- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
cwald wrote:
Oh come on. Nobody is going to pat me on the back.
cwald, you definitely get points for creative thinking about a hypothetical situation which would slay your 14F demon…
:thumbup: There are very fundamental differences between the circumstances and the underlying issues around women and the priesthood, blacks and the priesthood, and the homosexuality, but there is a similar approach by the Church, in my opinion.
Somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but I see the pattern:
1. The social issue arises;
2. Church leaders pray and search scriptures for revelation on the subject;
3. A Church position is taken, for which revelation and scriptures are used to support it;
4. The result is a discriminatory stance against a group, with justification to many leaders and members as the church’s position on the matter;
5. Differences of opinions are held around the underlying issues among members and leaders, but the church as a whole holds to the stated position until specific revelation changes the position.
With Blacks and the priesthood, the change in the position opened the door that this change can happen (see cwald’s 14F post) for women and the priesthood and homosexual marriages. In other words, it COULD happen. But it would take an act of God, as was stated.
I guess I see where you’re going with this Ray, and I can appreciate the attempt to compromise and establish common ground, but … Quote:… 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.
is bordering on the absurd, it seems to me.
And who is Pam?
doug wrote:And who is Pam?
Ahha haha haha. NO WAY doug… That is ancient Buddhist masonic secret between Wayfarer and myself… that I will never reveal.
😈 😈 Well, okay… never mind. Pam is the moderator on LDS.net that recently banned Wayfarer for his anit anit homosexual comments (three total posts)…. and the same moderator who banned me several months ago.
doug wrote:I guess I see where you’re going with this Ray, and
I can appreciate the attempt to compromise and establish common ground, but …is bordering on the absurd, it seems to me.That made me laugh, by the way.
and why, exactly, is it bordering on the absurd? If you mean that it’s not likely due to current perspectives and biases, I get it – but do you think it’s absurd theologically? How would it compromise our theology in any way?
Hi, guys, I feel like I haven’t posted for a while. This is a subject I can’t stay silent on.
I appreciate Wayfarer’s comments about “suicide watch”. I recently recovered from a fifteen-year bout with depression. I completely loathed myself because of my SSA. All the while I was getting therapy to change, with the idea in my head that I would be happy when I finally change, or that I will be acceptable to myself and the Church if I change, etc., etc. This is by no means uncommon, especially for people who are committed to the restored gospel.
When I finally accepted who I am, an amazing sense of peace entered my life. I am not suggesting this is the case for everyone with SSA, but in may case, therapy helped everything but my SSA.
In spite of the experience I described above, I feel pretty strongly that my life path is going to be celibate. This is an amazingly hard thing to actually accomplish. I had two great conversations with a member of the stake presidency on Sunday, and my bishop on Tuesday, in which I basically bore my heart about the issue, about how painful it is, and about how I was trying to figure out how to make staying in the church work for me. They were both very supportive, and I think that my willingness to share the realities of how difficult it is to be in my position contributed to the incremental change that is coming to pass in the church.
It has
only been about five yearssince the church’s pamphlet “God Loveth His Children”, which acknowledges that people don’t choose their orientation, that some people can’t benefit from reorientation therapy, and that mixed orientation marriage is no longer recommended for people with no attraction to the opposite sex. We’ve come a long way since recommending marriage as a cure, excommunications for SSA, etc. Obviously there is still a long way to go, but things are changing line upon line. Unfortunately, change is a little too slow for the person on the verge of suicide. I have a suspicion that the 15 are still divided on whether people choose their sexual orientation or not. Without that common ground, there is no room for discussion of what to do about gay people. It’s the first thing that has to change in people’s heads about SSA–it is not a choice, and is therefore not an agency issue. Until the majority of church members understand this, we can’t move forward on the implications–and how we have to change as a people in order to become Zion (at least, in relation to SSA).
Thanks for that post Turnin. Best of luck on your spiritual journey.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
Old-Timer wrote:and why, exactly, is it bordering on the absurd?
If you mean that it’s not likely due to current perspectives and biases, I get it – but do you think it’s absurd theologically? How would it compromise our theology in any way?
Maybe 2 things: saying you can get married but must remain “celibate” seem absurd, as is the idea that the church would allow it.I am not sure that theology has anything whatsoever to do with the church’s position on gay marriage.
turinturambar wrote:I appreciate Wayfarer’s comments about “suicide watch”. I recently recovered from a fifteen-year bout with depression. I completely loathed myself because of my SSA.
When I finally accepted who I am, an amazing sense of peace entered my life. I am not suggesting this is the case for everyone with SSA, but in may case, therapy helped everything but my SSA.
In spite of the experience I described above, I feel pretty strongly that my life path is going to be celibate. This is an amazingly hard thing to actually accomplish.
I cannot express in words of text typed on an iPhone the depth of feeling I have for you and your situation.The Way of which I speak is the very Power of God, as expressed in D&C 88. If you read the first parts of this section, you will see that god’s power is the law of nature–or more specific, the tendency of things to operate according to their nature. Even God operates according and is subject to this law.
To be one with god, is to be one with your divine nature. To sin is to go against your divine nature.
The Book of Mormon says that the natural man is an enemy to god. This refers not to our divine nature, but rather, our lusts, our greed, our fears, and the things that separate us from each other and objectify each other.
Our divine nature is our desire to be one, to love one another, to connect to one another in meaningful ways.
To say that you wish to be celibate the remainder of your life may seem like you are following the Way, but I would like to suggest it may be otherwise.
Sex is part of our nature. As you and I have learned, for some, perhaps most, orientation is not something you change, it is something you are. It is your nature. And this nature is divine, but it can be misused.
To objectify another person, or to objectify the act of sex itself, is to succumb to our lusts. This is wrong whether heterosexual or homosexual. To take advantage of a child, to use another person for mere sexual gratification, to participate in gang bangs, to force sex on anyone (even your spouse), or to be part of the sex trade–these are the things that scripture rightly condemns.
But to love another person, to connect as equals in one mind and one heart, is to see the face of god, as the musical Les Miserables intones.
I realize that my words may not be consistent with the current LDS position, but as you consider living in harmony with the Way, you may find that the difficult path of celibacy may not be the Way for you.
Jesus said, “I AM the Way, the Truth, and the Life”. Some people confuse the Church with the Way. While the church truly points and testifies of the Way, it’s important to see the difference. The Way lies beyond the words and arbitrary policies. The Way is Truth, all truth. To follow the Way is to be in the middle of your eternal Life: The Way is I AM, the name of Jesus Christ, to authentically BE in the present, connected to all that is.
Should you find another soul that uplifts you, with whom you genuinely connect, and with whom you are mutually attracted, your commitment to celibacy may need to be re-examined. You will be faced with a choice–for you cannot simultaneously have full membership in the Church and fully celebrate the love you will have for this other person.
Given this choice, choose the Way–to fully and authentically be yourself. You may find this choice a lot easier as you allow yourself to be guided by the Spirit, as was Nephi when faced with a choice.
God loves you. God wants you to be happy. Find yourself and be yourself, and I suspect happiness beyond your imagination might be involved.
As cwald expressed, I hope you find joy in this amazing journey along the Way.
Wow. Amen Way…very well said.
It makes me feel sorrow and ashamed about some of the things I’ve said and believed and felt in the past.
I hope the gods will forgive me for that.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
cwald wrote:It makes me feel sorrow and ashamed about some of the things I’ve said and believed and felt in the past.
screw it. We knew in part, and we’ve prophesied in part. Now we’ve both grown up, and it’s time to set those things aside.Chuang tzu would call this the transformation of things.
cwald wrote:I hope the gods will forgive me for that.
why don’t you ask your divine self? They already have.Lao tzu wrote:Why did the ancients prize the Way? Is it not because in seeking it one finds it, and in making mistakes one is forgiven? That is why it is such a treasure to the world.
Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn thee, go and sin no more.”
Do you think these words were just for the woman caught in the very act?
Old-Timer wrote:and why, exactly, is it bordering on the absurd?
If you mean that it’s not likely due to current perspectives and biases, I get it – but do you think it’s absurd theologically? How would it compromise our theology in any way?
Well, this is all very hypothetical, but I’ll play along.
Quote:… allowing homosexuals to be married but celibate and still be fully “worthy” wouldn’t require any change to our current theology whatsoever …
Married but celibate? Seriously? Aside from ensuing media heyday, how would you even define such a thing? I’m not particularly concerned about the theology, but it would seem to be like creating yet another minefield for those inclined to dig into it. And if “separate but equal” wasn’t good enough for blacks, then I’m pretty certain that what you are suggesting would be an unworkable solution for gays.
Quote:I am not sure that theology has anything whatsoever to do with the church’s position on gay marriage.
I agree completely – which actually is the heart of why I believe we can change lots of things about our policies regarding homosexuality without sacrificing our theology in the slightest.
Quote:How would you even define such a thing?
In the exact same way you would for a heterosexual couple – and by asking ONLY the current question in the temple recommend interview. If the person can answer, “Yes”, according to the dictates of his or her own conscience, understanding the implications of the question for heterosexual members, there wouldn’t need to be any further questioning. If it’s good for one, it should be good for all. Period.
I know this would not be an easy thing in practical terms. I know the biases and inclinations that would complicate it at the local level. I get the difficulties that would arise with this new policy. However, that’s not my point.
My point is that it could be done without changing our core theology in the slightest. To me, that’s not an unimportant, trivial point.
wayfarer wrote:turinturambar wrote:I appreciate Wayfarer’s comments about “suicide watch”. I recently recovered from a fifteen-year bout with depression. I completely loathed myself because of my SSA.
When I finally accepted who I am, an amazing sense of peace entered my life. I am not suggesting this is the case for everyone with SSA, but in may case, therapy helped everything but my SSA.
In spite of the experience I described above, I feel pretty strongly that my life path is going to be celibate. This is an amazingly hard thing to actually accomplish.
I cannot express in words of text typed on an iPhone the depth of feeling I have for you and your situation.The Way of which I speak is the very Power of God, as expressed in D&C 88. If you read the first parts of this section, you will see that god’s power is the law of nature–or more specific, the tendency of things to operate according to their nature. Even God operates according and is subject to this law.
To be one with god, is to be one with your divine nature. To sin is to go against your divine nature.
The Book of Mormon says that the natural man is an enemy to god. This refers not to our divine nature, but rather, our lusts, our greed, our fears, and the things that separate us from each other and objectify each other.
Our divine nature is our desire to be one, to love one another, to connect to one another in meaningful ways.
To say that you wish to be celibate the remainder of your life may seem like you are following the Way, but I would like to suggest it may be otherwise.
Sex is part of our nature. As you and I have learned, for some, perhaps most, orientation is not something you change, it is something you are. It is your nature. And this nature is divine, but it can be misused.
To objectify another person, or to objectify the act of sex itself, is to succumb to our lusts. This is wrong whether heterosexual or homosexual. To take advantage of a child, to use another person for mere sexual gratification, to participate in gang bangs, to force sex on anyone (even your spouse), or to be part of the sex trade–these are the things that scripture rightly condemns.
But to love another person, to connect as equals in one mind and one heart, is to see the face of god, as the musical Les Miserables intones.
I realize that my words may not be consistent with the current LDS position, but as you consider living in harmony with the Way, you may find that the difficult path of celibacy may not be the Way for you.
Jesus said, “I AM the Way, the Truth, and the Life”. Some people confuse the Church with the Way. While the church truly points and testifies of the Way, it’s important to see the difference. The Way lies beyond the words and arbitrary policies. The Way is Truth, all truth. To follow the Way is to be in the middle of your eternal Life: The Way is I AM, the name of Jesus Christ, to authentically BE in the present, connected to all that is.
Should you find another soul that uplifts you, with whom you genuinely connect, and with whom you are mutually attracted, your commitment to celibacy may need to be re-examined. You will be faced with a choice–for you cannot simultaneously have full membership in the Church and fully celebrate the love you will have for this other person.
So a guy comes along and says “I feel pretty strongly that my life path is going to be celibate” and Wayfarer responds by essentially saying he might want to rethink that – he may want to think more about fornicating. How would that help anyone stay LDS? Fornication is fornication whether it’s for lust, money, or love.Sex is not as important as the worlds makes it out to be. It’s a great perk within marriage, but many people live without it. Some people never get married and others are divorced or widowed. It’s possible. For five solid years from age 16 to 21, I survived on nothing but nocturnal emissions and I did just fine.
turinturambar, I won’t pretend to understand homosexuality and I don’t know the answers, but I commend you for saying your path may include celibacy. I think you could receive marvelous blessings and enjoy the companionship of the Holy Ghost.
Shawn, that is wayfarer’s response. Mine would be the same in some ways but different in others. Mine would be an acknowledgment that celibacy certainly is the choice that will keep someone fully within the mainstream of the LDS Church (as wayfarer also said) – and all of my suggestions about possible changes to how we talk about homosexuality right now don’t challenge that fact. If someone wants to stay “fully” LDS, at this moment that includes not engaging in extra-marital sexual intercourse, regardless of sexual orientation. If that is turinturambar’s decision, I support it fully and wouldn’t dream of trying to talk him out of it.
Having said that, I also understand how brutally hard that is – to the extent I can not having gone through it. I know it simply isn’t possible for many people who are homosexual to remain actively engaged within the LDS Church and deal in a healthy way with the messages they get – both from people who genuinely love them and try to support them AND from those who look down on them because of their orientation. Being gay in the LDS Church is not the same as being straight. It just isn’t. It’s much, much, much harder (harder than anyone who is straight possibly can know personally) – and
if someone has to leave in order to avoid severe depression, self-loathing and even suicide (as some people I know personally have had to do), I will support that decision. I wish badly it wasn’t necessary in those cases, and many cases are caused by family members and friends who just don’t understand and who ignorantly condemn, but I know from personal experience that it is sometimes necessary. Ultimately, wayfarer and I agree completely that anyone in that situation has to live according to the dictates of their own conscience (to find their own way to worship and be at peace with God) – and if that means remaining celibate within the LDS Church, I support that completely. If it doesn’t – if it means leaving the LDS Church, I also support that completely – even, again, as I wish it were different. I don’t encourage non-celibacy in isolation, ever – but when even non-sexual intimacy is denied someone . . .
That changes the conversation in fundamental ways for me.
Is this site more about the “Way” or staying LDS?
- The topic ‘Changing the Mormon Conversation on Homosexuality’ is closed to new replies.