle Paul said; it's been canonized:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind (1 Corinthians 6:9)

Note well the scriptures speaks both of the homosexual act (abusers of themselves with mankind) and the state of being homosexual (the effeminate) as being things that prevent a person from inheriting the kingdom of God.

Here’s the principle that teaches us why:

27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut if off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. (Matthew 5:27-30)

Before condemning what I posted you might reflect on:

…Do not say that I have spoken hard things against you; for if ye do, ye will revile against the truth...the words of truth are hard against all uncleanness…(2 Nephi 9:40)

The problem being that there are conflicting views of the passage you first quoted. One of the terms has trouble being translated as it was a rare word and when it is translated still doesn't quite come out the way you are presenting it, and the other "effeminate" doesn't mean to be homosexual, it instead refers to a man being soft, usually in a moral sense, but not just in a sexual nature. So your very clear answers lie in terms that people haven't been able ot cleary translate into the terms you seem to think they have.

The second line of thought you present leads to another question. Heterosexual couple is dating and getting close, hugging, kissing, ect, but within the "lines" of the law of chastity, it still kindles an amount of arousal as it to be expected with younger dating couples, but they don't act on it. Is the arousal a sin if they fight against it? They felt and thought about the arousal and what it meant, might even have been tempted, but they held back. They have lusted so they must be guilty right? Where is the line drawn on the " thought is equal to sin" angle? What level of thought is required to enter into the realm of sin?

One has to be very careful quoting scripture that the people translating still don't feel fully comfortable with. Also if you are going to quote scripture make sure you are looking at the actual translation not the popular translation.

[pam]

Directed to Daniel2020

When putting the effeminate in the same classsification as adulters and fornicators; would not this mean that they are breaking the law of chastity when classified this way? What about those that have SSA but never break the law of chastity. I would have to disagree that they could not inherit the kingdom of God when they have not broken the laws of God regarding this particular aspect.

I think Elder Holland stated it very well. But then again, if you know more than Elder Holland or are privy to more....

Edited June 13, 2010 by pam

[Daniel2020]

Directed to Daniel2020

When putting the effeminate in the same classsification as adulters and fornicators; would not this mean that they are breaking the law of chastity when classified this way? What about those that have SSA but never break the law of chastity. I would have to disagree that they could not inherit the kingdom of God when they have not broken the laws of God regarding this particular aspect.

As I read the scriptures having a same sex attraction is breaking the laws of God. (See my following posts.) A same sex attraction is completely incompatible with God's plan of eternal marriage--making it an unholy, unrighteous desire. Edited June 13, 2010 by Daniel2020