- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
For those who think the LDS church is wrong to say same-sex affection/behavior is sinful, how do you deal with the shame this potentially causes gay LDS members? I am heterosexual but I have empathy for the gay LDS member. I do like the “LDS and gay” website in that it tries to reduce shame and encourage compassion and parents accepting their child’s same-sex attraction; but they do say homosexual love relationships is sinful, thus forcing the Kinsey level 6 person (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale ) to either be celibate or marry someone they are not that into sensually. If this is an issue for you how do you reconcile your conscience with your attendance at Church and support of the Brethren? My own way of dealing with it, if I decided to go back as I am currently resigned, would have to be to say to myself the ol’ “A prophet is a prophet only when acting as such,” and that they are not acting as prophets in my opinion. I would say to myself that just as they changed the doctrine that blacks are the cursed seed of Cain and unvaliant in the preexistence; so too, as social pressure mounts another revelation will come and a new essay will come out like the 2013 essay Race and the Priesthood, only the new essay will read Gays and Worthiness, or something like that. And it will say, forget everything we said about same-sex love, new light and knowledge has dawned on us, etc.How do those with whom this is an issue deal with it? This is one of those issues I cannot easily fit neatly up on a shelf and out of conscious view.
There comes a point in coping where any issue — whether their conscription model of service, leadership abuse, forced tithing, history, doctoral stances, bad programs and structure, policies on gays — is dealt with in a similar manner. I compartmentalize it. if it doesn’t affect me (like the treatment of gays), then it is easier. If it affects me, then I manage it by a) reducing my involvement in areas I have to confront it b) not mentioning it to anyone at church, but discussing it here
I have also learned to take the church with a grain of salt. I have a testimony, but I live my life in the church believing this “true church” has a much bigger margin of error than the leaders or culture would be comfortable with us believing. They can be dead wrong about issues, and they are very slow to see the light. For example, the new ministering program, while a great improvement and welcome, is a case in point. That program has been in trouble for a very long time — perhaps decades. Yet it took that long for them to see it was flawed.
So I see many policies they enact as evidence of the imperfection of the church, it’s lack of self-awareness, and its slowness to change. I accept these things in the church, while getting out the frustrations in discussions here.
I hope that answers your questions…
By being a voice of reason within my sphere of influence. Also, by refusing to use the word “Gays”. I would never says “Straights”, so I never say “Gays”. “Homosexual people” is longer, but it is much more accurate, kind, and non-dismissive in nature. I know you meant NO negativity or disrespect in what you typed, but recognizing the little ways we marginalize is important.
Someday i see the church changing so that women will hold leadership callings just as the men do, bear priesthood openly etc (as they are holders of priesthood right now themselves), and after that changes may begin on this front. Till then I speculate. I see the issue of being in the church and not living the lifestyle as you want, to be the same regardless of your gender or sexual preference. In one sense I cannot live the life that I want right now. I have made the choices to abstain from certain things so that I can live within gospel standards, church standards, and moral standards. Same goes for anyone else. This may be a limited view coming from a hetero male who is married, I can see that yet I also see the other views. We all have varying degrees of sex attraction across the spectrum, so we should be able to sympathize with others in their situations.
This is a real issue for me because I’ve seen firsthand the negative impact it has on gay youth. I’m not sure this is entirely logical – but it seems somewhat hypocritical for a parent to tell their LGBT child “the church is my ideal so I choose to be in it but I understand if you don’t.” To me it seems almost condescending along the lines of “I can live the church’s standards but I understand if you aren’t strong enough to live it.” It’s hard for me to explain. I wonder if my youngest son will be gay. He is very “pretty” with delicate features, has long hair, and for numerous other reasons. I’ve told my entire family that if is gay I’ll probably leave the church in support of him. I’m pretty sure my wife will go to the celestial kingdom without me at this point anyways since I’m not a true believer so it doesn’t matter for me.
To answer the question how do I deal with it? I avoid the subject at all costs at church.
Old Timer wrote:Also, by refusing to use the word “Gays”. I would never says “Straights”, so I never say “Gays”. “Homosexual people” is longer, but it is much more accurate, kind, and non-dismissive in nature. I know you meant NO negativity or disrespect in what you typed, but recognizing the little ways we marginalize is important.
Not picking a fight Curt but my understanding is that gay people prefer that over homosexual. I work in a company headquartered in San Francisco and hear the language frequently. Maybe capitalizing the word gay isn’t ideal and perhaps that’s the point.
From the GLAAD Media Reference guide (
https://www.glaad.org/reference/offensive ):Offensive: “homosexual” (n. or adj.)
Preferred: “gay” (adj.); “gay man” or “lesbian” (n.); “gay person/people”Please use gay or lesbian to describe people attracted to members of the same sex. Because of the clinical history of the word “homosexual,” it is aggressively used by anti-gay extremists to suggest that gay people are somehow diseased or psychologically/emotionally disordered – notions discredited by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in the 1970s. Please avoid using “homosexual” except in direct quotes. Please also avoid using “homosexual” as a style variation simply to avoid repeated use of the word “gay.” The Associated Press, The New York Times and The Washington Post restrict use of the term “homosexual” (see AP & New York Times Style).
Wonnerful wrote:
For those who think the LDS church is wrong to say same-sex affection/behavior is sinful, how do you deal with the shame this potentially causes gay LDS members?How do those with whom this is an issue deal with it? This is one of those issues I cannot easily fit neatly up on a shelf and out of conscious view.
I am also heterosexual. The closest family member I have who is gay is a second cousin I almost never even see, so I have no real reason to be an LGBT ally except that my conscience won’t let me be otherwise. I started a thread on this forum probably about two or three years ago about how I “came out” as an LGBT ally to my bishop as part of a temple recommend interview. (I’d post a link to my OP if I knew how to do so on this forum.) Fortunately, I had an absolutely amazing bishop at that time and he was completely supportive of my strong feelings. This was six months or so before “the policy” went into effect and it was also prior to same-sex marriage being legalized. Anyway, we discussed the fact that I always march with “Mormons Building Bridges” in Salt Lake City’s annual pride parade. I told him that on the first year I marched (I’ve marched 5 years in a row now), all the way downtown to the parade, I kept thinking, “What would my bishop think?” I continued by telling him that about halfway through the parade itself, I found myself thinking, “Who cares what my bishop thinks. I know what my Heavenly Father thinks and He’s okay with this.” My bishop’s answer: “So’s your bishop.” (Note: Now that I’ve unburdened myself once, I don’t feel as if I have to clear my conscience every time I get a new bishop, so that’s a real plus.)
I can’t even begin to explain what an incredible experience it is to march with Mormons Building Bridges. It is positively exhilarating and yet deeply humbling to realize how many people you can make so happy by doing so little. If there is a Mormons Building Bridges group in your area (they have groups all over the U.S. that march in pride parades), I would strongly suggest marching with them. All Mormons Building Bridges stands for is love and compassion. They emphasize kindness towards the LGBT community and being a part of a group that advocates Christ-like love is extremely liberating.
Simple: It’s a bad policy from a flawed organization run by flawed people. I don’t expect there to be gay sealings, but not labeling them as sinners/apostates and robbing them of their temple recommends wouldn’t be too much to ask. The policies have gotten better over the years (mostly), but the thing is that celibacy will never be satisfying as long as it is forced upon the individual by the organization’s expectations. Gay members will forever feel left out. The church obsesses over marriage and families and guess what gay people will never have if they remain celibate? When the very essence of what it means to be a good Mormon is robbed from you by the very institution that gave it, there will be serious issues. While the church might work for a select few gay people, most of them are better off without it IMO.
SilentDawning wrote:
There comes a point in coping where any issue — whether their conscription model of service, leadership abuse, forced tithing, history, doctoral stances, bad programs and structure, policies on gays — is dealt with in a similar manner.I compartmentalize it. if it doesn’t affect me (like the treatment of gays), then it is easier. If it affects me, then I manage it by a) reducing my involvement in areas I have to confront it b) not mentioning it to anyone at church, but discussing it here
I have also learned to take the church with a grain of salt. I have a testimony, but I live my life in the church believing this “true church” has a much bigger margin of error than the leaders or culture would be comfortable with us believing. They can be dead wrong about issues, and they are very slow to see the light. For example, the new ministering program, while a great improvement and welcome, is a case in point. That program has been in trouble for a very long time — perhaps decades. Yet it took that long for them to see it was flawed.
So I see many policies they enact as evidence of the imperfection of the church, it’s lack of self-awareness, and its slowness to change. I accept these things in the church, while getting out the frustrations in discussions here.
I hope that answers your questions…
Yes it does.
Old Timer wrote:
By being a voice of reason within my sphere of influence.Also, by refusing to use the word “Gays”. I would never says “Straights”, so I never say “Gays”. “Homosexual people” is longer, but it is much more accurate, kind, and non-dismissive in nature. I know you meant NO negativity or disrespect in what you typed, but recognizing the little ways we marginalize is important.
I take your point, but keep in mind that I was saying that “the Church” would use the term “Gays” in a future essay, “the Church,” not me … And if I am not mistaken when I skimmed the LDS book That We May Be One, Tom specifically uses the term gay. So you are right I definitely mean no harm as I support gay rights and gay marriage and the right for “homosexual” people to act on their attractions without shame. (Note: that one person’s post said to put “homosexual” in quotes). Or should I change it back to “gay”? I’ll let you guys decide at this point.
Old Timer wrote:
By being a voice of reason within my sphere of influence.Also, by refusing to use the word “Gays”. I would never says “Straights”, so I never say “Gays”. “Homosexual people” is longer, but it is much more accurate, kind, and non-dismissive in nature. I know you meant NO negativity or disrespect in what you typed, but recognizing the little ways we marginalize is important.
I also changed the sub heading of my post.
Beefster wrote:
Simple: It’s a bad policy from a flawed organization run by flawed people. I don’t expect there to be gay sealings, but not labeling them as sinners/apostates and robbing them of their temple recommends wouldn’t be too much to ask.The policies have gotten better over the years (mostly), but the thing is that celibacy will never be satisfying as long as it is forced upon the individual by the organization’s expectations. Gay members will forever feel left out. The church obsesses over marriage and families and guess what gay people will never have if they remain celibate? When the very essence of what it means to be a good Mormon is robbed from you by the very institution that gave it, there will be serious issues. While the church might work for a select few gay people, most of them are better off without it IMO.
Wow, that is a really good point. Cuts through all the apologetics and gets to the real issue, how they are made to feel as outside the norm within the social norms the Church sets up.
Then again, as a heterosexual single man over 30 who at this point am pretty sure I don’t want kids and don’t want to marry, I am not sure I fit the social norms either if I were to return to the Church after resigning.
Yes, it is the capitalization of “Gays” that I avoid. The word “gay” is an accepted term, so “gay people” is fine – as is LGBT, LGBTQ, LGBTQ+, etc. Beefster wrote:
Simple: It’s a bad policy from a flawed organization run by flawed people. I don’t expect there to be gay sealings, but not labeling them as sinners/apostates and robbing them of their temple recommends wouldn’t be too much to ask.The policies have gotten better over the years (mostly), but the thing is that celibacy will never be satisfying as long as it is forced upon the individual by the organization’s expectations. Gay members will forever feel left out. The church obsesses over marriage and families and guess what gay people will never have if they remain celibate? When the very essence of what it means to be a good Mormon is robbed from you by the very institution that gave it, there will be serious issues. While the church might work for a select few gay people, most of them are better off without it IMO.
What Beefster said.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.