Gay but clean?

[Daniel2020]

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?

The arousal of a man for a woman, and woman for a man, is part of God’s plan of courtship and marriage. That is not true for any degree of same sex attraction—making same sex attraction a totally unholy, unrighteous sexual desire.

Passions, appetites, desires, etc. should be kept within boundaries the Lord has set. A same sex attraction is totally outside the boundaries the Lord has set.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Daniel2020

[Daniel2020]

Again, I prefer to seek answers from the cannon of scriptures. The scriptures are pretty explicit that a man lusting after another man is committing a sin. (To sin in this matter it is not necessary to engage in a homosexual act as the act of a man being attracted to another man is an unclean, unholy act of lust and evil concupiscence.) The scriptures say:

…we should not lust after evil things…

(1 Corinthians10:6)

Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, ...For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:

(Colossians 3:5-6)

Not in the lust of concupiscence...For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.

(1 Thessalonians 4:5,7)

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, …unholy, Without natural affection,

(2 Timothy 3:1 - 3)

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; …they which commit such things are worthy of death,

(Romans 1:27 - 32)

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

Once again:

Passions, appetites, desires, etc. should be kept within boundaries the Lord has set. A same sex attraction is totally outside the boundaries the Lord has set.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Daniel2020

[Dravin]

Duplicate deleted. Somehow when I edit my post it's creating a duplicate.

Did you accidentally hit the quote button instead? It happens.

[Daniel2020]

Did you accidentally hit the quote button instead? It happens.

Perhaps. If I knew what I did I probably wouldn't have done it.

[GaySaint]

Daniel: If same sex attractions in and of themselves condemn the person experiencing them, then there is literally no hope for gay people. I think it is this mentality that leads a lot of gay people into simply "giving in" - after all, why try if you are condemned no matter what you do for something you have absolutely no control over. And why stop at being gay? Why not do whatever you feel pressure to do - drugs, alcohol, promiscuity, etc?

I think we at least should encourage gay men and women to be the best they can be - encourage celibacy for those who are members of a church that would teach so, and encourage monogamy for the rest as an ideal.

I realize you may believe that same-sex attractions are 100% chosen, but I don't think there is a church on the planet that still teaches this. Every Christian I have ever spoken to acknowledges that the attractions are not the fault of the person, although most still require celibacy or strict obedience to chastity.

And if "effeminate" is a condemning attribute, I know many many straight men who will not inherit the kingdom of God, and many masculine gay men who will.

[Gwen]

The arousal of a man for a woman, and woman for a man, is part of God’s plan of courtship and marriage. That is not true for any degree of same sex attraction—making same sex attraction a totally unholy, unrighteous sexual desire.

Passions, appetites, desires, etc. should be kept within boundaries the Lord has set. A same sex attraction is totally outside the boundaries the Lord has set.

arousal is a product of having a physical body. it's a physical response to hormones in the body. it doesn't matter what the lord's "plan" is for men and women, if those hormones are off it will alter the level of arousal they can experience.

like all physical appetites how we deal with it is the test, it must be mastered and we must be in control of our bodies. we don't necessarily decide when and what will arouse us (as it's a product of having a physical body). we do decide how we will act after it happens. i don't think anyone here has said otherwise.

[MarginOfError]

Again, I prefer to seek answers from the cannon of scriptures. The scriptures are pretty explicit that a man lusting after another man is committing a sin. (To sin in this matter it is not necessary to engage in a homosexual act as the act of a man being attracted to another man is an unclean, unholy act of lust and evil concupiscence.) The scriptures say:

Ah, yes...but the scriptures are also pretty clear that a man lusting after a woman is committing a sin. You've done nothing to address same sex attraction.

Keep in mind that lust - as it is used here - is an act of commission, meaning one chooses to engage in sultry thought. You are insisting that lust and attraction are the same thing. Only a forced interpretation of the scriptures can yield this result.

…we should not lust after evil things…

(1 Corinthians10:6)

Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, ...For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:

(Colossians 3:5-6)

Not in the lust of concupiscence...For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.

(1 Thessalonians 4:5,7)

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, …unholy, Without natural affection,

(2 Timothy 3:1 - 3)

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; …they which commit such things are worthy of death,

(Romans 1:27 - 32)

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

Once again:

Passions, appetites, desires, etc. should be kept within boundaries the Lord has set. A same sex attraction is totally outside the boundaries the Lord has set.

Your conclusions are over reaching, your tone is judgmental, and your employment of sound bites from scripture is the tactic of a lazy scriptorian who wants to support his preconclusion instead of seek out truth.

But you do have a good start. It's great that you read and search the scriptures. Perhaps its time to recognize that there are leaders in the Church who are given keys and authority to interpret scripture. If you're going to reject their instruction and teaching simply because it is not in the canon of scripture (which, by the way, if you want to appear to be affluent and competent in scriptural debate, you would do well to learn how to properly spell that word), then you really don't have any business trying to help LDS members understand LDS doctrine.

[Daniel2020]

I realize you may believe that same-sex attractions are 100% chosen

While President of the Church, Spencer W. Kimball taught that no one is born homosexual. I realize that's no longer politically correct, but I believe it was true when he taught it...and that it's still true today.

Perhaps its time to recognize that there are leaders in the Church who are given keys and authority to interpret scripture.

Like President Spencer W. Kimball? Edited June 13, 2010 by Daniel2020

[Soulsearcher]

While President of the Church, Spencer W. Kimball taught that no one is born homosexual. I realize that's no longer politically correct, but I believe it was true when he taught it...and that it's still true today.

Even if Prophets since have accepted a biological factor may be present? I could be wrong but i was sure in the not to distant past a prophet admitted there could be more than choice to this issue?

[Moksha]

you can't be gay and clean.

Not even with some soap and hot moisture?

I think it is important to lay off branding people as sinners lest it cloud our reason and invite another judgment in exchange.

[Daniel2020]

Even if Prophets since have accepted a biological factor may be present? I could be wrong but i was sure in the not to distant past a prophet admitted there could be more than choice to this issue?

Not that I know of. Could you be more specific? Edited June 13, 2010 by Daniel2020

[Daniel2020]

I think it is important to lay off branding people as sinners lest it cloud our reason...

Let's change things a little bit. Suppose somebody has a strong desire to have sex with a young child (but doesn't act on the desire). Are you saying that such a desire isn't sinful? That the person was born that way? That we should lay off branding such a person as a sinner?

Yes, I'm serious in asking all you politically correct people to respond.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Daniel2020

[pam]

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.

I still disagree with this. We are taught in Church today that we welcome those with SSA. That they can be found worthy to receive many of the same blessings. Yet they are held to the same standards as any heterosexual person and that is to not to engage in sexual relations outside of marriage.

Having an attraction is not breaking the laws of God. Acting on that attraction is. I have to agree with Gay Saint in that a person who has SSA would already be condemned and has no hope. That is contrary to what we are taught in Church.

From LDS.org

"People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are" (Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71).

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

I would agree only with that it would prevent a a temple marriage which is within God's plans for us. But your insinuations are that it prevents those with SSA to reach any kind of eternal goal.

Edited June 13, 2010 by pam

[Moksha]

Suppose somebody has a strong desire to have sex with a young child (but doesn't act on the desire). Are you saying that such a desire isn't sinful?

Yes, I'm serious in asking all you politically correct people to respond.

Who among us has not lusted in their mind? Twixt the thought and action lies a myriad of shadows. Even those with the most deranged ideation should be accorded leeway if they can show restraint in not murdering us all. All I know is that I am not on the Thought Police Patrol.

[Daniel2020]

Pam, I appreciate it if you--and others-- would responsd to my question:

Let's change things a little bit. Suppose somebody has a strong desire to have sex with a young child (but doesn't act on the desire). Are you saying that such a desire isn't sinful? That the person was born that way? That we should lay off branding such a person as a sinner?

[bl8tant]

OK, Daniel, I'll take the bait. (I base my answers on a few years spent working for an eminent researcher in the treatment of pedophiles).

No one really knows what causes the development of sexual orientation towards children. There are lots of theories, of course. Many pedophiles were themselves abused as children, so clearly that has something to do with it. Some, however, are just born that way, or develop that way on their own without any clear "oh, that's why" moment or habit you can point to.

Some people manage to control their desire to have sex with children, and some don't. Some people manage to control their desire to have sex with others' spouses, and some don't. Some people… oh, you get the idea.

The Saviour taught that we will be judged on our desires, not just our actions. I like to think that He will judge us mercifully for wanting to not have wrong desires, even if we do.

To turn the question back to you, do you think someone develops sexual orientation towards children because they were sexually abused themselves is guilty of a sin? If so, why? If not, why not?

[Soulsearcher]

K so i went looking. Seems it was Elder Oaks in a talk came closest that i can find. He admitted there can be situations people are born into, but not situations over which they have no control, and control is realistically what this thread was about in the first place.

The church does not participate in debate on whether homosexual susceptibilities develop from nature or nurture, saying that such debate is better left to science.[4] They have admitted that "perhaps such susceptibilities are inborn or acquired without personal choice" and "may have some relationship to inheritance," citing some scientific research.[24] However, they teach that these inclinations will not continue beyond death[4] and that gender and gender roles are an eternal and essential characteristic of a soul.[32]

Wikipedia on the talk by Oaks

Also President Hinckley made it clear that your line of thinking is not with in church standards. He said ""Now we have gays in the church. Good people. We take no action against such people – provided they don’t become involved in transgression, sexual transgression. If they do, we do with them exactly what we’d do with heterosexuals who transgress"" among other comments on the subject.

[Gwen]

Pam, I appreciate it if you--and others-- would responsd to my question:

Let's change things a little bit. Suppose somebody has a strong desire to have sex with a young child (but doesn't act on the desire). Are you saying that such a desire isn't sinful? That the person was born that way? That we should lay off branding such a person as a sinner?

being a sinner is based on actions. please stay on topic.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Gwen

[pam]

Pam, I appreciate it if you--and others-- would responsd to my question:

Let's change things a little bit. Suppose somebody has a strong desire to have sex with a young child (but doesn't act on the desire). Are you saying that such a desire isn't sinful? That the person was born that way? That we should lay off branding such a person as a sinner?

Now you are changing the subject to support your way of thinking. Why not stay on subject? The subject is gay but clean. This subject has nothing to do with pedophiles.

[Soulsearcher]

Lets break down the question as we answer it.

Everyone has desires, gay or straight.

So if a heterosexual man has a strong desire but does not act on it, has he sinned? If the answer is yes then any one of any sexual orientation has sinned.

If that man has not sinned, then why is any other desire of that same depth a sin?

You've had the prophets speak out against your views. You've had strong members of the church point out the faults in your scripture and your quoting the church leaders, and so you then resort to trying to compare something you know will make people upset to homosexuality, which needs no help to bring up strong feelings, just so you know. Your arguments have been defeated by your own leaders and you have made your stance clear, so do you really serve any further purpose posting on this thread other than just trying to add fuel to a fire that nobody is really paying attention to?

[Wingnut]

While President of the Church, Spencer W. Kimball taught that no one is born homosexual. I realize that's no longer politically correct, but I believe it was true when he taught it...and that it's still true today.

Like President Spencer W. Kimball?

Honey, I hate to break the news to you like this, but President Kimball died in 1985. Prophets living today have spoken on the issue, and their counsel and guidance is what should be followed. A living prophet is always more correct than a dead one.

[Daniel2020]

Honey, I hate to break the news to you like this, but President Kimball died in 1985.

So why do we bother reading the words of dead prophets and apostles contained in the scriptures? The answer is: truth is eternal.

[Daniel2020]

Now you are changing the subject to support your way of thinking. Why not stay on subject? The subject is gay but clean. This subject has nothing to do with pedophiles.

Yes it does. Because if what your saying is really true then it applies to all sins. Not just to politically correct sins such as homosexuality.

[Soulsearcher]

So why do we bother reading the words of dead prophets and apostles contained in the scriptures? The answer is: truth is eternal.

Actually continuing revelation is the key from what i understand, there is a lot from past Prophets that's no longer the same as it was.

[Daniel2020]

there is lot from past Prophets that's no longer the same as it was.

Like what? (Other than teaching that are no longer politically correct.)