"New booklet seeks to reconcile Mormon faith with gay youth"

[KirtlandSaintinZion]

New booklet seeks to reconcile Mormon faith with gay youth - chicagotribune.com

I find a few things wrong with this article...

- The LDS Church doesn't teach that homosexuality is a sin. It teaches that sexual immorality is a sin.

- If you believe you have to choose between "accepting" a "gay" relative or LDS church teachings, you don't understand LDS Church teachings.

- I am interested in exactly what this booklet says to do, the article seems to imply that any speaking against the lifestyle is a "rejecting" behavior.. so what exactly ARE you supposed to do?

Repentance needs to be preached to those involved in the lifestyle, just as much to those involved in any other sin. To do less would place some burden of their sin upon our own garments...

Jacob 1:18 "For I, Jacob, and my brother Joseph had been consecrated priests and teachers of this people, by the hand of Nephi.

19 And we did magnify our office unto the Lord, taking upon us the responsibility, answering the sins of the people upon our own heads if we did not teach them the word of God with all diligence; wherefore, by laboring with our might their blood might not come upon our garments; otherwise their blood would come upon our garments, and we would not be found spotless at the last day."

[NeuroTypical]

You can find the pamphlet here. It asks you for an email and zip code, then downloads the pdf file.

I've only spent around 10 minutes looking through it, but I didn't really find anything wrong with it. (I agree with KirtlandSaint that the article has some big problems.)

This paragraph helped clarify what they meant by supporting your gay kid:

Supporting your LGBT child does not mean that parents and other family members must accept behaviors that they consider inappropriate or against their family’s standards; what it does mean is that children who engage in behavior or express an identity that is not approved by the family still need love and acceptance, still need to feel that they are a part of the family, and still need a positive sense of self and hope for the future. As with any behaviors that parents find inappropriate or unacceptable, care should be taken not to send rejecting messages to the child or young person himself.

[Wingnut]

- The LDS Church doesn't teach that homosexuality is a sin. It teaches that sexual immorality is a sin.

It's a bit ambiguous, in that it depends on how one defines "homosexuality." The Church doesn't teach the homosexual feelings/tendencies/orientation alone is sinful. It does teach that homosexuality activity or behavior is sinful. Some people think of the word "homosexual" as a state of being, while others think of it as a state of doing.

[norah63]

How does the part of the word sexual, not apply to doing? That is how it seems to me.

Confessing our faults to one another must be diffrent than giving our weakness a lifestyle name.

What might be the next lifestyle that becomes accepted in our society.

Just my thoughts.

[Sicily510]

Homosexuality

"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).

I can agree to this, people sin differently...we must all possess moral standards and heed to the law of chastity according to the gospels of Jesus Christ as Latter-day Saints.

[HEthePrimate]

It's a bit ambiguous, in that it depends on how one defines "homosexuality." The Church doesn't teach the homosexual feelings/tendencies/orientation alone is sinful. It does teach that homosexuality activity or behavior is sinful. Some people think of the word "homosexual" as a state of being, while others think of it as a state of doing.

Let's see how it sounds when we switch it around. Is heterosexuality a state of doing or being? That is, in order to be considered heterosexual, does a person have to currently be sexually active with a member of the opposite sex?

I am a widower. If my heterosexuality was dependent on being sexually active--that is, on doing--then I was heterosexual while my wife was alive, but after she died, I must have suddenly become asexual, because I keep the Law of Chastity. Right? Can you see why I'd take umbrage to that suggestion?

IMO, hetero- or homosexuality are states of being, not doing. I am not currently sexually active, because I follow the Law of Chastity, but I am still heterosexual because I am attracted to members of the opposite sex.

[HEthePrimate]

"People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians."

I agree with what President Hinckley said in that quote, about the important thing being whether or not one acts on one's inclinations. But I wonder why he said "so-called gays and lesbians." That seems to imply that they're not really gay or lesbian, which casts doubt on the rest of what he says.

[Soulsearcher]

I agree with what President Hinckley said in that quote, about the important thing being whether or not one acts on one's inclinations. But I wonder why he said "so-called gays and lesbians." That seems to imply that they're not really gay or lesbian, which casts doubt on the rest of what he says.

The "so called" wording comes from the church's reluctance to apply a label. They usually use the term "same sex attraction" so as not to box one in.

[Soulsearcher]

New booklet seeks to reconcile Mormon faith with gay youth - chicagotribune.com

I find a few things wrong with this article...

- The LDS Church doesn't teach that homosexuality is a sin. It teaches that sexual immorality is a sin.

- If you believe you have to choose between "accepting" a "gay" relative or LDS church teachings, you don't understand LDS Church teachings.

- I am interested in exactly what this booklet says to do, the article seems to imply that any speaking against the lifestyle is a "rejecting" behavior.. so what exactly ARE you supposed to do?

Repentance needs to be preached to those involved in the lifestyle, just as much to those involved in any other sin. To do less would place some burden of their sin upon our own garments...

it's easy to see why the points you list worry you. The current teaching and phrasing of how to deal with the subject don't lend themselves to this interpretation. How ever the way the church used to approach the subject made it seem like it was advocating the first two points you list. The church didn't used to separate the attraction and the activity very well. Gay was gay and a lot of the talks made it kinda clear the attractions were part of the sin. This leads into your second point, if someone was gay but celibate it didn't change much because people still weren't really drawing a clear line between the attractions and the actions. A lot of what the church is doing right now is a bit of "damage control" from the past, clarifying, restating and even changing some thoughts straight out. You'll find some of what's being done raises some flags, but it's not because it tends to address what's being said by the church now, but what and how it was said in the past.

[Soulsearcher]

How does the part of the word sexual, not apply to doing? That is how it seems to me.

Confessing our faults to one another must be diffrent than giving our weakness a lifestyle name.

What might be the next lifestyle that becomes accepted in our society.

Just my thoughts.

I'm a gay man who has never been with another man. I am attracted but have never acted on it. Seems very easy to tell the difference between thought and action as long as you are honestly trying to see the difference.

[HEthePrimate]

The "so called" wording comes from the church's reluctance to apply a label. They usually use the term "same sex attraction" so as not to box one in.

The Church doesn't normally hestitate to apply labels to people. "Wicked" and "apostate" leap to mind.

"Same-sex attraction" is merely a broader term that applies to homosexuals of both sexes, whereas "gay" typically refers to male homosexuals and "lesbian" refers to female homosexuals. People use the terms "gay" and "lesbian" when referring to themselves, not to box themselves in--why would they want to do that?--but as a simple descriptor.

Or I should start calling myself a "so-called straight" so as not to box myself in?

Edited June 16, 2012 by HEthePrimate

[Soulsearcher]

The Church doesn't normally hestitate to apply labels to people. "Wicked" and "apostate" leap to mind.

"Same-sex attraction" is merely a broader term that applies to homosexuals of both sexes, whereas "gay" typically refers to male homosexuals and "lesbian" refers to female homosexuals. People use the terms "gay" and "lesbian" when referring to themselves, not to box themselves in--why would they want to do that?--but as a simple descriptor.

Or I should start calling myself a "so-called heterosexual" so as not to box myself in?

the reasoning i've heard is gay or lesbian is a title an identity, same sex attraction is an affliction, only a small part of a person. Those of us who identify as gay see it as a part that molds a significant part of our lives, it doesn't make us who we are, but it's a large part of us because it defines some of our strongest emotional ties and relationships. The church has tried to keep people from identifying this way so it can be easier to to separate the view of the desires in a persons life.

[HEthePrimate]

the reasoning i've heard is gay or lesbian is a title an identity, same sex attraction is an affliction, only a small part of a person. Those of us who identify as gay see it as a part that molds a significant part of our lives, it doesn't make us who we are, but it's a large part of us because it defines some of our strongest emotional ties and relationships. The church has tried to keep people from identifying this way so it can be easier to to separate the view of the desires in a persons life.

I very much doubt there are too many people who view their sexuality as their entire identity. Pretty much everybody understands that their sexuality is only a part of who they are.

For example, in addition to being gay, a man is also a son to his parents. He may be a Canadian. He may enjoy soccer. Etc.

Edited June 16, 2012 by HEthePrimate

[Soulsearcher]

I very much doubt there are too many people who view their sexuality as their entire identity. Pretty much everybody understands that their sexuality is only a part of who they are.

For example, in addition to being gay, a man is also a son to his parents. He may be a Canadian. He may enjoy soccer. Etc.

LOL don't look at me this comes from the church. I've always found it quite silly but it's the path the church is taking and they think it works. Who am i to argue.

[Vort]

The Church doesn't normally hestitate to apply labels to people. "Wicked" and "apostate" leap to mind.

Which individuals has the Church normally seen fit to label as "wicked" or "apostate"?

Or maybe your smiley means you're really just kiddin' around, ha ha.

[HEthePrimate]

Which individuals has the Church normally seen fit to label as "wicked" or "apostate"?

Or maybe your smiley means you're really just kiddin' around, ha ha.

Well, kinda both--it's both kidding around and making a statement.

Pretty much anybody who doesn't agree with the Church gets labelled either "wicked" or "duped."

Most anybody who is, or has been, a member of the Church who doesn't agree with the Church is labelled both "wicked" (or "duped") and "apostate." Because they're extra special double evil.

[Vort]

Pretty much anybody who doesn't agree with the Church gets labelled either "wicked" or "duped."

Most anybody who is, or has been, a member of the Church who doesn't agree with the Church is labelled both "wicked" (or "duped") and "apostate." Because they're extra special double evil.

Please provide examples of the Church labelling such people. I'm sure you can come up with just gazillions, seeing as how it's so common.

[HEthePrimate]

Please provide examples of the Church labelling such people. I'm sure you can come up with just gazillions, seeing as how it's so common.

Oh my gosh, you've foiled me now! I guess you're right, the Church never labels people, after all!

Actually, there's my friend Dave, my friend Eric, my friend Anne, and my friend Kerstin. I could go on, but what's the point? For privacy purposes I won't share their last names or any other details, and you'll just dismiss what I say.

You could try doing an experiment upon my words, disagree with the Church, and see what the leaders say.

BTW, I like your new avatar.

[Vort]

Oh my gosh, you've foiled me now! I guess you're right, the Church never labels people, after all!

You made the claim. Now back it up. It has to be very easy, given the prevalence that you claim, so quit dancing around your accusation, man up, and give some examples.

Edited June 17, 2012 by Vort

[KirtlandSaintinZion]

I've haven't felt labeled by the church itself, just individual members.

[Just_A_Guy]

The Church doesn't normally hestitate to apply labels to people. "Wicked" and "apostate" leap to mind.

I'm not aware that people have formed grass-roots campaigns to change Church policy on the grounds that their status as "wicked" or "apostate" should give them a free pass to indulge in otherwise-verbotten behavior.

I very much doubt there are too many people who view their sexuality as their entire identity. Pretty much everybody understands that their sexuality is only a part of who they are.

But there are many view it as an integral part of their identity, to the point that they allege that in rejecting the congregant's sexuality the Church is rejecting the congregant him/herself.

[the Ogre]

I've haven't felt labeled by the church itself, just individual members.

I agree with this notion with the current leadership of the church. Labeling is much more naughty in our PC world than acting on one's sexuality.

My daughter came out of the closet the day my oldest son went into the MTC. She was so angry he would go on a mission when the church, in her opinion, discriminates against the LGBT community.

This was a huge challenge for my son while he was in the MTC and while on his mission because she wrote angry letters to him far more often than I wrote letters at all.

I don't know if the modern church actively discriminates against the LGBT community anymore, but by not fully accepting LGBT members regardless of sexual activity is just as bad (for them).

My daughter and I do not discuss this. She knows what I think: I love her, but will never accept her behavior as appropriate for members of the church. I think she is a great person, but when she came out and has been active in various relationships, I feel she basically turned her back on the church. I feel the same way about my brothers and my uncles who are sexually active outside marriage.

I talk to my daughter anyway. I love her and that can not be denied, I just will never accept her lifestyle as LDS appropriate, but it is just fine for someone who is not trying to live according to church standards. If one is not trying to be LDS, I really don't care what they do.

[annewandering]

If someone says to the church its my way or you are evil then someone has a big bunch of repenting to do. There have been grassroots efforts to change the church. Satan does like to get people who should know better to do his work for him. Anyone who thinks public pressure is going to make God say 'oh sorry! If you want to do it then Yes it has to be A OK!" God leads the church, not deranged apostate members. If you want a church where you can pretend to lead God around by His nose then you have the wrong church.

The church does not discriminate against anyone. The very idea is extremely offensive. Stupid people in the church may do so but not the church. "Hey God stop telling me to repent! Its not nice and hurts my feelings". Yes it does sound stupid and it is. So why do people keep doing it?

[Soulsearcher]

If someone says to the church its my way or you are evil then someone has a big bunch of repenting to do. There have been grassroots efforts to change the church. Satan does like to get people who should know better to do his work for him. Anyone who thinks public pressure is going to make God say 'oh sorry! If you want to do it then Yes it has to be A OK!" God leads the church, not deranged apostate members. If you want a church where you can pretend to lead God around by His nose then you have the wrong church.

The church does not discriminate against anyone. The very idea is extremely offensive. Stupid people in the church may do so but not the church. "Hey God stop telling me to repent! Its not nice and hurts my feelings". Yes it does sound stupid and it is. So why do people keep doing it?

While i understand and respect where you are coming from i do wonder if you see how your first line can be turned around and why it might be viewed as interesting to others. It all comes down to the core beliefs of the person saying it and how each side wants to be appreciated as they say it.

"If someone says to the gays its my way or you are evil then someone has a big bunch of repenting to do."

As said before i have no interest in the church changing it's views, but again tend to look for the same simple "respect"(know there's a better term but i'm tired and it's not coming to mind) that others would like given. The other thing is the line isn't "hey god stop telling me to repent it hurts my feelings" it tends more to be "hey followers of god, i believe different than you please give what you'd like to receive from others" I know and understand why this won't happen and while again i don't quite agree i can respect the stance as it again boils down to peoples core beliefs.

[mtman318]

:deadhorse:

If I understand correctly, society in general used to view sexuality more in terms of behavior and action, rather than feelings and attraction (at least this was according to my sociology textbook). Eventually this changed, probably around the 60's. For some people however, including me, the old definition is still being used when talking about sin; hence the many misunderstandings that come up. I'm sure some people still think the attraction itself is the sin, but I believe people are becoming more informed in this regard.