- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Shawn wrote:
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.
Shawn, this the last time I will respond to you.I am sick and tired of you misreading, misconstruing, and misdirecting my posts. I put a tremendous amount of time, thought, and personal angst into the above post because of multiple, personal experiences over nearly sixty years of life. I said nothing about fornication, nor did i mean it, think it, or imply it. I specifically repudiated practices condemned by scripture. i have seen attempts to change orientation or stay celibate result in death, and i have seen where coming out and being naturally oneself permanently ends suicidal behavior. if you have lived through this, you would know what I am talking about.
There are many states and churches now that sanctify same sex marriage, for the simple reason that it is morally right. This is a legitimate option for those for whom celibacy is a bad idea. As well, there are many non-marriage options for those who seek a committed same sex relationship, including many that do not involve “fornication”, none of which are supported by the church at present. As I said, this will involve a choice between love and church, and all i am suggesting is to keep one’s options open.
i have lived through years of suicide watch and deaths caused exclusively by people like you who think there is only one way to find happiness. i find no purpose whatsoever in further dialogue with you.
In the future, please do not read, respond, or quote my posts.
I find some of your ideas to be false and dangerous and I will continue to post an opposing view to them. I will do so as respectfully as possible. Quote:Is this site more about the “Way” or staying LDS?
Both – for those who are struggling mightily, the former being a manner of accomplishing the latter. Notice, we continually write of a “way” in lower case lettering – except when referring specifically to a proper noun of that terminology. We speak of finding a way, not “THE WAY” – except when talking of a concept (as with the case of Confucius) or an entity (in the case of Jesus of Nazareth).
To be more direct and relevant explicitly to your question, Jesus is the way, the truth and the light – and finding a way to have a meaningful understanding of and relationship with God, the Father, and God, the Son (of connecting to THAT “Way”) is the heart of it all. Separating that Way from the institution of the Church – then using a new connection to that Way to stay LDS in a personally meaningful manner – that is what this site is about. It’s about “being” Gospel-centered and using that paradigm to deal with the cultural stuff of the Church constructively. It’s about finding balance while being pulled by extremes – finding “a way” within a community, rather than walking “the way” as constructed by someone else.
So, ideally, it is about both simultaneously. However, I would rather have someone be alive and finding their own path outside the LDS Church than be dead on my or your path inside it.
There are exceptions that prove every rule, and for me this is one such exception. I want members of the LDS Church to stay LDS, but I also want those who choose to leave to do so of their own conscious choice and without being rejected and condemned for it. I’d rather have a friend outside the Church than a bitter enemy outside the Church – especially in cases where becoming an enemy is not necessary and is totally avoidable.
If I’m going to err in any way, I’d rather it be on the side of caution, restraint and charity (respecting every person’s right to worship and live according to the dictates of their own consciences) than on the side of quick response and incomplete judgment. I believe what I believe, and I believe it strongly, but part of what I believe is that charity is the penultimate gift of God – eternal life itself being the ultimate gift and being dependent on the acquisition of charity. I will never push someone out of the LDS Church, but I also will not attempt to chain someone within it who has decided to leave.
In the specific case of homosexuality, which is the topic of this post, I understand why someone can desire to stay LDS but be unable to do so. Again, I’ve known too many people who really would be dead if they had stayed – and that trumps staying, imo. If you read our posts carefully, I think (I hope) you will see that.
As to wayfarer’s response and request, please honor it. His explanation deserves respect. You are welcome to continue to participate and converse with everyone else, but pouring burning oil into deep wounds is not something we encourage or will allow. Your expressed perspective on this topic is one such case for wayfarer (and, frankly, it’s starting to get close to that point for me, as well), so please respect his individual request.
Quote:I will continue to post an opposing view to them.
We try hard here not to moderate comments any more than is absolutely necessary, but if any comments condemn those who are gay for acting on their feelings or those who support them in their very difficult choices – or directly challenge the righteousness or worthiness of commenters based on their beliefs, those comments will be deleted.
As I have said in other threads, this is not a policy directed at any person or perspective in particular. I am as “TBM” as it gets, and I love and respect others with radically different beliefs than mine. It is a policy of respectful discussion – and disagreements can be expressed without condemnation and labeling. Cadence, cwald and others can attest to that, since they and I often disagree respectfully.
Addressing the exact issue of this post and the most recent comments, if you or anyone else posts a comment saying or implying, in any way, that it is better to be dead than to engage in sexual activity outside of marriage (regardless of sexual orientation) or that exra-marital sexual activity for homosexuals fits that conclusion while similar homosexual activity does not, that comment will be deleted and the person who writes it will be banned. There are some lines that we will not allow to be crossed without consequences, and that particular line is bright and unambiguous.
Again, you are free to communicate with the rest of us, but please respect wayfarer’s request.
I see now how my response was disrespectful and crude. I am sorry for how I presented my view. To be fair, the following REALLY looks to be referring to sex:
Quote: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.
How could “commitment to celibacy may need to be re-examined” and “fully celebrate the love” not refer to sex at all? I did fail to consider that one could go to certain states and marry another of the same sex, and then it would not be fornication in some sense.If anyone points out where I misunderstood something, I will try to make amends
And I think I have been greatly misunderstood and it was hurtful to read there are “suicide watch[es] and deaths caused exclusively by people like [me].” Thank you, Shawn. This is a good example of why we try so hard to allow feelings to be expressed honestly but with a focus on solutions. Often, our perceptions of what others must be saying is influenced heavily by what different others have said about the same topic. That still happens to me, even though I’ve worked hard to not let it happen for a long time now. Honestly, I had a hard time reading your comment and not concluding that you were saying any result is better than someone who is homosexual acting on their attractions – even death. If that’s not at all what you meant, I apologize. While acknowledging how far we’ve come in many ways regarding this issue in the last decade or so, the latest official policy still has glaring issues. One of those issues, as I mentioned in a previous comment, is that even expressions of intimacy that are not sexual in any way still are discouraged. In a way the current stance says, “It’s OK to feel attracted to those of the same sex – as long as you never do anything that makes it obvious you feel those attractions.” Heterosexual members can do all sorts of things that really aren’t “sexual” in nature, while homosexual members can’t do those exact same things.
Try this as a thought experiment:
You are attracted to women. Imagine what it would be like if you had been told all your life that such an attraction was wrong (and, in some cases, by some people, that such an attraction was reprehensible, disgusting, repulsive or even evil). Imagine if you had been told that you could overcome that attraction if you only had more faith – that, in a very real way, your attraction was a sign of your lack of faith. Imagine if you were told that you needed to marry a man and have sex with him in order to get over your attraction to women. Imagine a minor victory, if you will – being told that all of that was wrong – that you weren’t the vilest of sinners because of your attraction to others of the same sex. However, imagine being told that you still couldn’t let anyone, ever, know about your attraction – that you couldn’t hold hands with a woman, hug or kiss a woman, put your arm around a woman affectionately (no lust involved whatsoever), spend time alone with a woman in a way that someone else might think is inappropriate. Imagine being told that the expression of intimacy of any kind, in any way, had to be absent from your life – with a man, because you weren’t attracted to men, or with a woman, because such things just can’t be accepted.
We’ve come a long way, as I said, but what I just described is what we currently ask of homosexuals – and it’s wrong, plain and simple. We aren’t talking exclusively about avoiding “fornication”; we’re talking about asking someone to live a completely intimacy-free life – at least with someone to whom that person actually feels a physical attraction. Living without physical intimacy of any kind is one definition of Hell – and we condemn it in the case of Catholic priests and nuns (and even blame it for the sexual abuses of the past within those groups). That is not what we ask of heterosexual members, so I understand completely why some people simply can’t stay LDS who face that future.
I admire greatly anyone who can, which means I admire turinturambar greatly, but I also admire greatly those who face intense pressure to conform and who suffer greatly for their decision not to do so. What I admire most is not the specific decision, but rather it is the fact that EITHER decision brings great, terrible pain and suffering initially and, in many cases, over an extended period of time. There is no “easy answer” right now, and I respect those who struggle to find and follow the answer that resonates with their own consciences no matter the consequences. That happens for those who make both choices being discussed.
Shawn wrote:Is this site more about the “Way” or staying LDS?
I can’t speak for anyone else here, but for me this site is about finding peace, regardless of how that is achieved. For some, that means not staying LDS.
Peace. “Men are that they might have joy (peace.)
The end.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
Old-Timer wrote:Honestly, I had a hard time reading your comment and not concluding that you were saying any result is better than someone who is homosexual acting on their attractions – even death. If that’s not at all what you meant, I apologize.
The thought that anything is better than acting on homosexual attractions really really never crossed my mind.Quote:The thought that anything is better than acting on homosexual attractions really really never crossed my mind.
I’m glad to read that. Again, I apologize for thinking it might have.
This thread has run its course, and there really isn’t more that can be added that is new. We’re locking it now.
- The topic ‘Changing the Mormon Conversation on Homosexuality’ is closed to new replies.