Children with gay parents

[Vort]

Perhaps it's worth asking whether Jesus showed, or shows, "tolerance" toward deviant lifestyles.

In one sense, he obviously does. We do not live the way we ought, yet he still talks to us, still guides us, still lets us know his will as much as we can take. He does not leave us to our own destruction, wallowing in our filth with no divine guidance. Surely his willingness to communicate with us should not be taken as a de facto approval of our sinful state, yet the fact that he does not leave us in the cold suggests that there is in fact some divine tolerance for moral deviancy.

On the other hand, I am trying to think of a time where the Lord actually said, "Such-and-such might be a sin, but for now I'm not going to worry about it." I'm coming up empty. Homosexual conduct is a known evil, so what are the odds that God would say, "Well, never mind about that, I guess; you are obviously not spiritually advanced enough to live a non-homosexual covenant"?

One might possibly argue against iamdiamd's and let's roll's bluntness, but I do not see how the principles they are advocating can be denied. It seems to me that, insofar as we are unwilling to call a spade a spade—or more precisely, to call a sin a sin—we are being less than honest and are contributing to the problem.

Edited October 25, 2018 by Vort

[NeuroTypical]

14 minutes ago, Vort said:

On the other hand, I am trying to think of a time where the Lord actually said, "Such-and-such might be a sin, but for now I'm not going to worry about it." I'm coming up empty.

Here you go:

Quote

They say unto him, "Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?"
...
[H]e lifted up himself, and said unto them, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."
...
When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, "Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?" She said, "No man, Lord." And Jesus said unto her, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."

 

Edited October 25, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[Vort]

40 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Here you go:

Quote

They say unto him, "Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?"
...
[H]e lifted up himself, and said unto them, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."
...
When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, "Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?" She said, "No man, Lord." And Jesus said unto her, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."

No way. Jesus never implied that adultery "didn't count", or that it wasn't going to be a big deal for that period of time. He simply refused to condemn the guilty woman at that moment, because the time for condemnation had not come. He came into the world to save the world, not to condemn it. In no reasonable way can this be considered a "suspension of the law".

"Go ahead and commit adultery, I guess, because you obviously aren't ready for the higher law," said Jesus to the woman never in any setting.

[Guest MormonGator]

18 hours ago, iamdiamd said:

I do not use the term lightly and I most certainly do not throw it around. 

People say that when they've just thrown around words and statements. It's like saying 'I'm not racist, but I hate Russian, Japanese and Irish people." Well, turns out you are racist, huh? Or, "I don't throw around words like narcissist or child abuse, but he's a narcissist and guilty of child abuse." Well turns out you do throw them around. 

Edited October 25, 2018 by MormonGator

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Perhaps it's worth asking whether Jesus showed, or shows, "tolerance" toward deviant lifestyles.

People don't understand what tolerance means. Tolerance implies disapproval. I don't like potatoes, but I tolerate them when served because I don't want to be a pest. While I'm extremely hesitant to describe what our Savior did during his time on earth, given that he hung around with tax collectors I'm 100% confident he "tolerated" certain lifestyles. 

[zil]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

People don't understand what tolerance means.

Tolerance is the range of acceptable variation from a specified quantity.  You could relate it to how precise a measurement is.  For example, one of the balances at work might have a tolerance of ±0.0001g.  Or, when making media, the tolerance on an ingredient might be ±0.2g.

See?  Tolerance. 

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, zil said:

Tolerance is the range of acceptable variation from a specified quantity.  You could relate it to how precise a measurement is.  For example, one of the balances at work might have a tolerance of ±0.0001g.  Or, when making media, the tolerance on an ingredient might be ±0.2g.

See?  Tolerance. 

And we better not be having potatoes tonight either. 

[iamdiamd]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

People say that when they've just thrown around words and statements. It's like saying 'I'm not racist, but I hate Russian, Japanese and Irish people." Well, turns out you are racist, huh? Or, "I don't throw around words like narcissist or child abuse, but he's a narcissist and guilty of child abuse." Well turns out you do throw them around. 

You've got a skewed view of being able to read other people's thoughts. Good to know you know my heart, should i pray to you too?

[Guest MormonGator]

10 minutes ago, iamdiamd said:

should i pray to you too?

You should pay tithing to me,  but I'll accept prayer too. Good suggestion! 

 

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

No way. Jesus never implied that adultery "didn't count", or that it wasn't going to be a big deal for that period of time. He simply refused to condemn the guilty woman at that moment, because the time for condemnation had not come. He came into the world to save the world, not to condemn it. In no reasonable way can this be considered a "suspension of the law".

"Go ahead and commit adultery, I guess, because you obviously aren't ready for the higher law," said Jesus to the woman never in any setting.

It should be clearly noted as well that he was speaking directly of law-of-Moses legal condemnation: as in stoning. The men brought her to be stoned. He basically said, "No one's here to stone you? Well I'm not going to either. Now go and repent."

Edited October 26, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

People don't understand what tolerance means. Tolerance implies disapproval. I don't like potatoes, but I tolerate them when served because I don't want to be a pest. While I'm extremely hesitant to describe what our Savior did during his time on earth, given that he hung around with tax collectors I'm 100% confident he "tolerated" certain lifestyles. 

Depends on what you mean. Tolerance is a spectrum. If one means he didn't kill everyone who sinned...yes...he "tolerated" them in that regard. If you mean he sat silently and didn't say anything while smiling friendly-like...no...he did not do that. He called sinners to repentance everywhere he went.

[wenglund]

7 hours ago, Vort said:

Perhaps it's worth asking whether Jesus showed, or shows, "tolerance" toward deviant lifestyles.

In one sense, he obviously does. We do not live the way we ought, yet he still talks to us, still guides us, still lets us know his will as much as we can take. He does not leave us to our own destruction, wallowing in our filth with no divine guidance. Surely his willingness to communicate with us should not be taken as a de facto approval of our sinful state, yet the fact that he does not leave us in the cold suggests that there is in fact some divine tolerance for moral deviancy.

On the other hand, I am trying to think of a time where the Lord actually said, "Such-and-such might be a sin, but for now I'm not going to worry about it." I'm coming up empty. Homosexual conduct is a known evil, so what are the odds that God would say, "Well, never mind about that, I guess; you are obviously not spiritually advanced enough to live a non-homosexual covenant"?

One might possibly argue against iamdiamd's and let's roll's bluntness, but I do not see how the principles they are advocating can be denied. It seems to me that, insofar as we are unwilling to call a spade a spade—or more precisely, to call a sin a sin—we are being less than honest and are contributing to the problem.

Good point. 

On the other hand, when I served my mission years ago it was Church policy to get permission from the parents to teach their children, and permission from one of the spouses to teach the other, spouse, particularly husbands. Even today with Home Teaching and Ministering, we are advised to be sensitive to non-member spouses and gain their permission to enter the home or even interact in certain situations. It seems a far cry from telling the non-member that they are living in sin.

To me, this doesn't suggest that the Church is unaware of the potential eternal consequences of such a policy, or deny the need to speak plainly at times. It just seems as though during mortality the Church, as a general rule, places a priority on keeping "families" (however the world defines it)_ together during this life particularly given missionary work on the other side of the veil..

Even still, as you intimated, there were prominent individuals who decried, as if from a watch tower, sinful cultural tenancies.  Isaiah and Alma and Samuel the Laminite and Paul come to mind in addition to Christ.  Even political figures like Alexander Solzhenitsyn were necessary warning voices. And, there are less predominate voices carrying forth the message of those on the watchtower--several on this thread numbered among them.

The way I reconcile this is believing that both are necessary. In a way, it is beneficial to render unto Caesar,... while also  yelling, "Hey, you are walking into a cultural minefield.."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The Folk Prophet]

11 hours ago, wenglund said:

It seems a far cry from telling the non-member that they are living in sin.

Of course no one is advocating going up and knocking on anyone's door and pronouncing the household sinful. We're not crazy people, for the most part. If someone advocated for that...we'd all decry them as crazy.

There is a clear, obvious, and common-sense difference between speaking truth in an open forum or from the platform and actively and aggressively hunting down individuals with the same message.

11 hours ago, wenglund said:

It just seems as though during mortality the Church, as a general rule, places a priority on keeping "families" (however the world defines it)_ together during this life particularly given missionary work on the other side of the veil.

I disbelieve this. I don't think a "never-mind in this life. We'll solve it in the next" approach ever really works. Instead it's always, "do your very best in this life, and then it will be solved in the next". I'll grant that sometimes the "do your best" equates to something that feels like, "never mind", but I don't think gay couples staying in their gay lives having their gay sex fits the bill of "never mind" in any regard.

The church has no interest in keeping gay couples together. None at all. In fact I would dare say that the primary hope behind the policy would be that the gay couple split up, both of them repent fully,  faithfully marry someone of the opposite sex, and then the child can be baptized into the church, no longer restricted by the messed up home life they were once in.

 

[wenglund]

38 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I disbelieve this. I don't think a "never-mind in this life. We'll solve it in the next" approach ever really works. Instead it's always, "do your very best in this life, and then it will be solved in the next". I'll grant that sometimes the "do your best" equates to something that feels like, "never mind", but I don't think gay couples staying in their gay lives having their gay sex fits the bill of "never mind" in any regard.

The church has no interest in keeping gay couples together. None at all. In fact I would dare say that the primary hope behind the policy would be that the gay couple split up, both of them repent fully,  faithfully marry someone of the opposite sex, and then the child can be baptized into the church, no longer restricted by the messed up home life they were once in.

 

That may be the hope as unlikely as it seems. However the Church's policy seems intent on not pitting the children against their parents--ie keeping families together, at least until the children reach majority age and leave the household. (see HERE).  The focus is on the  sinless children rather than the sinful parents as well as the ""current and future well being and harmony of their home environment." In other words, at least during mortality the church is prioritizing the home environment over saving and priesthood ordinances, with the understanding that the saving ordinances and priesthood advancement will eventually be made available where appropriate, whether in this life or the next.

At least that is how I see it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The Folk Prophet]

14 minutes ago, wenglund said:

the Church's policy seems intent on not pitting the children against their parents--ie keeping families together

It's the "ie" that people seem to have consternation over, one way or the other, because they translate "keeping families together" as "keeping gay couples together" instead of "keeping children in a stable environment where they won't starve"

[wenglund]

18 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It's the "ie" that people seem to have consternation over, one way or the other, because they translate "keeping families together" as "keeping gay couples together" instead of "keeping children in a stable environment where they won't starve"

If I meant the former rather than the latter I would have said "ie. keep the parents together." But, I can see how it can be interpreted  otherwise. What is important is that you now know what I meant by "keep families together." [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The Folk Prophet]

17 minutes ago, wenglund said:

If I meant the former rather than the latter I would have said "ie. keep the parents together." But, I can see how it can be interpreted  otherwise. What is important is that you now know what I meant by "keep families together." [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't think I've ever worried about your understanding of things. It's other's understandings that are the problem, imo.

[iamdiamd]

On 10/25/2018 at 12:43 AM, lostinwater said:

So this is just a question.  i'm not looking for a fight.

But have you ever directly observed any of the people in these households?  Or talked with and asked the people how they, themselves, having had first hand experiences, feel about their situation?  

It doesn't matter if I've never directly observed any of the people in the household or talked with them or had first hand experiences.  

I know how to raise children.  And in every way, shape and form putting a child in a household with two homosexuals is absolutely emotional and spiritual child abuse.

One of the biggest lies in our modern society about raising children to be adults is that all they need is "love". It's such a tripe.  All a child needs is someone who "loves" them and that takes care of everything.  Totally 100% false.  Raising a child to be an adult is all about teaching, training, discipline and love.  It is about modeling to a child appropriate human behaviors, inappropriate human behaviors, it's about modeling proper human relationships.

Any homosexual who raising a child in a homosexual household, unequivocally does not have the child's best interest at heart.  Any homosexual couple who is raising a child together, is extremely self-centered and narcissitic; they wrap it up in "love".  They aren't parents, they are care-takers, baby-sitters, modeling a despicable lifestyle to an innocent child.  We aren't just born and then viola we magically are who we are with no input.  We are shaped, molded, formed.  We absolutely have our own free will, agency and personality, but anyone who has children can clearly see we are molded and shaped. 

Every day of the entire life a child raised in a homosexual household is being modeled a wicked and perverse lifestyle-every single day.  They will see them kiss, hug, etc.  They will grow up missing a critical aspect of understanding male/female relationships.  This isn't like just missing one part of the whole (single-parent households), it's ripping one part out and replacing it with a fake "family" and then everyone around them pretends like it's so wonderful b/c they want to virtue signal to the world how "tolerant" they are.  Yet no one has the guts to actually tell the child (even later on in life), you know what, that situation you grew up in was absolutely horribly messed up-so incredibly wrong and evil.  Any child raised in a homosexual household will almost certainly have mental or emotional problems down the road, hence child abuse.

This is not like single-parent homes; there are many legitimate reasons why a suboptimal family situation such as single-parent household arise; it could be through death, sickness, or wickedness on the part of one spouse.  There is no legitimate reason for a homosexual couple with children-it can only exist due to force of law.

It really is quite sad at how wicked of a society we have become, where even inside the Church members can't determine right from wrong and they can't stand up for what's right. We are a wicked culture and we are unrighteous in the Church-we like to pretend we are righteous, but as a whole we are not (this is self-evident by the number of members who look at pornography and support such wickedness as SSM or homosexuals with children).

Edited October 27, 2018 by iamdiamd

[iamdiamd]

On 10/24/2018 at 9:00 PM, Fether said:

Being raised in a homosexual home is as much child abuse as it is to raise a child without FHE, family scripture study, parents that attend the temple regularly, or parents that don’t magnify their callings.

You are blinded my brother and for that I'm sorry.  Homosexuality isn't a sin of omission.  It's not just "good people" who mess up, it is one of the grossest sins out there.  It messes with God's greatest gift-the power to give life.  Have you ever noticed how God condemns the sins that deal with the giving of life and the taking of life the worst?

Homosexuality takes God's ordained structure for bringing new life into this world turns it on it's head and pretends that it is great.  You ought to see what homosexuals and homosexualist inside the church proclaim about homosexuals and children. They proclaim that homosexuals make better parents b/c they love their children more, they make better parents b/c they know what it's like to be on the margins.  It's a pack of lies.

I do not wish any harm on homosexuals, only that they repent, turn to God, change their desires, change their hearts and allow Christ to take their sins. Because if they don't, it will not be well with them at the last day.

[iamdiamd]

On 10/25/2018 at 1:22 AM, let’s roll said:

Thanks for explaining your point of view.  I’d suggest to you that by loving all of God’s children we are demonstrating the highest form of keeping both the 1st and 2nd commandments.

I’d also suggest that loving our brothers and sisters involves much more than what, if anything, we say to them.  It includes recognizing and valuing their divine heritage, their premortal valiance, their infinite worth: all of which would engender a tenderness of heart toward each one.  It also includes forgiveness, both to those who have offended or mistreated us personally and those who engage in activities that offend God. 

Underpinned with that tenderness and forgiveness and in the context of explaining to them our belief in their divine heritage, premortal vigilance and infinite worth, I agree we can explain God’s plan of happiness to them and invite them to accept His invitation to follow that plan.

If that’s what you meant to communicate in your post, I wholeheartedly concur.

I agree with much of what you wrote.  Yet how can I "tolerate" homosexuality if it undermines their divine heritage.  They weren't born homosexuals, something happened, something went wrong-either in action or in frame of mind. 

I disagree with " I’d suggest to you that by loving all of God’s children we are demonstrating the highest form of keeping both the 1st and 2nd commandments".  Totally false. 1st Commandment is to love God. We love God by keeping his commandments. We don't love God by only loving others-that is a humanists philosophy not a religious philosophy and it's not based upon scripture.  Before we can obey the 2nd commandment of loving others, we must obey the first.  To say that to love others is the "highest form" of keeping the 1st and the 2nd is completely wrong-if that were the case, then there should only be one commandment, not two.

To love God, means we must first understand what his commandments are.  What does God expect us to do (and it's not just "loving others").  His commandments include things like "keeping the Sabbath day holy", "no other Gods","no swearings","no lusting after strange flesh", there is a slew of commandments of how we are to personally conduct ourselves. Only once we know what God's commandments are can we implement Commandment #2-loving others.  

What does loving others really mean?  It's way deeper than just saying "I love you", it's way deeper than just giving someone a helping hand, a pat on the back, a kind word.  Those things are part of it-but that is not all of it at all.

I love my children dearly-yet many times I must discipline them.  To truly love my children is to properly lead them in the way they should live their life!  It means when appropriate saying words of encouragement, but also to not sugar-coat things. When they screw up, to let them know and to teach them-that was bad, don't do that. Sometimes that discipline requires very drastic measure.  And most importantly it requires the Rod of God-i.e. the Word of God.

To properly love someone else and to properly implement the 2nd commandment is to teach them about the Rod of God.  When you leave out the Rod, then you might as well not have a religion and the 2nd commandment means nothing.

Edited October 27, 2018 by iamdiamd

[lostinwater]

3 minutes ago, iamdiamd said:

It doesn't matter if I've never directly observed any of the people in the household or talked with them or had first hand experiences.  

I know how to raise children.  And in every way, shape and form putting a child in a household with two homosexuals is absolutely emotional and spiritual child abuse.

One of the biggest lies in our modern society about raising children to be adults is that all they need is "love". It's such a tripe.  All a child needs is someone who "loves" them and that takes care of everything.  Totally 100% false.  Raising a child to be an adult is all about teaching, training, discipline and love.  It is about modeling to a child appropriate human behaviors, inappropriate human behaviors, it's about modeling proper human relationships.

Any homosexual who raising a child in a homosexual household, unequivocally does not have the child's best interest at heart.  Any homosexual couple who is raising a child together, is extremely self-centered and narcissitic; they wrap it up in "love".  They aren't parents, they are care-takers, baby-sitters, modeling a despicable lifestyle to an innocent child.  We aren't just born and then viola we magically are who we are with no input.  We are shaped, molded, formed.  We absolutely have our own free will, agency and personality, but anyone who has children can clearly see we are molded and shaped. 

This is not like single-parent homes; there are many legitimate reasons why a suboptimal family situation such as single-parent household arise; it could be through death, sickness, or wickedness on the part of one spouse.  There is no legitimate reason for a homosexual couple with children-it can only exist due to force of law.

It really is quite sad at how wicked of a society we have become, where even inside the Church members can't determine right from wrong and they can't stand up for what's right. We are a wicked culture and we are unrighteous in the Church-we like to pretend we are righteous, but as a whole we are not (this is self-evident by the number of members who look at pornography and support such wickedness as SSM or homosexuals with children).

Thank-you.

Fair enough.  i have a feeling like arguing with you in any way, shape, or form wouldn't do any good.

Though you know, i felt very much similar to you once.  i *knew* - objectively *knew* i was right.  That "those people" and "their filthy despicable lifestyle" was wrong.  That they were trying to spread their lifestyle, and had to be stopped, put down, silenced.  

But God has a way of cutting a person down to size - and that's certainly what happened to me.  

i'm not saying that there aren't some really horrible situations involving same-sex marriage.  There are.  i'm not saying there aren't people who are missionaries of the same sex lifestyle and who push it in every way they possibly can - to entirely inappropriate audiences.  There are.  But i've believe that no ideology or group of people have a monopoly on stupidity, overly aggressive marketing, extremism, hypocrisy, and bigotry.  And that the quickest way to losing your ability to love someone is to generalize them to whatever concepts we have about their "tribe".

That's certainly what i had done.  i had grabbed a giant brush and painted a scarlet letter on the chests of millions of individuals, and so felt entirely justified to spew forth my self-righteous indignation - never once considering that my fiery rhetoric was likely pushing many into the dark and hopeless corners which i was only too happy to condemn them for inhabiting.  Or if not pushing them into, at very least doing a disastrously successful job of pushing them back into.

i still wonder how many people might have actually believed i was right when i attempted to tell them how God felt about them and how they lived - when really, i was just telling them how i thought that God felt about them and how they lived.  

i pray that most were wise enough to ignore me.  Looking back, the ones who were - they were so busy trying to survive and do their level best that even myself at the time would have had a near impossible time distinguishing between them and a Mom or Dad whose sister or brother respectively came to help them out take care of the kids for a weekend.

Anyways, i would recommend you actually ask some of these kids and their parents and observe them.  Maybe each of you could teach the other something (because i think you have some valid points), and both sides would walk away a little better, with a lot less misunderstanding and mutual disrespect floating around.  Seems like that would make the world a better place.  

[let’s roll]

36 minutes ago, iamdiamd said:

I agree with much of what you wrote.  Yet how can I "tolerate" homosexuality if it undermines their divine heritage.  They weren't born homosexuals, something happened, something went wrong-either in action or in frame of mind. 

I disagree with " I’d suggest to you that by loving all of God’s children we are demonstrating the highest form of keeping both the 1st and 2nd commandments".  Totally false. 1st Commandment is to love God. We love God by keeping his commandments. We don't love God by only loving others-that is a humanists philosophy not a religious philosophy and it's not based upon scripture.  Before we can obey the 2nd commandment of loving others, we must obey the first.  To say that to love others is the "highest form" of keeping the 1st and the 2nd is completely wrong-if that were the case, then there should only be one commandment, not two.

To love God, means we must first understand what his commandments are.  What does God expect us to do (and it's not just "loving others").  His commandments include things like "keeping the Sabbath day holy", "no other Gods","no swearings","no lusting after strange flesh", there is a slew of commandments of how we are to personally conduct ourselves. Only once we know what God's commandments are can we implement Commandment #2-loving others.  

What does loving others really mean?  It's way deeper than just saying "I love you", it's way deeper than just giving someone a helping hand, a pat on the back, a kind word.  Those things are part of it-but that is not all of it at all.

I love my children dearly-yet many times I must discipline them.  To truly love my children is to properly lead them in the way they should live their life!  It means when appropriate saying words of encouragement, but also to not sugar-coat things. When they screw up, to let them know and to teach them-that was bad, don't do that. Sometimes that discipline requires very drastic measure.  And most importantly it requires the Rod of God-i.e. the Word of God.

To properly love someone else and to properly implement the 2nd commandment is to teach them about the Rod of God.  When you leave out the Rod, then you might as well not have a religion and the 2nd commandment means nothing.

To be frank, the more you explain yourself, the less I agree with you.  

Lots of faulty logic and bad analogies.  Two brief examples.  You say the way we keep the 1st Commandment to love God is to keep His other commandments.  Taking that statement as true, if you could only obey one of His commandments wouldn’t it necessarily be the 2nd Commandment which Jesus said was”like unto” the 1st, and that ALL other commandments are appertaining to those two.  Thus my “highest form” comment.

The reference to discipline as showing love for our children is a faulty analogy when referring to the love we are to show to our brothers and sisters.  They are not our children, they are His children.  He will discipline if necessary, we are to love and forgive.

 

[Guest Scott]

Quote

They weren't born homosexuals, something happened, something went wrong-either in action or in frame of mind. 

Here are some Church sources, including what Elder Jeffery R Holland said on the matter.  Interpret them as you will.  

I don't know if they were born with it or not (the above sources don't say either way), but they do indicate that people can be tempted with same gender attraction through no fault of their own (just like the rest of us have other temptations).  

https://mormonandgay.lds.org/articles/church-teachings

We may not know precisely why some people feel attracted to others of the same sex, but for some it is a complex reality and part of the human experience.

.......

While same-sex attraction is not a sin, it can be a challenge. While one may not have chosen to have these feelings, he or she can commit to keep God’s commandments. 

Jeffery R Holland had this to say on the matter:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2007/10/helping-those-who-struggle-with-same-gender-attraction?lang=eng

Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction

A pleasant young man in his early 20s sat across from me. He had an engaging smile, although he didn’t smile often during our talk. What drew me in was the pain in his eyes.

“I don’t know if I should remain a member of the Church,” he said. “I don’t think I’m worthy.”

“Why wouldn’t you be worthy?” I asked.

“I’m gay.”

I suppose he thought I would be startled. I wasn’t. “And … ?” I inquired.

A flicker of relief crossed his face as he sensed my continued interest. “I’m not attracted to women. I’m attracted to men. I’ve tried to ignore these feelings or change them, but …”

He sighed. “Why am I this way? The feelings are very real.”

I paused, then said, “I need a little more information before advising you. You see, same-gender attraction is not a sin, but acting on those feelings is—just as it would be with heterosexual feelings. Do you violate the law of chastity?”

He shook his head. “No, I don’t.”

This time I was relieved. “Thank you for wanting to deal with this,” I said. “It takes courage to talk about it, and I honor you for keeping yourself clean.

“As for why you feel as you do, I can’t answer that question. A number of factors may be involved, and they can be as different as people are different. Some things, including the cause of your feelings, we may never know in this life. 

...............

Next, if you are a parent of one with same-gender attraction, don’t assume you are the reason for those feelings. No one, including the one struggling, should try to shoulder blame. Nor should anyone place blame on another—including God. Walk by faith, and help your loved one deal the best he or she can with this challenge.

................

In doing so, recognize that marriage is not an all-purpose solution. Same-gender attractions run deep, and trying to force a heterosexual relationship is not likely to change them. We are all thrilled when some who struggle with these feelings are able to marry, raise children, and achieve family happiness. But other attempts have resulted in broken hearts and broken homes.

 

 

Edited October 27, 2018 by Scott

[let’s roll]

1 hour ago, iamdiamd said:

I agree with much of what you wrote.  Yet how can I "tolerate" homosexuality if it undermines their divine heritage.  They weren't born homosexuals, something happened, something went wrong-either in action or in frame of mind. 

I disagree with " I’d suggest to you that by loving all of God’s children we are demonstrating the highest form of keeping both the 1st and 2nd commandments".  Totally false. 1st Commandment is to love God. We love God by keeping his commandments. We don't love God by only loving others-that is a humanists philosophy not a religious philosophy and it's not based upon scripture.  Before we can obey the 2nd commandment of loving others, we must obey the first.  To say that to love others is the "highest form" of keeping the 1st and the 2nd is completely wrong-if that were the case, then there should only be one commandment, not two.

To love God, means we must first understand what his commandments are.  What does God expect us to do (and it's not just "loving others").  His commandments include things like "keeping the Sabbath day holy", "no other Gods","no swearings","no lusting after strange flesh", there is a slew of commandments of how we are to personally conduct ourselves. Only once we know what God's commandments are can we implement Commandment #2-loving others.  

What does loving others really mean?  It's way deeper than just saying "I love you", it's way deeper than just giving someone a helping hand, a pat on the back, a kind word.  Those things are part of it-but that is not all of it at all.

I love my children dearly-yet many times I must discipline them.  To truly love my children is to properly lead them in the way they should live their life!  It means when appropriate saying words of encouragement, but also to not sugar-coat things. When they screw up, to let them know and to teach them-that was bad, don't do that. Sometimes that discipline requires very drastic measure.  And most importantly it requires the Rod of God-i.e. the Word of God.

To properly love someone else and to properly implement the 2nd commandment is to teach them about the Rod of God.  When you leave out the Rod, then you might as well not have a religion and the 2nd commandment means nothing.

Since we been invited to teach in the Savior’s way, let me offer two other brief thoughts for your consideration, using the Savior’s teachings.

When Jesus responded to a question regarding who the neighbors are that we are to love by telling the story of the Good Samaritan, he contrasted the Samaritan’s willing heart and hands with those who knew the law but “passed on the other side” refusing to interact with one in need.  You responded to another poster that you have had no contact or communication with parents or children in same sex households and didn’t need to have any.   I’d invite you to consider whether the Savior might view that as “passing on the other side.”

A second thought.  In interacting with the man who asked how he could obtain eternal life, the scriptures say Jesus “loved him.”  Why?  Certainly because He knew of his divine heritage, premortal valiance, and willingness to obey the law he’d been taught in his youth.  But He also loved him knowing that he wasn’t yet ready to follow Him.  And when he demonstrated that weakness, there was no judgment or condemnation.  It was not a time for judgment, but for invitations and agency.

Godspeed and best wishes to you.

[iamdiamd]

12 hours ago, let’s roll said:

 You responded to another poster that you have had no contact or communication with parents or children in same sex households and didn’t need to have any.   

Some things for you to consider.  Do you need to have contact with an abusive husband to know that it is bad?  Do you need to have contact with an adulterer to know that what they are doing is wrong?  Why are you making a special carve-out for this special sin?

12 hours ago, let’s roll said:

But He also loved him knowing that he wasn’t yet ready to follow Him.  And when he demonstrated that weakness, there was no judgment or condemnation.  It was not a time for judgment, but for invitations and agency.

You do not understand the scriptures.  We are commanded to judge.  Not unrighteous judgement.  You are making a judgement that children raised in a homosexual environment suffer no harm. That is a judgement.