I just read this blog on SSA. Learned a few things...

[carlimac]

http://jeffbenedict.com/index.php/blog/35-blog/378-maybe-ill-meet-a-girl

 

 

First of all, I found it to be well articulated and an article that would do a lot to convince LDS to be more accepting of openly gay members in our congregations. I didn't know Elder Christofferson has a gay brother. 

 

I did find myself balking at a few things though. This line:

 

"Desire gets to the crux of the matter. You can restrain desire. But you can't fabricate it."  

 

Ha! Whoever wrote that either isn't a woman or at least hasn't ever had a baby or raised a family large or small.  It absolutely can be fabricated and, well...has to be at times. Many times!!  I guess that's one reason why I don't have much sympathy for the notion that gays just don't have any desire with the opposite sex.  

 

 

The other part I struggle with is the question of where we draw our tolerance line in the sand. I completely agree that ALL human beings with an honest desire for religious influence should be welcome in our meetings. ( Except perhaps mass murderers with a gun, itchy fingers and no self control in a large crowd.)  

I think those who have labeled themselves as gays and lesbians should be welcome. But how do we keep ourselves from becoming so sympathetic that we lose sight of the meaning the plan of salvation has in every human life?  Don't we have to have some reservations?  How do we explain the presence of hand-holding, backrubbing same gender couples in sacrament meeting to our children?  And in the case of the family of the subject of the article, what words do we use that make sense to explain this to our children at a family gathering? Do we just toss the whole scenario into the box of unexplainable mysteries and tell the kids we'll understand it someday? Or do we take a stand and boldly say that this uncle or aunt of theirs  is doing something wrong, without question, but we still love him or her anyway?   It seems like society wants us to just accept it. Not judge it or talk about it as sin. Are we as a church getting closer to that line in the sand where we don't call it a sin either?

 

 

[skippy740]

Since you mentioned Tom Christofferson... here's his story:

 

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/57994467-180/christofferson-lds-family-gay.html.csp

 

http://allarizona.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/What-Manner-ALL-2014.pdf

 

I am quite impressed with Tom's Bishop.  Tom is still not a baptized member of the church, but he has found a place within the community.  (I doubt he was actually excommunicated as he states.  Probably just requested his name to be removed.  However, based on the time frame, it could've been an excommunication.  Today, it would probably just be a request to remove records.)

 

I don't see how those who are in same-sex relationships can also become or maintain membership within the church... but at least Tom's bishop found a way to help keep them in the community.  This may not be appropriate for everyone, or even every ward, but I like the effort being shown.

 

And I KNOW his extended family loves and appreciates him and his partner.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Great blog post thanks for sharing.  This part particularly encapsulates my feelings:

 

The challenge for my church isn’t that we don’t know everything we wish we knew about where gays fit into the eternal scheme of things. A higher power will sort that out. The more immediate challenge is to help church members and local leaders set a tone and example so that gay members feel welcome in our congregations. Our doors should be open, our pews inviting.

 

[carlimac]

If anyone is interested in this ( I know, I know...dead horse and all) I would really like to know what you say to children to explain it when they are close to the situation. How do we teach them? What words and phrases do we use to help them be accepting yet not accept it as OK?

 

Anyone want to take a stab at this? Or direct me to any thread on this forum that has already answered the question?

[MrShorty]

I did find myself balking at a few things though. This line:

 

"Desire gets to the crux of the matter. You can restrain desire. But you can't fabricate it."  

 

Ha! Whoever wrote that either isn't a woman or at least hasn't ever had a baby or raised a family large or small.  It absolutely can be fabricated and, well...has to be at times. Many times!!  I guess that's one reason why I don't have much sympathy for the notion that gays just don't have any desire with the opposite sex.  

 

My thoughts, in no particular order:

 

1) on fabricating desire: I assume you are referring to the challenges in growing and maintaining a healthy sex life in heterosexual marriages. After years in a sexless marriage, the idea of "fabricating desire" is one that I have studied to some degree. In many ways, I think your assertion that desire "has to be" fabricated at times is at the heart of the "sexless marriage vs adultery vs fidelity" thread that I started a few months, which ended up being about whether sex is a need and/or an obligation. How important/necessary is sex to a marriage relationship -- and, therefore, what are the obligations to "fabricate [sexual] desire" in marriages. (the overall tone of this discussion seemed to be that sex is neither need nor obligation, so what does that mean for this discussion about "fabricating desire"?)

 

One issue I would point out as it applies to mixed orientation marriages (MOMs). In the heterosexual case, there is usually a hetersexual "core" to work with. A couple can think back to the "infatuation"/"honeymoon" stage of their relationship and recall how much desire they felt for each other. Or there are those where a spouse says something like "I like sex (with the opposite sex), just not with my current wife/husband." Or one can think on their relationship with erotic literature/visuals and recognize a heterosexual attraction towards the opposite sex. In these cases, "fabricating desire" is about learning how to fan those flames and direct them at one's spouse. In MOMs, there is no heterosexual core to fan -- fabricating desire in these cases is about creating a desire that does not exist and has never existed. IMO, truly fabricating desire is a different challenge than merely "rekindling" a latent desire. A few (like Josh Weed) manage to build workable heterosexual MOMs, but I think the success rate for MOMs is never going to be very high.

 

If the secular climate would allow it, it would be interesting to study what successful "sex therapy" might look like for MOMs.

 

2) I would add the following statements from the article to this discussion:

He wanted to remain true to his faith. At the same time, he didn't want to mislead a woman. That left one option: celibacy.

I don’t know many heterosexual men who have the self-discipline to handle celibacy. It leads to so many other temptations and problems. Clark’s mother encouraged him to hang in there; stay in the church. But the longer he hung in there the lonelier he became. Despair set in. “You have to pretend you are okay not loving or being loved, which is a lie,” Clark told me. “It’s not okay to walk through life without being loved.

 

This statement strongly reminds me of Laura Brotherson's "Involuntary Celibacy" article on her blog. In many ways I think this discussion -- even when it is about SSA -- really hits at the heart of what our sexuality means to us as individuals and as couples. How are sex and love related to each other? Is love needed for sex? Is sex needed for love? (naturally this kind of discussion is about romantic relationships and not about love between family members, parent/child, or friends or other "platonic relationships"). In many ways it maybe comes down to understanding why God made us sexual beings and what is the eternal nature of our sexuality and what part is a result of being fallen mortals.

 

3) How to address children: I don't really know. In some ways, I wonder if Tom Christofferson's Bishop had the best advice -- "well, I don't think it is a good idea to lie at church, do you?". Maybe we just need to figure out how to be honest with our children. "Brother Smith and Brother Jones love each other and live together (are married??). The Church teaches that men should not marry men and women should not marry women, but they want to come to church and we should accept them and love them." In many ways, how different is this discussion from "why is my friend's unmarried sister pregnant" or "why does that man smoke and drink" or "why does so-and-so go shopping on Sunday". How should we teach our children to deal with sinful people and a fallen, sinful world? How should we do this so they can have the fortitude to overcome their own sins/weaknesses without becoming depressed over their own imperfections?

[skippy740]

I'm facebook friends with many in one "branch" of the Christofferson family.  I've sent her a link to this forum and asked for her insight on how she was raised, and how she teaches her children.  I look forward to her insights on this.

 

The main thing that keeps popping up in my own mind, is that you just "do it".  You love them, regardless of their decisions.  If it's based on their decisions, then it is conditional love, not unconditional love.  All are welcome at church.  We feel saddened by choices, but we will leave that to our merciful and perfect judge, who is the Father.  We will treat them as Christ would - welcome all unto Christ, His Church, and into our hearts.  Not only is it the right thing to do, but it is who we need to be.  And we need to be examples of Christ in word and in deed.

 

As far as teaching our children about choices, we need to be sure that we truly understand the nature of the Lord's Church here on earth.  It's not 'just' The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints.  That is simply the name that the Church is known upon the earth.  It is the Church of the Firstborn.  It is the Church were we covenant to our desire to live by a Celestial Law, so that through repentance and the ordinances, we can return to live with the Father.  Those who cannot (will not) covenant to live by the Celestial Law, we still welcome them.  But they cannot be baptized and be members if they cannot or will not covenant to live the way it is revealed for us to live.

 

We do not believe as many other Christian churches who believe that there are only two places to go after this life:  heaven and hell.  We believe in many kingdoms.  Those who live a good life, but did not choose to be baptized by those in authority of the Church of the Firstborn, will probably be in the Terrestrial Kingdom - good people, but did not choose to abide by the Celestial laws to live as the Savior wished for us to live.  We feel saddened that we may not be an eternal family in the Celestial Kingdom, but we can all visit one another and we will live as the Savior would have us live and treat others.

 

 

These are just my thoughts - but take them from someone who hasn't had to deal with same-sex attraction within his family.

[OW4lyf]

You say to your children there are many different types of love and while the church thinks men shouldn't marry men or women marry women we should still welcome all our brothers and sisters without judgment

[Guest]

You say to your children there are many different types of love and while the church thinks men shouldn't marry men or women marry women we should still welcome all our brothers and sisters without judgment

 

I kinda get what you're saying but I have a differing opinion...

 

I teach my children there is only ONE type of love.  And it is that LOVE that is given to us as the great commandment - Love God and Love Others as ourselves.

 

Any and all other "expressions" of love are subset to this.

 

The LOVE we have for our spouses, for example, should not be different than the LOVE we have for Christ.  The LOVE we have for our children should not be different from the love we have for our spouses.  And that same love for our spouses and our children extends to our neighbors...

 

Sex is not Love.  It is merely an EXPRESSION of love.  That particular form of expression is only limited to husband and wife.

 

Therefore, saying I can't love him unless I have sex with him... I teach my kids that's just plain silly.

[MrShorty]

I came across this the other day in the deseret news: http://national.deseretnews.com/article/2052/Gay-Christian-and--celibate-The-changing-face-of-the-homosexuality-debate.html

 

It highlights another group: those who identify as homosexual but are choosing a life of celibacy rather than leave their respective churches. While the article does not specifically attempt to compare their experience to those who leave their church to seek out or enter a monogamous homosexual relationship (like carlimac's article highlights) or those like Josh Weed who try their hand at MOM's or even those like Mitch Mayne who, if I remember correctly, accepts a life of "celibacy" but leaves himself open to the idea of later entering a homosexual relationship. Considering the LDS church's official stance, it is an interesting group to highlight.

 

It is an interesting group to me because I'm not sure -- as a heterosexual -- how I would feel about accepting a lifetime calling to be celibate.

[bytor2112]

If I were the Bishop I would politely ask them to refrain from that type of action as it is not in harmony with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If they are at church for the correct reasons they would not need this counsel to begin with.....

[Palerider]

You say to your children there are many different types of love and while the church thinks men shouldn't marry men or women marry women we should still welcome all our brothers and sisters without judgment

I agree......