Changing the Mormon Conversation on Homosexuality

[Anonymous]

bridget_night wrote:

Thank you all for your comments. I really enjoy reading them. Particularly because I also belong to an lds ex-gay type forum that is bashing this article and the lds bishop and people who wrote the new lds acceptance project phamplet. Here is the link to it: http://familyproject.sfsu.edu/LDS-booklet To read it you do have to put in your email address and zip code. It is excellent and written by strong lds scientists and doctors, yet these ex-gay lds forums bash these men. Ticks me off.

Try this link: http://familyproject.sfsu.edu/files/FAP%20LDS%20Booklet%20pst.pdf

I believe you wont have to enter email and zip.

[Anonymous]

Shawn wrote:

I see what you mean, cwald. I think it’s very unlikely, but I won’t say it’s impossible.

Well. You certainly could be right about that. But I think it would be a shame.

[Anonymous]

I just want to bump this post up one more time, as this is my crowning moment at StayLDS.

This is the day I have reconciled.. have come to terms… with my biggest church-doctrinal demon that has haunted me for so long. I am so proud of myself.

I either wish the moderators would chastise me and delete my post, or congratulate me for being “set free.” I mean Ray…you know how much this means to me.

cwald wrote:

President Thomas Monson: “I have received further light and knowledge by the spirit, by revelation, that our current stance on homosexuality is wrong and needs to be modified…we will now change the conversation to be….”.

Faithful mormon: “How can you say that with our proclamation of the family, and our current doctrines, and our scriptures, and what the previous prophets have said in regards to morality.”

President Thomas Monson: “Please refer to the 14 F’s.”

1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.

3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

4. The prophet will never lead the church astray.

5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.

7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.

9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.

10. The prophet may advise on civic matters.

11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.

12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.

13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.

14. The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

Faithful mormon: “Sorry. Of course, what was I thinking?”

Oh oh oh the irony! I love it. I may even have to change my signature!

[Anonymous]

Oh come on. Nobody is going to pat me on the back.

[Anonymous]

I will cwald!! So proud of you. I really appreciate your post and was very useful to me.

[Anonymous]

I was waiting for you to change your signature.

[Anonymous]

Shawn, to respond to your request earlier that I missed somehow, I wrote a post on my personal blog about the current double standard with regard to heterosexual and homosexual activity. There are more ways I believe the Church could alter its stance on homosexuality without compromising theology or doctrine, but what I talk about in the post would be a wonderful step forward, imo.

“Homosexuality and the Most Basic Double Standard” (http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2011/11/homosexuality-and-most-basic-double.html)

[Anonymous]

Here’s one more that talks about sexual orientation in a very broad way that also addresses how we could change our conversation about homosexuality without sacrtificing our theology in any way:

“Warning: This Is a Purely Speculative Post about a Highly Controversial Topic” (http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2011/05/warning-this-is-purely-speculative-post.html)

[Anonymous]

Thanks BN!

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

I just want to bump this post up one more time, as this is my crowning moment at StayLDS.

This is the day I have reconciled.. have come to terms… with my biggest church-doctrinal demon that has haunted me for so long. I am so proud of myself.

I either wish the moderators would chastise me and delete my post, or congratulate me for being “set free.” I mean Ray…you know how much this means to me.

Hey man, I just don’t know whether your biggest church-doctrinal demon was the 14 Fundamentals or the issue with homosexuality.

[Anonymous]

Shawn wrote:

cwald wrote:

I just want to bump this post up one more time, as this is my crowning moment at StayLDS.

This is the day I have reconciled.. have come to terms… with my biggest church-doctrinal demon that has haunted me for so long. I am so proud of myself.

I either wish the moderators would chastise me and delete my post, or congratulate me for being “set free.” I mean Ray…you know how much this means to me.

Hey man, I just don’t know whether your biggest church-doctrinal demon was the 14 Fundamentals or the issue with homosexuality.

For me, both.

I will admit, homosexuality is pretty abstract until it hits home. But once it does, it’s pretty much of a life and death issue…literally.

The 14F is just wrong.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

The 14F is just wrong.

NO IT IS NOT!!!

I just demonstrated it’s truthfulness. 🙂

Okay. Alright. let me get serious. Yes to this

Quote:

For me, both.

I will admit, homosexuality is pretty abstract until it hits home. But once it does, it’s pretty much of a life and death issue…literally.

This is why I think it’s important to change conversation about homosexuality. Now rather than later.

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

wayfarer wrote:

The 14F is just wrong.

NO IT IS NOT!!!

I just demonstrated it’s truthfulness. 🙂

dipstick.

cwald wrote:

This is why I think it’s important to change conversation about homosexuality. Now rather than later.

sometimes I wish I could shake people up and help them see how suicidal a person gets in the church as they come to grips with SSA and the church condemnation of them. Years of suicide-watch left me completely numb.

It’s so abstract until it becomes real. Then, for most, I suspect, it leaves you in the wake, and you realize how god’s love is unconditional and has nothing to do with sexuality.

Except for Pam, of course.

[Anonymous]

I’m glad that we are moving away from blaming people for their homosexuality. I’m glad the Church’s official position no longer is that sexual attraction is 100% a choice. Being told you just need to stop feeling something that is central to who you are and over which you truly have no control is brutal – and based on biological ignorance.

If we could step back and admit fully and openly and explicitly (from the General Conference pulpit) that sexual attraction isn’t a choice, and that it can’t be therapied away, and that it isn’t a “sin” to feel the attraction – those things alone would be a HUGE step in the right direction. We are getting there now, but we aren’t quite there yet.

If we could allow homosexuals to do EVERYTHING heterosexuals can do without violating the Law of Chastity as it relates to them (date, hold hands, kiss, express affection, develop intimacy, etc. without actually engaging in “sexual intercourse” of any kind) – that alone would be a HUGE next step. A heteroseuxal couple who can’t have sexual intercourse still can be married and sealed – and if a heterosexual couple chooses not to marry but to live together without crossing lines of conduct prohibition, they shouldn’t be disciplined in any way. (I know that would be an exception, but it certainly is possible.) Allowing homosexuals to be married but celibate and still be fully “worthy” wouldn’t require any change to our current theology whatsoever, especially if the restirction on marriage sealing was maintained. Allowing them to attend the temple and be sealed to parents and siblings wouldn’t require ANY change to theology whatsoever.

Seriously, truly treating both groups equally in how we define the Law of Chastity would solve SO many issues all by itself.

The above might not satisfy lots of people, but we can do quite a few things differently than we do now and not sacrtifice our theology or core principles in any way. In fact, I believe what I’ve outlined above is FAR closer to our core theology than what we have in place right now.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I like that Ray

wayfarer wrote:

Except for Pam, of course.

Yeah, except for Pam.

[Author]

Posts