Mormons and Gays


JacoJohnson
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi All,

I have another question that I'm struggling with.  According to our website www.mormonsandgays.com we are told that to have same sex attraction is not itself a sin but acting on it is.  My question is what do Elder Oaks and Elder Christofferson mean by "attraction."  I thought that having a sexual attraction to anyone aside from our spouse was a sin?  (Jesus - To lust after another woman is to commit adultery in your heart).

Are they speaking of a lesser kind of attraction and does such a thing exist?

Please help.

Thanks,

JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lusting after and being attracted to are related but not the same. One could be attracted to another because of poise, cooking, financial stability and so forth, while physical attraction is also possible. Physical attraction and lust also differ. As a married man I can notice that women all around me are beautiful, but not connect that to untoward desires or imagining myself with them. For me this is the difference. There is nothing wrong with noticing that another human being is blessed with attractive features, it is when you take that acknowledgement and start coveting or imagining a sexual/romantic relationship that it becomes lustful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, "sexual attraction" and "lust" are not synonyms. I did an interesting scripture study on how the KJV used the English word "lust" and was rather surprised when my study started out in the Old Testament and had nothing to do with sex. Interestingly, my study started in Psalm 78 with a review of the Exodus (in particular incidents described in Ex 16 and Num 11 where there are references to the Israelites "lusting" after food). As I have thought about these incidents, I believe it takes a lot more than just "being hungry" or "attracted" to food to warrant the use of the term "lust" here. In a similar way, I believe lusting after someone sexually is a lot more than just feeling attracted to them. I don't think I yet fully understand this, but I do think that lust and sexual attraction are not synonymous.

Edited by MrShorty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi All,

I have another question that I'm struggling with.  According to our website www.mormonsandgays.com we are told that to have same sex attraction is not itself a sin but acting on it is.  My question is what do Elder Oaks and Elder Christofferson mean by "attraction."  I thought that having a sexual attraction to anyone aside from our spouse was a sin?  (Jesus - To lust after another woman is to commit adultery in your heart).

Are they speaking of a lesser kind of attraction and does such a thing exist?

Please help.

Thanks,

JJ

 

 

They are talking about being tempted...  Christ was tempted and he was clearly without sin... 

 

So the next part is what do you choose to do with that temptation...  Do you discard it? Or do you dwell on it... Do you play out acting on it in your mind?  Any thing like that is an Action and puts you in the category of sin that Christ was talking about it.  This holds true for all sexual orientations.  It is a sin and it needs to be repented of, usually learning greater self control over the matter is considered repentance.  From a Church disciplinary action point of view, nothing but encouragement in learning self control is necessary at this point. (Again true for all sexual orientations).

 

The problem is thinking about it and dwelling on it can lead us to more physical actions.  Taking such physical actions (having a sexual relationship outside of marriage) are also sins.  Repenting of those also require trying to stop and learn self control.  But they also require confession to the Bishop and what ever Church disciplinary action deemed necessary.  (Again true for all sexual orientations)     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi All,

I have another question that I'm struggling with.  According to our website www.mormonsandgays.com we are told that to have same sex attraction is not itself a sin but acting on it is.  My question is what do Elder Oaks and Elder Christofferson mean by "attraction."  I thought that having a sexual attraction to anyone aside from our spouse was a sin?  (Jesus - To lust after another woman is to commit adultery in your heart).

Are they speaking of a lesser kind of attraction and does such a thing exist?

Please help.

Thanks,

JJ

 

Just because I love my husband doesn't mean I'm blind!  I have several very attractive guy-friends in my life and I don't feel that it is cheating for me to acknowledge that fact.  What would be cheating is for me to fantasize about them in a sexual fashion (lusting), let alone do anything on those fantasies.  

 

Hypothetical situation: let's say I found another woman to be very attractive.  The fact that I found them attractive is just a fact, not a sin.  Now, if I spend my night fantasizing about this woman (lusting), that is the a sin.  

Edited by Jane_Doe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh ok, that makes more sense.  Although I would say there is a fine line here - sometimes hard not to have lustful thoughts about people you find attractive and I would think that MOST people have had lustful thoughts about someone other than their spouse, at some point.

 

 

Of course....  But you are really straining at this point.  Mormons and Gays was set up to clarify the position of the Church on those with same sex attraction.  And the simple fact is the Church is not going to get involved with a persons temptation or thoughts other then to teach them to control it.

 

Its only when those thought and temptations cross to actions that the Church is going to act to counter or stop them.  And that line is very clear.  When the temptation/thoughts/desires cross over or morph into having sexual relationships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh ok, that makes more sense.  Although I would say there is a fine line here - sometimes hard not to have lustful thoughts about people you find attractive and I would think that MOST people have had lustful thoughts about someone other than their spouse, at some point.

 

The difference is whether or not your indulge these thoughts.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi All,

I have another question that I'm struggling with.  According to our website www.mormonsandgays.com we are told that to have same sex attraction is not itself a sin but acting on it is.  My question is what do Elder Oaks and Elder Christofferson mean by "attraction."  I thought that having a sexual attraction to anyone aside from our spouse was a sin?  (Jesus - To lust after another woman is to commit adultery in your heart).

Are they speaking of a lesser kind of attraction and does such a thing exist?

Please help.

Thanks,

JJ

Here are some thoughts to think about.. i don't really have any one good solid answer.

we are born with various impulses- does wanting to not have to pay for something make one a thief?

a good quip i heard regarding a guy seeing a beautiful gal- "if he doesn't look once he's not a guy, if he looks a second time he's sinned"

I think this is a pretty good differentiator between an impulse and a lust - the impulse is what first shows up in our mind whether its a feeling or a thoought or an image. it's what we do with it after that is where the judgement comes in. It's when we choose to dwell on it, and repeat it in our minds, perhaps even expand on it is when it crosses a line. For individuals that have had that become a habit with thoughts that are wrong it's going to be a real big personal battle because each time we do that it becomes much easier to do it again until it's second nature.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi All,

I have another question that I'm struggling with.  According to our website www.mormonsandgays.com we are told that to have same sex attraction is not itself a sin but acting on it is.  My question is what do Elder Oaks and Elder Christofferson mean by "attraction."  I thought that having a sexual attraction to anyone aside from our spouse was a sin?  (Jesus - To lust after another woman is to commit adultery in your heart).

Are they speaking of a lesser kind of attraction and does such a thing exist?

Please help.

Thanks,

JJ

All passions of the body should be controlled.  To just have the passion is not sin, to act upona passion that leads away from God is.  If I am hungry during a fast I am not sinning.  There is the passion of the body presented from which we can act upon, either take it into our soul or keep it separate.  Whe Jesus was tempted by Satan, Satan used the passions of the body to persuade him to sin but Christ did not follow those passions.  I believe after fasting for 40 days, Jesus body was hungry but He did not give into that passion.

The attraction describes the chemical, genetic etc. carnal drive.  Acting upon carnality can make it start to be part of the spirits desires and this is where one can deviate from the right path.  Taking on carnality is done in part by acting upon carnal drives.

 

David O. McKay; "The choice is given, whether we live in the physical world as animals, or whether we use what earth offers us as a means of living in the spiritual world that will lead us back into the presence of God.

This means specifically:

Whether we choose selfishness or whether we will deny ourselves for the good of others;

Whether we will cherish indulgence of appetite [and] passion, or whether we will develop restraint and self-control.

Whether we choose licentiousness or chastity;

Whether we will encourage hate or develop love;

Whether [we] practice cruelty or kindness;

Whether [we] be cynical or sanguine—hopeful;

Whether we be traitorous—disloyal to those who love us, to our country, to the Church or to God—or whether we will be loyal;

Whether we be deceitful, or honest, our word our bond;

Whether [we have] a slanderous or a controlled tongue.

Whether a man remains satisfied within what we designate the animal world, satisfied with what the animal world will give him, yielding without effort to the whim of his appetites and passions and slipping farther and farther into the realm of indulgence, or whether, through self-mastery, he rises toward intellectual, moral, and spiritual enjoyments depends upon the kind of choice he makes every day, nay, every hour of his life."

 

That is the difference between having a passion and acting on it.

Edited by Seminarysnoozer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To just have the passion is not sin, to act upona passion that leads away from God is. If I am hungry during a fast I am not sinning. There is the passion of the body presented from which we can act upon, either take it into our soul or keep it separate.

I agree with you to this point. The OP also introduced the concept of lust to this discussion, and I don't quite understand how lust fits into this comparison. Clearly, it is not a sin to be hungry, and, just as clearly, it would be a "sin" to eat before the appointed time to break your fast. But what about everything in between?

 

Is it a sin to anticipate dinner? "I'm sure looking forward to dinner."

Is it a sin to think about/fantasize about dinner? "Just think about those creamy, buttery mashed potatoes."

Is it a sin to hang around the kitchen while dinner is cooking to enjoy the aromas? "That roast sure smells good."

 

Note that I'm not just asking about what is "wise" in this situation. I realize that it will generally be easier to keep a fast and not cheat if one keeps busy doing non-food related things. What I really am asking is, when does all of this thinking about dinner/anticipating dinner/wanting dinner become "sinful" and "lustful" so that it is essentially the same as if you had broken your fast early.

Edited by MrShorty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you to this point. The OP also introduced the concept of lust to this discussion, and I don't quite understand how lust fits into this comparison. Clearly, it is not a sin to be hungry, and, just as clearly, it would be a "sin" to eat before the appointed time to break your fast. But what about everything in between?

 

Is it a sin to anticipate dinner? "I'm sure looking forward to dinner."

Is it a sin to think about/fantasize about dinner? "Just think about those creamy, buttery mashed potatoes."

Is it a sin to hang around the kitchen while dinner is cooking to enjoy the aromas? "That roast sure smells good."

 

Note that I'm not just asking about what is "wise" in this situation. I realize that it will generally be easier to keep a fast and not cheat if one keeps busy doing non-food related things. What I really am asking is, when does all of this thinking about dinner/anticipating dinner/wanting dinner become "sinful" and "lustful" so that it is essentially the same as if you had broken your fast early.

We don't like to tempt God.  We try to avoid putting ourselves in situations that makes the tasks harder to complete.  No I wouldn't bring a picture of a roast turkey to Fast and Testimony meeting.  Also, I wouldn't go to a single's bar if I am married.  I wouldn't go to a bar if I have a genetic predisposition towards alcholism.  I wouldn't go to the bakery on a daily basis if I had type 1 diabetes (i.e. conditions that one is born with or predisposed to).  I wouldn't wear revealing clothing to invite temptation.  We try to avoid promoting the animalistic desires of the body. Some people call this treating the body like a temple, don't do anything to defile it or make it more carnal than it already is.

 

All actions that are counted towards good also come with having an eye single to the glory of God.  If one is doing it with an eye single to the glory of God then one is not thinking about what is in it for me.  The body cares about self; self preservation, self fulfilment, immediate pleasures etc.  The body does not care about eternal consequences. Separating the things that are fulfilling carnal desires vs having a focus on the glory of God (eternal happiness) is what spiritual discernment is all about.  What you are asking is how to have spiritual discernment.  It comes by listening to the promptings from the Holy Ghost and acting upon them, over time becoming more and more in tune to those spiritual promptings and therefore paying attention less and less to carnal and corrupt passions.

 

Paul gives a pretty clear picture of the difference between satisfying carnal passions vs following spiritual influences in Gal. 5:19–25.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SS, you are correct that this sort of thing is about discerning right from wrong. In some ways, though, I find that the discernment is not as easy in some of these things for me as it seems to be for you. Examples of what I mean:

 

1)

No I wouldn't bring a picture of a roast turkey to Fast and Testimony meeting.  Also, I wouldn't go to a single's bar if I am married.  I wouldn't go to a bar if I have a genetic predisposition towards alcholism.  I wouldn't go to the bakery on a daily basis if I had type 1 diabetes (i.e. conditions that one is born with or predisposed to).
It seems to me that these are the kind of "unwise" things that make keeping certain commandments more difficult, but are not sins in and of themselves. Should we be quicker to elevate things to the status of "sin"?

 

2)

We try to avoid promoting the animalistic desires of the body.
This might be a key statement to understand, and perhaps the one I least understand. After years in a sexless marriage, I often wish we did more to promote some of these animalistic desires. After reading anecdotes of couples who felt "unworthy" to attend the temple after their honeymoon and other cases of what sister Brotherson calls "Good Girl Syndrome", I wonder if we need to do more to promote a few animalistic desires. Or perhaps it is the challenge of distinguishing between "Godly" sexual desires and "sinful" sexual desires. Looking back on my own life, it seems that a lot of what I was taught about "bridling passions" was geared towards converting me to be "asexual" -- at least until marriage. I'm not sure that is right, and I often wonder if there is a better, more nuanced way to understand our sexual nature that will more accurately reflect the truth around our sexuality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The scriptures tell us to bridle our passions, not kill them. The purpose of a bridle on a horse is to direct it the way we want it to go.We're not trying to cripple or kill the horse. We should be teaching our children about sex in this attitude: not that it is something to be ashamed of or thought of as wrong, but that those passions are to be guided to their proper place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

SS, you are correct that this sort of thing is about discerning right from wrong. In some ways, though, I find that the discernment is not as easy in some of these things for me as it seems to be for you. Examples of what I mean:

 

1)

 

It seems to me that these are the kind of "unwise" things that make keeping certain commandments more difficult, but are not sins in and of themselves. Should we be quicker to elevate things to the status of "sin"?

 

2)

 

This might be a key statement to understand, and perhaps the one I least understand. After years in a sexless marriage, I often wish we did more to promote some of these animalistic desires. After reading anecdotes of couples who felt "unworthy" to attend the temple after their honeymoon and other cases of what sister Brotherson calls "Good Girl Syndrome", I wonder if we need to do more to promote a few animalistic desires. Or perhaps it is the challenge of distinguishing between "Godly" sexual desires and "sinful" sexual desires. Looking back on my own life, it seems that a lot of what I was taught about "bridling passions" was geared towards converting me to be "asexual" -- at least until marriage. I'm not sure that is right, and I often wonder if there is a better, more nuanced way to understand our sexual nature that will more accurately reflect the truth around our sexuality.

 

 

I understand what you are saying about teaching and even agree with it.  However the proper place for this teaching belongs in the home, by parents to children...  By the words, actions, and examples of the same.

 

Once you get outside of that you get very problematic.  It needs to be taught by someone that the person trusts and that has a good understanding of where the person is in their understanding of the topic.

 

Any other method (church, government/schools) leads to it being done by people with less trust and less understanding of the individual and usually in groups where you spend more time dealing with what is deemed the 'most important'  In the case of Church it is avoiding Sin, in the case of Government it is avoid disease.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

SS, you are correct that this sort of thing is about discerning right from wrong. In some ways, though, I find that the discernment is not as easy in some of these things for me as it seems to be for you. Examples of what I mean:

 

1)

 

It seems to me that these are the kind of "unwise" things that make keeping certain commandments more difficult, but are not sins in and of themselves. Should we be quicker to elevate things to the status of "sin"?

 

2)

 

This might be a key statement to understand, and perhaps the one I least understand. After years in a sexless marriage, I often wish we did more to promote some of these animalistic desires. After reading anecdotes of couples who felt "unworthy" to attend the temple after their honeymoon and other cases of what sister Brotherson calls "Good Girl Syndrome", I wonder if we need to do more to promote a few animalistic desires. Or perhaps it is the challenge of distinguishing between "Godly" sexual desires and "sinful" sexual desires. Looking back on my own life, it seems that a lot of what I was taught about "bridling passions" was geared towards converting me to be "asexual" -- at least until marriage. I'm not sure that is right, and I often wonder if there is a better, more nuanced way to understand our sexual nature that will more accurately reflect the truth around our sexuality.

 

Unfortunately, the gospel does not contain much insight as to what the body brings to the table in the union of the body and spirit making up the soul of a person.  In other words, to be like God we know we cannot just be a spirit.  The body has to add something to our character, our nature, who we are and brings us closer to the character of God.  So, what is it that the body has in terms of character and nature that the spirit alone cannot have by itself?

 

To me this is one of the million dollar questions that has not been revealed.   If we could isolate what that is then we could focus on those passions as something that is positive.

 

I doubt it is sexuality and here is why.  Even those people who find their self in the Terrestrial or Telestial kingdom will need a body to merit those levels of glory.  Maybe sexuality is part of it but certainly not all of it as even for a Terrestrial being there is need to have a body to add to their nature to become glorious or more than the spirit alone would provide.

 

Here is one speculation of mine; empathy.   Charity, the pure love of Christ requires feeling for others and their situation.  I think the body may be a source for empathy.  Higher species of animals exhibit empathy and this is what makes an animal a social being or not.  We know that a Kingdom is a society, the highest of which needs to have sociality.  God can know our thoughts, He knows how we feel, He enjoys our successes as if He is there with us.  All of this is a necessary trait to be like God.  Christ exhibited an extreem empathy, to know the thoughts and purpose of anothers actions and drives, good or evil.  To love one's neghbor as one self is 100% empathy. Partial empathy is the limitation of a Terrestrial body or even a Telestial body that is so distant in its understanding of another that it varies as one star varies from another.  When everyone fully understand the thoughts, feelings and joys of another they are one, like the sun is one. It may take a body to do that. But again this has not yet been revealed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The scriptures tell us to bridle our passions, not kill them. The purpose of a bridle on a horse is to direct it the way we want it to go.We're not trying to cripple or kill the horse. We should be teaching our children about sex in this attitude: not that it is something to be ashamed of or thought of as wrong, but that those passions are to be guided to their proper place.

 

I agree that the image of a bridle is not intended to show or imply that we want to kill or cripple our sexual impulses. However, it seems to me that our dialog around "bridling our passions" is strictly about getting the horse safely tied up in the barn. Of course, a beast of burden is of no use if it is kept tied up all the time. The challenge for us as individuals, couples, parents, and church members is to teach not only how to safely tie up the horse in the barn, but how to appropriately use our sexuality to strengthen our marriages. This latter part is what I find lacking.

 

I am reminded of a recent study by UVU professor Jeremy Boden looking at the transition from "no-no-no" to "go-go-go" that occurs in a marriage of virgins (http://jeremyboden.wordpress.com/ ). I haven't seen a complete review or discussion of the results, but it is interesting to see some of the challenges couples reported as part of the transition.

 

As estradling says, I think one of the important parts of this discussion is what role the Church should play in this kind of instruction. I tend to disagree that the Church should do nothing -- I believe there are many appropriate ways for the Church to develop and explain our theology of sexuality and to help encourage appropriate sexual expression in marriage. Ways for the Church to help singles and teens develop a healthy relationship with their sexuality. Ways for the Church to help parents (who may or may not have a good handle on their own sexuality) teach their children how to have a healthy relationship with their sexuality. On this point, we will probably just have to agree to disagree, though, because I have not yet seen a good discussion of how the Church can do this be very productive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is one speculation of mine; empathy.   Charity, the pure love of Christ requires feeling for others and their situation.  I think the body may be a source for empathy.  Higher species of animals exhibit empathy and this is what makes an animal a social being or not.  We know that a Kingdom is a society, the highest of which needs to have sociality.  God can know our thoughts, He knows how we feel, He enjoys our successes as if He is there with us.  All of this is a necessary trait to be like God.  Christ exhibited an extreem empathy, to know the thoughts and purpose of anothers actions and drives, good or evil.  To love one's neghbor as one self is 100% empathy. Partial empathy is the limitation of a Terrestrial body or even a Telestial body that is so distant in its understanding of another that it varies as one star varies from another.  When everyone fully understand the thoughts, feelings and joys of another they are one, like the sun is one. It may take a body to do that. But again this has not yet been revealed.

 

I've speculated that it has something to do with work, ie. the ground being cursed 'for our sake'.  Something about learning the natural order of things, working to make something happen physically, etc.  (total tangent)

 

As to the point of the discussion:  I can really only echo what's been said.  There is a difference between noticing and lusting.  One is a reaction, the other is a choice to dwell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've speculated that it has something to do with work, ie. the ground being cursed 'for our sake'.  Something about learning the natural order of things, working to make something happen physically, etc.  (total tangent)

 

As to the point of the discussion:  I can really only echo what's been said.  There is a difference between noticing and lusting.  One is a reaction, the other is a choice to dwell.

I appreciate your speculation.

I think work was performed as spirits also and likely not necessary for eternal glory.  Didn't Micheal help work in building the world while he was a spirit?

 

I find it interesting to ponder that when we receive the resurrected body is the time we receive our inheritance, our glory.  Could those two things be tied together.  It is described in the scriptures as the assignment to a Kingdom associated with certain types of body, one for the Celestial, one for the Terrestrial and many different types for the Telestial as one star differs from another.

 

This is a crued metaphor but think of a computer that comes preloaded with software.  When we are born into this world the body knows how to cry, it knows how to suckle, how to breath, how to reflexively make certain movements.  These come without thinking or really even knowing what we are doing.  We call these things intinctual in nature.  The prophets have told us that we are dual natured.  David O. McKary, Paul, Elder Bednar to name a few have spent a lot of time talking about these two natures.  There is one nature and there is another.  They are not the same.  One has a nature the other doesn't.  Again, we don't spend a lot of time talking about this in church or elsewhere as it hasn't yet been revealed.

 

One thing to ponder.  If the pre-loaded "software" or hardware of the Celestial body contained all that was done before, as in all the works of the previous Celestial beings before, then the person receiving that body would automatically become "one" with all those of similar make up and automatically become part of that existence that never had a beginning, becoming eternally always a God as that pre-loaded "software" and hardware is now self.  Maybe this is the value of receiving a body, a way to pass on an inheritance of the "fullness" of particular works correlating to that Kingdom.  I don't know but it seems to be of essential value to glory and not just potential as in potential works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate your speculation.

I think work was performed as spirits also and likely not necessary for eternal glory.  Didn't Micheal help work in building the world while he was a spirit?

 

I find it interesting to ponder that when we receive the resurrected body is the time we receive our inheritance, our glory.  Could those two things be tied together.  It is described in the scriptures as the assignment to a Kingdom associated with certain types of body, one for the Celestial, one for the Terrestrial and many different types for the Telestial as one star differs from another.

 

This is a crued metaphor but think of a computer that comes preloaded with software.  When we are born into this world the body knows how to cry, it knows how to suckle, how to breath, how to reflexively make certain movements.  These come without thinking or really even knowing what we are doing.  We call these things intinctual in nature.  The prophets have told us that we are dual natured.  David O. McKary, Paul, Elder Bednar to name a few have spent a lot of time talking about these two natures.  There is one nature and there is another.  They are not the same.  One has a nature the other doesn't.  Again, we don't spend a lot of time talking about this in church or elsewhere as it hasn't yet been revealed.

 

One thing to ponder.  If the pre-loaded "software" or hardware of the Celestial body contained all that was done before, as in all the works of the previous Celestial beings before, then the person receiving that body would automatically become "one" with all those of similar make up and automatically become part of that existence that never had a beginning, becoming eternally always a God as that pre-loaded "software" and hardware is now self.  Maybe this is the value of receiving a body, a way to pass on an inheritance of the "fullness" of particular works correlating to that Kingdom.  I don't know but it seems to be of essential value to glory and not just potential as in potential works.

 

We should start another thread discussing the importance of the body.  I choose you do it. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the image of a bridle is not intended to show or imply that we want to kill or cripple our sexual impulses. However, it seems to me that our dialog around "bridling our passions" is strictly about getting the horse safely tied up in the barn. Of course, a beast of burden is of no use if it is kept tied up all the time. The challenge for us as individuals, couples, parents, and church members is to teach not only how to safely tie up the horse in the barn, but how to appropriately use our sexuality to strengthen our marriages. This latter part is what I find lacking.

 

I am reminded of a recent study by UVU professor Jeremy Boden looking at the transition from "no-no-no" to "go-go-go" that occurs in a marriage of virgins (http://jeremyboden.wordpress.com/ ). I haven't seen a complete review or discussion of the results, but it is interesting to see some of the challenges couples reported as part of the transition.

 

As estradling says, I think one of the important parts of this discussion is what role the Church should play in this kind of instruction. I tend to disagree that the Church should do nothing -- I believe there are many appropriate ways for the Church to develop and explain our theology of sexuality and to help encourage appropriate sexual expression in marriage. Ways for the Church to help singles and teens develop a healthy relationship with their sexuality. Ways for the Church to help parents (who may or may not have a good handle on their own sexuality) teach their children how to have a healthy relationship with their sexuality. On this point, we will probably just have to agree to disagree, though, because I have not yet seen a good discussion of how the Church can do this be very productive.

 

There is a very big difference between - putting an animal in a barn (caging, tying up, or binding) and bridling an animal.  A bridle on an animal is like a rudder on a boat -  It is a means to control an animal to go somewhere under control.  A bridle is a means of control - not chains of prevention.

 

I have been an advocate of desires, passions and appetites  -- that these things can be used for our benefit.  But they must be kept under control and not let loos - without a bridle to trample cultivated areas or run of some cliff somewhere.  There are some that think any such desires are the essence of the "natural man".  I strongly disagree.  I believe such things are to be kept in submission to spiritual intelligence and reasonable reason.

 

It seems to me that some are of the mind that desires, passions and appetites cannot be controlled - that even trying to control is evil at its core - but I believe such is the purpose of religion and civil law - to define the limits and what happens to cage those that cannot or will not control themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi All,

I have another question that I'm struggling with. According to our website www.mormonsandgays.com we are told that to have same sex attraction is not itself a sin but acting on it is. My question is what do Elder Oaks and Elder Christofferson mean by "attraction." I thought that having a sexual attraction to anyone aside from our spouse was a sin? (Jesus - To lust after another woman is to commit adultery in your heart).

Are they speaking of a lesser kind of attraction and does such a thing exist?

Please help.

Thanks,

JJ

That is because lusting after another woman is a betrayal. Being attracted to the same sex is not the same thing. Persons my not be able to help how they feel, but all can control how they act.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

does wanting to not have to pay for something make one a thief?

 

I'm going to have to go with yes. An honest person should very much care about those who are due getting their due and paying for what they get.

 

Having an inner desire to cheat others even if one doesn't actually cheat others is still highly problematic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a very big difference between - putting an animal in a barn (caging, tying up, or binding) and bridling an animal.  A bridle on an animal is like a rudder on a boat -  It is a means to control an animal to go somewhere under control.  A bridle is a means of control - not chains of prevention.

 

I have been an advocate of desires, passions and appetites  -- that these things can be used for our benefit.  But they must be kept under control and not let loos - without a bridle to trample cultivated areas or run of some cliff somewhere.  There are some that think any such desires are the essence of the "natural man".  I strongly disagree.  I believe such things are to be kept in submission to spiritual intelligence and reasonable reason.

 

It seems to me that some are of the mind that desires, passions and appetites cannot be controlled - that even trying to control is evil at its core - but I believe such is the purpose of religion and civil law - to define the limits and what happens to cage those that cannot or will not control themselves.

Just like when we talk about money, natural desires by themselves are not evil, it is the love of them over the things of God that is evil.

Money is not evil but if someone loves money and especially if it results in forgetting the things of God to obtain money than it is evil.

Similarly if one learns to love carnal things over spiritual things than that is evil.

 

One first has to understand as David O. McKay stated that these two natures, the natural man and the spirit of man are in opposition.  Combine that with the concept that we cannot serve two masters.  Satan would like us to think that we could manage that somehow, that we could serve both natures, the carnal and the spiritual at the same time.  Our leaders including Paul, David O. McKay and Elder Bednar have made it clear that we cannot do that.  To say that we somehow can do that goes against our teachings, not the other way around.

 

To have a carnal nature is not evil just like having money is not evil.  It is only when the carnal nature becomes master of the soul that it is evil. We all were given a carnal nature upon birth, that is not evil by itself as we know those that die before the age of 8 receive a carnal body and yet are saved before the foundations of the world.  Only when one chooses to let the carnal nature take control does evil enter into the soul after the age of accountability.

 

Consider the difference between one who has Tourrette's syndrome in which she uncontrollably lets out explitives vs taking the Lord's name in vain.  Is there a difference or is it just as bad when the corrupted body uncontrollably lets out an explitive?  There is a difference, taking the Lord's name in vain is when the soul lets carnal natures take control and lets it happen whereas an explitive let out because of a vocal tic caused by Tourrette's is not intentional or started out with any evil intention.  God would have to judge such things as certainly a person with Tourrette's could still take the Lord's name in vain. If a person with Tourrette's learns to like the explitives flying out of their mouth from time to time then that would be evil as well. 

 

If I am hungry during Fast and Testimony meeting I have not commited any sin because I am not letting the carnal be my master if I don't follow that drive.  To have it is not sin but to comply with it when there is an opposing command from the spirit or to fail to listen to spiritual commands is a sin.

 

I honestly don't know of anyone in our religion who believes that "having natural desires is a sin".  I am not sure where you get that from.  But to make natural desires the master over spiritual ones is a sin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share