Mormon and gay. Where are we going?


Fether
 Share

Recommended Posts

@wenglund I think you understand me when I say that the primary purpose of sex is procreation yet the primary use of sex is pleasure. We have a lot more opportunity in this life or the latter than the former.

However there are those who would have us believe that any other purpose than procreation is evil, lustful, impure, unholy and so forth. I don’t believe that.

I think it was understood from the beginning of time that the principal use of sex would be for the pleasure and bonding of married couples and I believe that won’t change for married exalted couples after this life. 

I think all the sex negative teaching that began in the dark ages with people such as Augustine have lead people to believe that sex is it evil, indulgent hedonistic thing that good people would not participate in let alone gods. 

However, done in the approved context, it is a sacred and holy and completely appropriate thing. 

How this relates to the topic is that as I said before I believe that the desire for sex will not end after this life.

Edited by BJ64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BJ64 said:

@wenglund I think you understand me when I say that the primary purpose of sex is procreation yet the primary use of sex is pleasure. We have a lot more opportunity in this life or the latter than the former.

However there are those who would have us believe that any other purpose than procreation is evil, lustful, impure, unholy and so forth. I don’t believe that.

I think it was understood from the beginning of time that the principal use of sex would be for the pleasure and bonding of married couples and I believe that won’t change for married exalted couples after this life. 

I think all the sex negative teaching that began in the dark ages with people such as Augustine have lead people to believe that sex is it evil, indulgent hedonistic thing that good people would not participate in let alone gods. 

However, done in the approved context, it is a sacred and holy and completely appropriate thing. 

How this relates to the topic is that as I said before I believe that the desire for sex will not end after this life.

This seems as good a way as any to close a  thought-provoking meandering deep into the spiritual weeds. I appreciate your and other people's time and consideration. And, my apologies to those who believe our efforts could have been better spent.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimate vision......as long as you have 70 year old men sitting on the seats of the ultimate higher authority, fogeddabout-it no change happening anytime soon.

As i see it, the old school guard thinks you let one in it contaminates the whole gene pool, even though they are in, just closeted and no doubt suffering.

Thats what makes LDS so unique, the perfectionism, trying to be God on earth. What i do see happening is if anyone comes out (as gay) the church ghosting the person (s) trying yet again to

prove that to be a sinner separates you from God, so they make time on earth hell. Now that's just plain mean spirited and judgemental. 

where is the love? LDS is unique to its 1950's charm, its 1800's pioneer busy bee heritage, change is not something that comes easy or naturally. A better question is why would a gay person what to be LDS they will be shamed and ridiculed and never feel loved. Thats my opinion, not big on learning lessons from Jesus, like hate the sin love the sinner. Lying in the dark ages. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, inquisitive said:

Ultimate vision......as long as you have 70 year old men sitting on the seats of the ultimate higher authority, fogeddabout-it no change happening anytime soon.

As i see it, the old school guard thinks you let one in it contaminates the whole gene pool, even though they are in, just closeted and no doubt suffering.

Thats what makes LDS so unique, the perfectionism, trying to be God on earth. What i do see happening is if anyone comes out (as gay) the church ghosting the person (s) trying yet again to

prove that to be a sinner separates you from God, so they make time on earth hell. Now that's just plain mean spirited and judgemental. 

where is the love? LDS is unique to its 1950's charm, its 1800's pioneer busy bee heritage, change is not something that comes easy or naturally. A better question is why would a gay person what to be LDS they will be shamed and ridiculed and never feel loved. Thats my opinion, not big on learning lessons from Jesus, like hate the sin love the sinner. Lying in the dark ages. 

Another one of those falsehoods to the infinity.  And beyond.

It would be nice if a person who is hurting don't do scorched earth on an entire organization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@lostinwater  did I just read that correctly, electric shock aversion therapy? Blink, blink are you serious? Who would authorize such insanity. Isn't some of these beliefs against the law?

One might ask why is there so much anexoria, anything that has to do with control and perfectionism. Look around, you see very few girls overweight. How are they treating anexoria, this whole thing is seeming more and more bizarre.  

in answer to @anatess2 that would be impossible if your heart is where you are supposed to be. It is not my intention it is simply my opinion. However your jump to the defense of a church that doesn't need you or me to defend it or my comments could never move its unshakable stability. I am simply asking some questions and they are observations and opinions. Of course they are mine and its regarding a culture that seems very bizarre to a person that is trying to understand it, I am sorry you are not able to see that.

Discussion is good it opens our minds, that's how we learn, by teaching and growing. Surly you can see how something's seem odd to an outsider?

Edited by inquisitive
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, inquisitive said:

in answer to @anatess2 that would be impossible if your heart is where you are supposed to be. It is not my intention it is simply my opinion. However your jump to the defense of a church that doesn't need you or me to defend it or my comments could never move its unshakable stability. I am simply asking some questions and they are observations and opinions. Of course they are mine and its regarding a culture that seems very bizarre to a person that is trying to understand it, I am sorry you are not able to see that.

Discussion is good it opens our minds, that's how we learn, by teaching and growing. Surly you can see how something's seem odd to an outsider?

You're not asking questions.  You're stating falsehoods.  

Discussion is only good if your HEART is open.  Being hurtful to an organization you don't understand is not "learning" or "teaching" or "growing".  "A better question is why would a gay person what to be LDS they will be shamed and ridiculed and never feel loved?"  How do you learn from such a blatant falsehood?   I'm defending MY FAITH from your attempts to bear false witness against it.

I understand you are hurting.  You don't have to hurt the Church to make yourself feel better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, inquisitive said:

@lostinwater  did I just read that correctly, electric shock aversion therapy? Blink, blink are you serious? Who would authorize such insanity. Isn't some of these beliefs against the law?

Shock aversion therapy is still practiced today for, among other things, people wanting to quit tobacco use.  So yes, BYU followed the lead of the broader therapeutic community (including a host of other academic institutions) in using it throughout the 60s and 70s.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, inquisitive said:

Ultimate vision......as long as you have 70 year old men sitting on the seats of the ultimate higher authority, fogeddabout-it no change happening anytime soon.

As i see it, the old school guard thinks you let one in it contaminates the whole gene pool, even though they are in, just closeted and no doubt suffering.

Thats what makes LDS so unique, the perfectionism, trying to be God on earth. What i do see happening is if anyone comes out (as gay) the church ghosting the person (s) trying yet again to

prove that to be a sinner separates you from God, so they make time on earth hell. Now that's just plain mean spirited and judgemental. 

where is the love? LDS is unique to its 1950's charm, its 1800's pioneer busy bee heritage, change is not something that comes easy or naturally. A better question is why would a gay person what to be LDS they will be shamed and ridiculed and never feel loved. Thats my opinion, not big on learning lessons from Jesus, like hate the sin love the sinner. Lying in the dark ages. 

If The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not what it professes to be, then your opinion and statement here have some accuracy; however, if the Church is exactly what it professes to be, then sadly the irony of a person asking about "where is the love?" and talking about an organization being "mean spirited and judgemental" has proven themselves to be mean spirited, judgemental, and without much love.

Ultimate vision...... to continue to do as the Lord has commanded and has made known thus far. How old a person is is irrelevant. If the Church were to change its stance pertaining to "sin" (law of chastity) then the Church isn't what it professes to be. The Church isn't concerned with popular societal movements and philosophies.

Old school guards, as you call them (which isn't very loving, but definitely judgemental), are not concerned about anyone contaminating the gene pool. Surely, there are individuals in the Church who have not come out, and surely some are confused and suffering pertaining to their feelings and the doctrines of the Church. There are other people who have not shared what they are going through and are suffering also.

None of us are trying to be God's on earth. This sadly is another irony of one professing and requesting love, not to be mean spirited, and judgemental while being judgemental and not showing much love either. I wouldn't say mean spirited, but definitely naive and misinformed. Well, sin does separate us from God, this isn't trying to prove anything, this is the natural result of sin. Someone who comes out gay isn't in sin either, unless they are practicing. No different than a male or female who struggles with "lust." They may come and speak with their bishop about their struggle. They are not in sin, unless they act upon their desire. It would be appreciative if you talk about love to be loving yourself.

Change is not something that comes easily to humans, not just organizations. We don't like change, especially if the change hurts, or will cause pain.

Why would a gay person want to join the Church. There are articles and videos of gay people who have joined the Church. You can read or watch these for yourself, and learn from their perspective, if you say you are one that likes to have an open mind. As to what I have seen from these people, it is because the Spirit of the Lord has born witness to them. My experience, these people feel love, but hey, I am just taking what they say at face value, and surely others have not felt much love.

I assume there is a little irony with your last statement and your response to @anatess2. You say, " Discussion is good it opens our minds, that's how we learn, by teaching and growing. Surly you can see how something's seem odd to an outsider?" And then you say, "Thats my opinion, not big on learning lessons from Jesus."

Surely you can see how from the inside you appear to be mean spirited, naive, judgemental, and not showing much love, when you misinform and misinterpret doctrines and behavior of Church members to a public forum?

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

You don't have to hurt the Church to make yourself feel better.

I have found that the wise principle of not hurting or illegitimately denigrating others tends to work only among those engaged in elevating endeavors.  

Whereas, denigrating others, oft illegitimately, is about all that is left to feign leveling or pretend superiority for those bent on degenerate causes and courting perversion.

Unfortunately, though, it ultimately fools no one, and in the end diminishes one and all, but mostly one, and this in addition to the degenerate causes. 

It may be but one of many flaws of human nature.

This is why the principle of repentance, as well as the remainder of the gospel of Christ, is of such value....It can turn the cascade of decline towards progress.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

Old school guards, as you call them (which isn't very loving, but definitely judgemental), are not concerned about anyone contaminating the gene pool. 

Here’s how the old, old felt about homosexuality. Fortunately progress has been made since then. 

On 12 September 1962, apostles Spencer Kimball and Mark Peterson and BYU President Ernest Wilkinson agreed on a university policy that "no one will be admitted as a student ... whom we have convincing evidence is a homosexual."[2]:379 They agreed to share information about individuals cases of homosexual members between general church administration and BYU administration.[24] This policy was reiterated in Wilkinson's address to BYU in September 1965 when he stated "we [do not] intend to admit to this campus any homosexuals. ... f any of you have this tendency, ... may I suggest you leave the University immediately .... We do not want others on this campus to be contaminated by your presence."[25][26] The next month general authorities again stated that the "University does not permit any known homosexual to enter or remain at BYU", though they decided "for the purposes of admission or retention at BYU" that masturbation (or "self abuse") was "not considered homosexuality."[27] This decision forbidding the enrollment of homosexuals at BYU was again repeated in meetings on 27 January 1966 and 25 January 1968 and was codified in the 1967 version of the Honor code. The approved version read "homosexuality will not be tolerated", while the proposed sentence banning "masturbation" was removed in committee.[28]

 

It’s interesting to note that back then they were calling people homosexuals. They now say that there is no such thing as a homosexual, only people with same sex attraction. Saying a person is homosexual implies a physical trait while same sex attraction implies a behavior. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Here’s how the old, old felt about homosexuality. Fortunately progress has been made since then. 

On 12 September 1962, apostles Spencer Kimball and Mark Peterson and BYU President Ernest Wilkinson agreed on a university policy that "no one will be admitted as a student ... whom we have convincing evidence is a homosexual."[2]:379 They agreed to share information about individuals cases of homosexual members between general church administration and BYU administration.[24] This policy was reiterated in Wilkinson's address to BYU in September 1965 when he stated "we [do not] intend to admit to this campus any homosexuals. ... f any of you have this tendency, ... may I suggest you leave the University immediately .... We do not want others on this campus to be contaminated by your presence."[25][26] The next month general authorities again stated that the "University does not permit any known homosexual to enter or remain at BYU", though they decided "for the purposes of admission or retention at BYU" that masturbation (or "self abuse") was "not considered homosexuality."[27] This decision forbidding the enrollment of homosexuals at BYU was again repeated in meetings on 27 January 1966 and 25 January 1968 and was codified in the 1967 version of the Honor code. The approved version read "homosexuality will not be tolerated", while the proposed sentence banning "masturbation" was removed in committee.[28]

 

It’s interesting to note that back then they were calling people homosexuals. They now say that there is no such thing as a homosexual, only people with same sex attraction. Saying a person is homosexual implies a physical trait while same sex attraction implies a behavior. 

And there was no gay Mormon suicide epidemic then, was there?

Correlation = causation, amirite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

They now say that there is no such thing as a homosexual, only people with same sex attraction. Saying a person is homosexual implies a physical trait while same sex attraction implies a behavior. 

This is a lovely misquote of Elder Bednar's statement, which is what I am thinking you are referring to as he is the only one I have heard/read who stated, "There are no homosexuals in the Church." Please, as a member, do not misinterpret/misrepresent an apostles statement to try to prove a point.

It would be wise to also provide the clarification provided as to why Elder Bednar mentioned there are no homosexuals in the Church. Since you also say "They" can you provide the other 14's comments where they have equally said there are no homosexuals in the Church?

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

And there was no gay Mormon suicide epidemic then, was there?

Correlation = causation, amirite?

I can't speak specifically to Mormonism, but throughout the United States, the rate of homosexual-related social ills (including suicides) have markedly increased with acceptance of homosexuality, and same-sex marriage in particular. (See HERE)

It appears that people are intent on learning the hard way that "wickedness never was happiness."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BJ64 said:

There were likely few gay Mormons back then because they were promptly excommunicated.

That has zero relevance to gays committing suicide in Utah.  Unless you're going to claim they got excommunicated from Utah or the USA altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

This is a lovely misquote of Elder Bednar's statement, which is what I am thinking you are referring to as he is the only one I have heard/read who stated, "There are no homosexuals in the Church." Please, as a member, do not misinterpret/misrepresent an apostles statement to try to prove a point.

It would be wise to also provide the clarification provided as to why Elder Bednar mentioned there are no homosexuals in the Church. Since you also say "They" can you provide the other 14's comments where they have equally said there are no homosexuals in the Church?

I wasn’t quoting Elder Bednar I was quoting general church policy. I will find that quote. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

That has zero relevance to gays committing suicide in Utah.  Unless you're going to claim they got excommunicated from Utah or the USA altogether.

It means that if they weren't Mormons they weren’t Mormon suicides 

Edited by BJ64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

 

It’s interesting to note that back then they were calling people homosexuals. They now say that there is no such thing as a homosexual, only people with same sex attraction. Saying a person is homosexual implies a physical trait while same sex attraction implies a behavior. 

According to the  Wiki article, cited in your quote, the current policies reads: in part, "any behaviors that indicate homosexual conduct, including those not sexual in nature, are inappropriate and violate the Honor Code." (bold and underline mine)

 Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

It means that if they were Mormons they were Mormon suicides

Ok, I'm confused.  How does "Mormon suicides" coincide/correlate with the high rate of suicides in Utah (or lack thereof) in the period you are claiming where they got excommunicated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, wenglund said:

According to the  Wiki article, cited in your quote, the current policies reads: in part, "any behaviors that indicate homosexual conduct, including those not sexual in nature, are inappropriate and violate the Honor Code." (bold and underline mine)

 Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Yes. Same sex hugging, kissing and hand holding are against the honor code. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Ok, I'm confused.  How does "Mormon suicides" coincide/correlate with the high rate of suicides in Utah (or lack thereof) in the period you are claiming where they got excommunicated?

My original statement had nothing to do with suicide. It’s you all that are trying to correlate what I said to the Utah suicide rate. I was merely calling attention to the changes in attitudes about homosexuality among church leaders from the sixties to today.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Actually,  the studies often cited (see HERE) are regarding "Mormon communities," or "Mormon and ex-Mormons" or "Utah,", so your assumption may not be accurate.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That was a typo that I corrected but nevertheless my long post was nothing about suicide. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

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