- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This morning in the Salt Lake Trib, Elder Bruce Hafen made some very direct, definite comments that are just wrong, IMHO. He spoke at the annual Evergreen conference…the link is: http://www.sltrib.com/lds/ci_13377659 I think this is a huge step backwards for the church — on so many levels. First, almost all in the scientific and medical fields disagree with his assertion that it CAN be changed. He calls it “politically motivated.” This issue is such a hot spot today, the very least the church should be doing is to remain silent if they don’t know how to address this critical issue. Any outsider will see this as outdated, and will view the church as behind the times wrt medical research.
Secondly, it is sooooo hurtful and damaging for our gay brothers and sisters. It continues to reinforce their guilt and shame that they feel from the previous teaching that it is sinful and wrong to have SSA feelings. Depression and suicides will continue; families will continue in their conflicts when they have gay sons and daughters — they love them, but know they have been that way since birth. Their very testimonies and faith have huge contradictions since they believe most of what the church leaders teach, but feel torn between their experience with their family members, and what they hear from the pulpits. It is tearing the church apart!
Sorry for the directness, but I hope this issue will be addressed by calmer, sound, and truly inspired minds in the church office building from an attitude of love and acceptance for all of God’s children — as he created us.
😥 I don’t know whether Gay-ness (can I say it that way?) can change or not. I tend to think in general terms that it can. I might even say that because of the spectrum of things there might be some that can and some that can’t. The reason I think this is because it seems that there are lots of people who “change” their sexual preferences. We’ve got bisexuals and asexuals and those who experiement based on the feeling of the moment and those who were one way one year and one way the next. And then a whole other school of thought that discourages the labels to begin with and that we should express our sexual behaviors with whomever we love. I even wonder if we all have some SSA woven into all of us in some tiny degree. Seems like a lot of agency at play here…..not just biology. Peoples sexual feelings change all the time. Being a middle aged female, I have experienced the fluxuations of emotions and sex drive as hormones continue on their roller coaster pursuits. And it is also clear to me that our sexuality is not only a biological process as emotions and attitudes and thinking processes impact things. So I think there is some argument that people can change. Could sexual orientation change based on ones thinking or even ones experience?? I think may be it can and does.
I have talked to someone who said they did change and that they understand why gay people feel they can’t. I talked to another who said he could change a great portion of things, but not all.
In the end though, the church is not asking people to “change” their physiology. They are asking them to discipline their behavior and sexual desires. This is an invitation and mandate for everyone. And everyone who comes to Christ is asked to “change”.
No matter which way we land on this, I hope that we can see more to understand and less to be so easily hurt by everything.
Poppyseed wrote:I don’t know whether Gay-ness (can I say it that way?) can change or not. I tend to think in general terms that it can. I might even say that because of the spectrum of things there might be some that can and some that can’t.
Medical science understands this much more than some realize. Yes, some are more “able” to steer their SSA than others. It has to do with the hormonal environment during critical times in utero. We are still learning why the “switch” to regulate the mix of testosterone and other hormones is different for each child, but we are quite certain that this is what determines sexual attraction. Think of it simply as a spectrum between 0 and 100% attraction to one sex. Some are very close to 100%, others closer to 50%. Those that are less “gay” have more capacity to remain “straight” than those closer to 100% either way. This explains why some claim to have “changed,” and why some fluctuate at times. Their are certainly environmental factors that play into it, which is consistent with the spectrum process.
My point is that medicine and psychology understand this. It’s not really debated much anymore. Of course ongoing research is helping us learn the factors that manage the uterine environment, but it is clearly a biological process. The “choice” only comes, as it clearly is for us hetero folk, as to whether to act on the natural urges we are born with. And unless you believe like some religions do that lifetime celibacy is appropriate, the “urge” is extremely strong for either “God-given” reasons, or simple evolutionary necessity that continuation of the species is ultimately important for us…and to criticize and shame those that do exactly the same as we married, heteros do regularly is so damaging to our interpersonal relationships that it smacks of denial and hate-filled politics rather than the unconditional love that we claim to profess.
Again, sorry for my passion in this area…
😳 😥 Here is the link to the exact talk the GA gave at this years Evergreen conference held this past weekend: I like and agree with parts of it. My own therapist and her husband, a psychiatrist, (non lds) believe it is fluid for some and not for others. The copy editor of my book, has been able to change his sexual feelings. He is happily married with children, and is now a bishop. But, he told me his whole story and it was a very difficult journey. Richard Cohen, author of “Coming Out Straight’ wrote the foreword to my book. He claims to have changed his feelings and says he has helped many others. I have known him for some time and he has been a good friend to me. I know he was inspired when he wrote my foreword and has tremendous compassion for gays. I took my son to one of his seminars and it was very lovingly done, and my son thought so too, but I definitely do not agree with some of his techniques or that change is possible for everyone. I have been to 4 Evergreen conferences, and there is much good there. One, it helps other lds gays no they are not alone and there are many like themselves and parents are taught to love unconditionally. Some of the latest studies I have read by Spitzer, and Yarhouse seem to show about 15% can change enough to live a happy heterosexual life. Dr. Throckmorton, a phsycologist I am friends with who has changed his beliefs over the years on this issue and supports the APA’s latest findings. He is someone I respect on this topic and so do many gays.
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20081129/homosexuality-misconceptions-in-ministry/index.html But, I know a large percentage who cannot change and these people deserve to live a full life. I believe in a person’s right to self -determination. So, for those who want to live as a gay person they should be allowed that right. For those who have a same-sex attraction but want to live by their religious beliefs or not live as a gay person they should have those rights as well. My son wants a gay relationship and so I respect that. My son said, “I don’t mind if the church believes homosexuality is wrong, I just want them to allow me equal rights and stay out of this politically. I also would like them to be kinder to gays.”
Poppyseed wrote:I In the end though, the church is not asking people to “change” their physiology. They are asking them to discipline their behavior and sexual desires. This is an invitation and mandate for everyone. And everyone who comes to Christ is asked to “change”.
Sorry, I wanted to address this too. I understand this is the position of most of the church leaders today. Yes, it is an “invitation” and a “mandate” today. And most leaders would also say as you did that to be “Christlike” is to accept their position.
But so was the positition of the church previously that plural marriage was essential for exhaltation; and that the blacks were in fact a cursed race. These are not the teachings today, so I have hope that our leaders will continue their pleas to the Lord to understand this dilemna just as they did with the previous challenging issues. As their position has softened recently regarding whether “being gay” is a sin (as I understand it, it was, but no longer), but only “acting” on it is, I think it is possible that we will see other changes in teachings in the future to allow love to prevail.
I don’t expect it soon…but someday?!
bridget_night wrote:I like and agree with parts of it. My own therapist and her husband, a psychiatrist, (non lds) believe it is fluid for some and not for others.
The spectrum theory I explained above is consistent with this. Those that are somewhere closer to 50% have a greater ability to steer one way or the other. The way I look at it is that if you turned the table and told me that I should become attracted to men, and that it was “wrong” to be attracted to women, I highly doubt that any therapy you could do with me would change my feelings. Like most of the gays I know, I was strongly attracted to women at a very young age, and I doubt I could change that.That’s how most gays are…and why I think it is sad our uneducated culture continues to shame them for the way they were born. THAT doesn’t seem Christlike to me!
[quote=”RixBut so was the positition of the church previously that plural marriage was essential for exhaltation; and that the blacks were in fact a cursed race. These are not the teachings today, so I have hope that our leaders will continue their pleas to the Lord to understand this dilemna just as they did with the previous challenging issues. As their position has softened recently regarding whether “being gay” is a sin (as I understand it, it was, but no longer), but only “acting” on it is, I think it is possible that we will see other changes in teachings in the future to allow love to prevail. I don’t expect it soon…but someday?![/quote]
I hope so too Rix. This has not been an easy journey for me because, like most parents, I wanted my son to be able to be straight and live a ‘normal’ life. But, I am left handed and do quite well too.
bridget_night wrote:
I hope so too Rix. This has not been an easy journey for me because, like most parents, I wanted my son to be able to be straight and live a ‘normal’ life. But, I am left handed and do quite well too.
Yes, same for me…as my sister and MANY close friends have lived lives that have helped me to understand that THEY ARE NORMAL — FOR THEM. It is the rest of us that have been molded to believe otherwise. I hope and pray that we can come to understand that WE are the ones that have to change our attitudes toward what is normal. And not.I consider your left-handedness to be a NORMAL variation. To think otherwise would be MY problem.
This is such a challenge for SSA individuals as well as their families. There have been numerous studies that show biological propensities to do a lot of things, some even criminal. IMHO, that does not excuse acting upon it. We all have different “crosses to bear” and I feel the Church has taken a more-than-fair position on it that doesn’t need any further “caving in”. No one is criticizing anyone for being gay, for having SSA, or for the way the individual feels….these people are our brothers and sisters and children of our heavenly father. However, when they choose to act upon these inclinations, then they are doing wrong and there is no need for the Church to be any more tolerant of these acts than there is to become more tolerant of pre-marital heterosexual sex.
Wrong is wrong. There is no gray area in this situation.
My opinion only of course…
Bruce in Montana wrote:… However, when they choose to act upon these inclinations, then they are doing wrong and there is no need for the Church to be any more tolerant of these acts than there is to become more tolerant of pre-marital heterosexual sex.
Wrong is wrong. There is no gray area in this situation.
My opinion only of course…
Of course…as is the opinion of many people.
I would like to ask you a question, Bruce. Assume you are as you are (I assume you are “attracted” to females?), and you are told by your church leaders that you should not act on your “urges,” ever in your life, to have sex with a woman. EVER. And you could never marry a woman.
Would you feel that YOU are wrong to have that desire? Even if the “scriptures” told you it was wrong?
I know it is hard to put yourself in that position; maybe you believe it is an impossibility. I believe it is EXACTLY that way for most LGBTs. But, of course, that is MY opinion…
I fully understand what you are saying Rix and honestly try to empathize with these people. To answer your question…if I was in an alternate universe where God advocates homosexual behavior and condemns heterosexual acts then I should refrain from acting on my inclinations. No, I wouldn’t feel I was “wrong” for having the feelings…just wrong if I acted on them.
Before I was married I certainly had “feelings” that made me desire pre-marital sex…I assume most everyone does….If I acted on them, however, it was/would-have-been wrong.
It is a tough burden for these folks to bear, I’m sure. We should continue trying to understand and praying for them. However, I don’t believe that accepting behavior that God has clearly labeled as wrong is the correct answer.
My opinion only of course….
Rix wrote:Assume you are as you are (I assume you are “attracted” to females?), and you are told by your church leaders that you should not act on your “urges,” ever in your life, to have sex with a woman. EVER. And you could never marry a woman.
Would you feel that YOU are wrong to have that desire? Even if the “scriptures” told you it was wrong?
I think this is a great comparison. Essentially the church is requiring lifelong celibacy for these individuals. Furthermore the church condemns any form of “release” for these “urges” and accuses some of these people for making themselves gay (through masturbation, etc.).
I agree that this talk is a step backwards for the church. DW is up in arms over this talk and is planning a point-by-point refutation of it on her blog soon.
Hi Rix, I fully appreciate your views and feelings on the subject. To me the question here becomes: “ How can I more effectively deal with views in the church that I don’t necessarily agree with?” As we all know StayLDS is not a place to directly criticize specific policies, doctrines, or leaders in a way to ask for change or organize grass-roots efforts to make change. We come here to learn from each other in the effort to make ourselves more compatible with activity in the church. There’s nothing wrong with expressing your feelings and opinions here, I just wanted to clarify that it’s preferable to do so as: “How can Ibetter deal with this situation personally?” Thanks, you know I enjoy your input!
Frankly, this is one reason why I have NO problem with many homosexual members leaving the Church. However, ultimately, the Church asks the same thing of single heterosexual members in this life – so, seriously, there isn’t any MORTAL discimination happening. It’s brutal on both orientations who don’t marry.
My hope, as I have expressed elsewhere, is that, in the short term, everyone can understand that intimacy is FAR more than sexual intercourse – and that the wide variety of intimacy allowed for heterosexuals can be allowed for homosexuals. Actually, I hope the restrictions can be loosened a bit, but I don’t want them obliterated – for anyone, gay or straight. Stright members who can’t remain celibate (for good reason) leave the Church regularly, but nobody screams discrimiation because of the standard they face. That is the real tightrope, imo – and it is the least understood aspect of the criticism leveled against the Church. It simply MUST be consistent, so it can’t allow for gay memebrs what it doesn’t allow for straight members.
Again, I believe there are ways to even the playing field more than it is now, but, at the moment, I think the only option open to the Church (unless directed by explicit revelation) is to broaden the activities that are considered ok for homosexuals to include everything that is acceptable for single heterosexual members.
Old-Timer wrote:My hope, as I have expressed elsewhere, is that, in the short term, everyone can understand that intimacy is FAR more than sexual intercourse – and that the wide variety of intimacy allowed for heterosexuals can be allowed for homosexuals. Actually, I hope the restrictions can be loosened a bit, but I don’t want them obliterated – for anyone, gay or straight. Stright members who can’t remain celibate (for good reason) leave the Church regularly, but nobody screams discrimiation because of the standard they face. That is the real tightrope, imo – and it is the least understood aspect of the criticism leveled against the Church. It simply MUST be consistent, so it can’t allow for gay memebrs what it doesn’t allow for straight members.
Again, I believe there are ways to even the playing field more than it is now, but, at the moment, I think the only option open to the Church (unless directed by explicit revelation) is to broaden the activities that are considered ok for homosexuals to include everything that is acceptable for single heterosexual members.
I’m not sure whether or not we agree on this, Ray, so I’m going to explain how I see the issue and then we’ll see
At the moment, a heterosexual single male can hold hands with, kiss, cuddle, snuggle, even make out with a girl without being called in for an interview with his bishop. In fact, those actions are encouraged, particularly if there is the hope that they will lead to marriage. The same is NOT presently even allowed, let alone encouraged, for homosexual members. A gay man who is leading a celibate lifestyle (by heterosexual standards) but who has a boyfriend will still be subject to church counsel. If it is an issue of celibacy and celibacy alone, then this should not be.
I think that the Church would argue that it isn’t a matter of celibacy alone – that any physical relationship between two members of the same sex is inherently unnatural and, therefore, a sin. But if that is the case, then this isn’t a celibacy issues at all. Furthermore, if it isn’t an issue of celibacy, then we are in essence saying that the feelings alone are sinful. I think it wrong to put forward the false notion that it about celibacy (for the church) if it isn’t, because it presents a logic catch-22.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.