Struggling with LGBT

[LDSreliance]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I wonder if this is really as common as some think it is. 

It is not very common, I don't think.  I illustrated the two extremes on either side of the spectrum but I am sure it is like a bell curve and the vast majority fall somewhere in the middle.

Unfortunately, it seems that not embracing some lifestyles is seen by some as condemning and judging, though, so there may not be much functional difference.

For example, my parents in law told their oldest daughter that she could not show any PDA or sleep in the same bed as her married lesbian partner at their summer cabin where the extended family gathers for reunions each year.  They did not take that well and chose not to come at all and distance themselves from the rest of the family, for the most part.

That kind of situation makes it very hard to show love to the person but not condone their behavior and lifestyle.

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, LDSGator said:

I’m sure it happens, but I don't think it happens as much as people think it does. I imagine it would take a lot for a parent to cut off communication with their child. That's harsh. 
 

Sometimes, it’s the choice of the adult offspring to cut ties with their parents instead. 😞 

 

 

Good childhood friend of mine—now gay—recently posted on Facebook to the effect that if you maintain contact with a gay person but aren’t openly affirming their lifestyle, the gay person is basically doing you a favor by keeping you in their life at all.

Which raises the possibility that maybe some of these folks’ families are cutting them off—not because of their sexuality, but because they’ve developed entitlement mentalities/persecution complexes which ultimately made them so insufferable that their families finally just got tired of tiptoeing around them.

Edited December 17, 2022 by Just_A_Guy

[LDSreliance]

2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Good childhood friend of mine—now gay—recently posted on Facebook to the effect that if you maintain contact with a gay person but aren’t openly affirming their lifestyle, the gay person is basically doing you a favor by keeping you in their life at all.

Yeah, that is sad.  Somehow it is binary where society says isn't possible to both be friends or associate or be family with someone that is LGBT or transgender and also believe that their actions are wrong.

20 years ago I used to work with quite a few gay men and women and it was no big deal.  They kept their lifestyle to themselves, for the most part, and we all got along and were friends and it was all very comfortable.  Now, that same situation would be miserable and uncomfortable unless I was outspoken in celebration of the movement.

[LDSGator]

11 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Good childhood friend of mine—now gay—recently posted on Facebook to the effect that if you maintain contact with a gay person but aren’t openly affirming their lifestyle, the gay person is basically doing you a favor by keeping you in their life at all.

Which raises the possibility that maybe some of these folks’ families are cutting them off—not because of their sexuality, but because they’ve developed entitlement mentalities/persecution complexes which ultimately made them so insufferable that their families finally just got tired of tiptoeing around them.

Maybe, but I’m old school. It’s just more sad than anything else to see that family estrangement. I don’t care who began it. Really, really sad. 

Edited December 17, 2022 by LDSGator

[Grunt]

On 12/14/2022 at 8:59 PM, Vort said:

Yes, no, yes.

This.  Thus far, my kids are doing a decent job recognizing good from bad and accepting that people make bad choices.  We'll see how that shapes up as they get older.

[LineUponLine]

Mosiah 3:19: “For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint.

 

I haven't read everything that has been said on the matter in this thread but when I think of the Celestial Kingdom I don't see anyone LGBTQ+ and I think the points in The Family A Proclamation to the World will be very evident. Sex AND Gender have a place in the eternities and they have purpose. I think there will be some variety in personality, I don't think we will all be identical and robotic, fitting a mold where everyone acts exactly the same way, but we will be living a set Celestial (and Terrestrial and Telestial respectively) law which will not permit that which would make other Celestial beings uncomfortable. We live in a world where support and love have to equal the same thing. Our Heavenly Father loves each child, regardless of their LGBTQ+ identity, but that does not mean that he supports their behaviors. For example, I can't see Heavenly Father present at a Gay/Lesbian wedding for his children, and if he was forced to (which is impossible) he would be weeping because he knows that what he is witnessing is preventing his children from obtaining exaltation.

Maybe I've gone a little off topic of simply the effeminate behaviors of men that makes some people uncomfortable, but again, I think if someone is putting off the natural man (the worldly, the confused, the misguided, the experimental, etc...) then a Saint probably would not make other Saints uncomfortable.

[NeuroTypical]

8 minutes ago, LineUponLine said:

I haven't read everything that has been said on the matter in this thread but when I think of the Celestial Kingdom I don't see anyone LGBTQ+

Interesting.  And if you happen to get there yourself and see someone who has struggled with same sex attraction throughout their earthly life, what will you do?

Edited December 23, 2022 by NeuroTypical

[LineUponLine]

Struggled with it. Sure. Acting on it. Nope. It goes against Celestial Law. I believe the atonement will make right everything, including LGBTQ+ struggles.

[NeuroTypical]

 

2 minutes ago, LineUponLine said:

Struggled with it. Sure. Acting on it. Nope. It goes against Celestial Law. I believe the atonement will make right everything, including LGBTQ+ struggles.

Again interesting.  Again, if you should be so fortunate as to get there and see someone who had sinned on earth when you knew them, what are you going to do?  I'd really like to know how you would react...

[LineUponLine]

If they had repented, then sure, they could be in the Celestial Kingdom and I would rejoice. However if they hadn't repented then they wouldn't be there and I would be sad that they didn't follow the counsel of the prophets.

[LDSGator]

10 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

 

Again interesting.  Again, if you should be so fortunate as to get there and see someone who had sinned on earth when you knew them, what are you going to do?  I'd really like to know how you would react...

A former bishop told me that we’ll all be surprised who ends up in the Celestial Kingdom, but we’ll be even more shocked over who does not end up there. 

[NeuroTypical]

28 minutes ago, LineUponLine said:

If they had repented, then sure, they could be in the Celestial Kingdom and I would rejoice. However if they hadn't repented then they wouldn't be there and I would be sad that they didn't follow the counsel of the prophets.

Thanks for clarifying.  I like your username!

 

26 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

A former bishop told me that we’ll all be surprised who ends up in the Celestial Kingdom, but we’ll be even more shocked over who does not end up there. 

Yep.  Whenever I hear someone taking issue with this or that group of people won't make it to heaven, I'm reminded that folks who can't/won't forgive and love everyone won't be there themselves.

 

11 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

To expect there will be people who are still sexually attracted to members of the same sex in the Celestial kingdom is an extraordinary expectation. Of course it's possible. Based on all we've been taught, however, it seems exceedingly unlikely, and there are no reasons other than trendy current social justice-based views to twist oneself over backwards to make such an exceedingly unlikely presumption.

I basically agree.

 

11 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I also think making such assumptions is extremely dangerous and should be avoided at all costs. We are to strive to become like God. 

I'm not making assumptions.  I'm responding to @LineUponLine's statement "when I think of the Celestial Kingdom I don't see anyone LGBTQ+", asking for clarification, which was provided.

To give a clear answer to what you're bringing up, I figure alphabet folk face similar struggles as plain old straight folk.  And from what the population studies tell me, for every "I did a gay thing" person the Lord has to deal with, He'll have 95-99 "I did a bad nookie thing with a member of the opposite sex" people.

 

Here's my favorite talk from Elder Oaks, on how we're basically forbidden in the scriptures to state that this or that person or group of people won't go to heaven:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1999/08/judge-not-and-judging?lang=eng

Edited December 23, 2022 by NeuroTypical

[The Folk Prophet]

35 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Interesting.  And if you happen to get there yourself and see someone who has struggled with same sex attraction throughout their earthly life, what will you do?

Seems like a pointless line of inquiry.

First, anyone who is Celestialized will have accepted God and Christ in full. Obviously that means that if LineUponLine gets there he will have accepted all truth as truth, and therefore if gay stuff is part of it then he will have accepted it. Obviously.

Beyond that however, @LineUponLine's reasoning is perfectly sound here. To expect there will be people who are still sexually attracted to members of the same sex in the Celestial kingdom is an extraordinary expectation. Of course it's possible. Based on all we've been taught, however, it seems exceedingly unlikely, and there are no reasons other than trendy current social justice-based views to twist oneself over backwards to make such an exceedingly unlikely presumption.

I also think making such assumptions is extremely dangerous and should be avoided at all costs. We are to strive to become like God. Would someone make the argument that God might be gay? That our Heavenly Mother isn't female? I'm sure some would make such a ridiculous claim. Maybe God's hair is made of spaghetti and he has green skin too. These ideas are not what we are taught. We should not presume ridiculous things that are not taught. But short of such a presumption, anyone who struggles with gayness should be striving to overcome -- despite the potential that they might not in this life -- because we should be striving to be as God is. To accept that gayness is eternal is to accept that anyone who has such a struggle need not bother striving to become as God is.

Edited December 23, 2022 by The Folk Prophet

[LDSGator]

14 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Yep.  Whenever I hear someone taking issue with this or that group of people won't make it to heaven, I'm reminded that folks who can't/won't forgive and love everyone won't be there themselves.

 

Agree verbatim. 

[The Folk Prophet]

39 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I'm not making assumptions.

Hehe. If felt like you were assuming that @LineUponLine was saying no people who are gay here on earth will end up in the Celestial Kingdom. I assumed he meant that anyone who is gay in mortality will no longer be gay in the Celestial Kingdom.

I didn't mean to imply you were assuming that there would be gay folk trotting around Celestialized but still harboring sexual lust for people of the same sex. I simply meant (because I assumed you had assumed what LineUponLine was saying as stated in my first paragraph here), that if someone were to make such an argument it would be assuming that gay folk would be trotting around Celestialized but still harboring sexual lust for people of the same sex. But I can see how it came across as if I were accusing you of assuming such a thing. What I really meant was that I assume you don't think such a thing, and therefore expected you'd take my reasoning as legitimate.

39 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I figure alphabet folk face similar struggles as plain old straight folk

This is kind of a separate, but interesting, idea. Thinking on it, I think there's something more to the alphabet folk struggle. And that something more, among other things, is exactly what I'm railing against in my first reply to you. People, by and large, seem to be adopting the assumption that gay is okay. Not okay in the same way as heterosexual struggles are "okay" as long as you repent...but legitimately okey-dokey, "God made me this way, therefore it's wholesome and good, and I have no need to overcome it, but the better choice, after all my trauma in trying to overcome it, is to accept who I really am and push society to accept it too", okay.

Obviously there are some semantics there that are difficult to deal with. It's similar to asking whether it's okay to not be perfect. Well...depends on what you mean by "okay", right?

It just seems a lot of homosexualite types (and I mean faithfuls in the church) are adopting a "gay is good" type attitude. The affirming of oneself as "okay to be gay" seems the priority. And I consider that priority pretty dangerous.

I get your point from the perspective of God though -- in that repentant people are repentant...and God is no respector of persons, etc. But as far as the mortal challenge of it... ESPECIALLY in our times... I don't think it is a similar struggle in most cases.

I do realize I'm probably discussing something other than you mean. So if you're enjoying the back and forth, feel free to clarify or correct or what-have-you. I'm trying really hard to not be confrontational as I share my ideas about thoughts here, so if it's coming across that way I apologize.

Edited December 23, 2022 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

@NeuroTypical, another thought I just had about the struggle difference, which is also an attitude/thinking issue imo, is that when one is heterosexual, when one gets into a situation where one cannot be sexually fulfilled by one's ideal sexual ideas, one accepts that that doesn't, ultimately matter. But for some reason in the homosexual world, that ends up being the main thing that matters. That's a dangerous idea. You have a man who's wife has gotten older, saggy, wrinkly, fat, etc. and he accepts it. I even know many men who have married someone who isn't attractive. And they know it. Sure, his most natural self would prefer a 20-something, perky, smooth-skinned vixen. He puts that aside. Daily. He knows that's not what's actually important. But then we see these guys like Ed Smart, who after having father's children with a woman*, decides that his interest in dudes is the priority over family and gospel, and casts it all aside for that interest, for some sort of unicorny "fulfillment". I use Ed Smart because he's a public figure, but I know many, many instances of the same.

I'm not saying no man ever leaves his older wife for a younger, hotter woman. Of course. But as a general rule, society (especially in the church) looks down on that. Men who leave their wife and family to be gay are often celebrated as courageous.

Of course on the other side of the coin, men who leave their old wife for a younger one, but stay faithful in the church, can, after a time, move past all such judgment. They can move on to have a happy, fulfilled, and righteous life with the younger woman. They can even, presumably, fully repent of it even if they did it for lustful wrong reasons, and even if they don't leave the younger woman to remarry the old one (I can't really judge that, of course.) They can overcome the lust, remain faithful to the new woman even as she ages, etc. But a gay man who left a woman for a man can have no such thing. He must, indeed, leave the man to be faithful again.

* I added this to make a point. If a man has obviously "slept" with his wife then he has an outlet for sexual intimacy. People like to talk about not being attracted to a person as if that's the end all of sexual intimacy. And yet they accept that a man with an ugly wife can still be sexually "satisfied" but the gay man who's having sexual activity with a woman cannot. Moreover, the implication in the church membership seems to be that somehow that man never having sex again and staying entirely celibate (including self pleasure) is the better option than having sexual activity with someone who isn't as attractive to them. I dunno. Seems like flawed thinking to me. I know the recommendation to marry a woman if you're gay in the church is no longer en vogue. But I think, once more, that's a reaction to a societal attitude problem based in the corrupt concept that fulfilling one's sexual lusts is the key to happiness. And, sure...if a gay man literally cannot get aroused with a woman...that might be something else (not something I actually believe is generally true, any more than I believe a 100% straight man couldn't get aroused intentionally with another dude**). But when a man's fathered children with a woman............ I mean.....  you know.

** This is something that is very difficult to talk about (especially here) because it requires uncomfortable (or inappropriate) discussion. Especially for straight men. The idea that they could, actually, have another guy start doing stuff to them and certain things would happen in response is something they don't want to even think about. Understandably. But it strikes me that whether one wants to think that such a thing is possible or not, it is reality. As is demonstrated by, if nothing else, all the gay guys who have fathered children.

[scottyg]

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Interesting.  And if you happen to get there yourself and see someone who has struggled with same sex attraction throughout their earthly life, what will you do?

I would probably say hello. Truly though your comment makes no sense...who cares? They would not be struggling with the temptation anymore. Who cares what struggles we each had in life if we each overcame them?

[scottyg]

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

 

Again interesting.  Again, if you should be so fortunate as to get there and see someone who had sinned on earth when you knew them, what are you going to do?  I'd really like to know how you would react...

Since we all sin I would be glad they repented and overcame.

[MrShorty]

On 12/23/2022 at 11:35 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

another thought I just had about the struggle difference, which is also an attitude/thinking issue imo, is that when one is heterosexual, when one gets into a situation where one cannot be sexually fulfilled by one's ideal sexual ideas, one accepts that that doesn't, ultimately matter.

Maybe. I certainly think there is something to the idea that there are basic attitudes and thinking behind some of this.

At one extreme, are the so-called "incels" that speak anger and hatred and even violence towards women. Acknowledging they exist, I think they need serious help. They are not a group to look to as a "good" example.

More mainstream, I see many heterosexuals who think sexual fulfillment does matter. I also think many of them are good LDS (and broader Christian) people who believe that sexual fulfillment is important. I have not kept it a secret from the group that my own sexless marriage drove me to wonder about the importance of sexual fulfillment in marriage and to seek out ideas from a variety of sources (perhaps of note to a group like this, but, when I looked to the church for ideas, the church was silent on the importance of sexual fulfillment in marriage). In looking through these sources I see a fairly strong majority that believe sexual fulfillment is important. Of course, the devil is in the details, so it can be difficult to find consensus on just how important.

Some get hung up on questions of divorce. @The Folk Prophet mentioned men who leave their aging wives for younger models. I think most that I encounter view this as "shallow." But the more common scenario is one where a man (or a woman) will leave his sexually disinterested wife in search of someone with more sexual interest, and they find a similarly aged woman and they make a good second marriage. Some of these might say, "life is too short to live in a sexless marriage, so I amicably left my first wife and found a second wife."

If it isn't too explicit for thirdhour, there are women who experience anorgasmia. A frequent topic of conversation is whether these women ought to pursue their own sexual pleasure in pursuit of sexual fulfillment. Most people suggest that female anorgasmia is among the most treatable of sexual dysfunctions, so, yes, it is valuable pursuit. Such a woman need not simply accept sexual unfulfillment due to anorgasmia.

I don't have the same kind of discomfort with LGB issues that the OP talks about, but I do find myself uncomfortable with LGB issues. In a sense, I agree that perhaps a big part of that discomfort centers on the issue of just how important is sexual fulfillment to a person's well-being. My big challenge is that I haven't figured out exactly what the appropriate priority sexual fulfillment ought to have. There just seem to be so many different human experiences figuring into this. Some have higher libidos and some lower. Some seem to place too high of a priority on sexual fulfillment, while others dismiss its importance way too readily. I can't even figure out in my own heterosexual relationship what importance to give to sexual fulfillment, let alone try to figure out what that ought to look like for LGB people. I just have not found "THE" answer to the question.

[Ironhold]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

At one extreme, are the so-called "incels" that speak anger and hatred and even violence towards women. Acknowledging they exist, I think they need serious help. They are not a group to look to as a "good" example.

 

When it comes to talking about "incels", the simple truth is that the term has become over-used because of "woke" types assuming that anyone who is critical of their "approved" depictions of women in media must be a young male incel... sometimes to the point of refusing to believe it when the person being critical demonstrates that they're married or that they're female. 

The overuse of the label also creates situations where people who do have legitimate complaints are ignored and passed over, leaving them vulnerable to being scouted by the radicals and recruited in under the guise of fellowship. 

This is why it's important to actually listen to people rather than assign labels.

 

[NeuroTypical]

Folks tried to demonize Jordan Peterson by calling him 'intellectual hero to the incels'.  He has good responses.

 

[Anddenex]

On 12/23/2022 at 10:29 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

I also think making such assumptions is extremely dangerous and should be avoided at all costs. We are to strive to become like God. Would someone make the argument that God might be gay? That our Heavenly Mother isn't female? I'm sure some would make such a ridiculous claim.

Sadly, we already have groups saying that Christ was non-binary, and seeking to prove it with scripture. So, this ridiculous claim is already there.

[MrShorty]

@Ironhold@NeuroTypical My intent wasn't to focus on the incels specifically. Personally, I'm appalled at their ideas -- especially some of the more violent ones. My main point in mentioning the incels and others is that there is a variety of experiences out there, and to try to say that it is difficult to make some kind of universal, blanket "opposite sex couples are better at deciding that sexual fulfillment is unimportant and same sex couples are more inclined to make sex the end all, be all of their relationships." I was trying to say that there are a variety of experiences across all sexual orientations trying to figure out the proper place for sexual fulfillment, and many who struggle to get it right.

[The Folk Prophet]

@MrShorty The inclination of homosexuals or heterosexuals to prioritize sex isn't really the core point I'm getting at. It's the response by others to that prioritization that I'm really commenting on. It's the "heroically deciding to be their authentic selves" narrative that differs now-a-days.

I believe that social responses of that sort do play a role into why homosexuals might prioritize sexual fulfillment higher, but it's not a point meant to be some sort of universal blanket of truth. I am merely musing about how and why there might be challenges for homosexuals above and beyond those of heterosexuals in various regards. There are certainly challenges of heterosexual lust above and beyond homosexual lust too.

[MrShorty]

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It's the response by others to that prioritization that I'm really commenting on. It's the "heroically deciding to be their authentic selves" narrative that differs now-a-days.

It is interesting, isn't it. I don't know if I have any meaningful insights.

Maybe it has something to do with the different ways the people I grew up with valued conformity to group standards? "Boys do ____" vs. "Girls do ____" and we don't want to confuse the two? Of course, some of the new narratives are just conforming to different standards and not really about non-comformity.

Maybe it has to do with what is considered pathological? When I was young, homosexuality and trans-gender were solidly considered "illnesses" (technically, it was about a decade after the APA had de-pathologized homosexuality in the DSM, but that sort of change doesn't trickle out to the laity immediately). I don't know if this adds to the conversation, but I have a child who seems determined to get themselves classified as some kind of neurodivergent. They frequently bring up essays and articles about "unexpected signs someone is on the autism spectrum" as if to say, "see, Dad, how I'm really neurodivergent on some level." When I was younger, people didn't want to carry the stigma that comes with labels of mental or neurological illness, where today those same diagnoses do not carry the same stigma. Is it good to be more accepting of people's mental/neural diversity? On some level, yes, it seems good to be more accepting of people as they are rather than stigmatizing or pathologizing significant characteristics about a person. However, as those characteristics become less stigmatized or pathologized, it becomes more accepted (maybe even more desirable??) to be found with those characteristics.

I really don't know what we do about some of this. Part of me wants to say that maybe we ought to not make a big deal out of any of it. "You have diabetes? That's fine, no big deal, keep in touch with your doctor for treatment, but otherwise, it's no big deal." "You have depression? That's fine, no big deal, keep in touch with your doctor for treatment, but otherwise, it's no big deal." You're LGBTQ+? That's fine, no big deal, in this case, there is no pathology to deal with, but keep in touch with your doctor for any pathologies that arise, but otherwise it's no big deal." Maybe none of it really matters, and we ought to just accept whatever people are or have as no big deal and live and let live? But I don't know if the whole experience of life is intended to be that stoic.