June 17th New Movie coming out "8-TheMormonProposition

[Anonymous]

Here is the link to the trailer on it: http://www.hulu.com/watch/148938/movie-trailers-8-the-mormon-proposition

How do you think it will affect the church and people’s testimonies?

[Anonymous]

I’m clueless as to how it will affect the church or people’s testimonies. Having said that, I am so excited to see it here in Los Angeles. I am counting the days till June 17th. I will take my oldest brother, (now partial encumbered with age), but a open gay man for the last three decades. Len used to like the church because I was committed to it. I loved the church. But Proposition 8 changed both of our perceptions toward the church forever. I don’t know if my large immediate family will chose to see it, I suspect they will be warned by the brethren to stay away. Obviously my gay son will go with his friends (he has left the church). My youngest son and daughter-in-law are very liberal. If I offer to babysit, I suspect they will go and see it. They loved the movie MILK. They came home and we talked about the movie for a solid hour.

I’m sure the dialogue the church PR people will use has already been written and rehearsed. Either that, or they may simply chose to say “No Comment.” If other case, the movie will be viewed by other Christians who will see the LDS church in a controlling, agenda-driven way. It won’t be good. It will further solidify the gay/lesbian community in their belief that the Mormon church does not welcome them (which indeed is basically true). Affirmation:G&L Mormons has tried for decades to have a real dialogue with our ecclesiastical leaders. They refuse to meet.

Oren Hatch, said this week in Utah, that Gays don’t pay tithing. How very telling of his perception. It is a thought learned from within the LDS church? What is his source?

[Anonymous]

Hi George,

Thanks so much for your comments and refreshing me on your family situation. I know this will make my gay son dislike the Mormon church even more. My son does agree with me that the church raised him with good values and there are many good things about the church, but there are many things he does not like about the church such as the prop 8 thing. Buttars – a Utah state legislator who is one of the poorest excuses for a latter-day saint that I have ever had the misfortune to hear is in the movie. He is a disgrace to humanity, let alone the Church. I would think even the brethren must shudder every time he opens his obnoxious mouth. I still need to rent MILK. I did not like Hatch’s comment either.

My Danish friend and I had started a yahoo group a few years ago called, “Family Reconcilation” http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FamilyReconciliation/ We wanted a group where those on both sides of this issue in families could find common ground and understanding. We just had a new member join who is a young gay BYU student, who is still active in the church yet pro-gay. He seems pretty fair minded and said I could share his book review that he made on another group. I invite any of your interested in our group to join.

Here is this young man’s review:

Last week a person gave me a copy of the book, “Understanding Same-Sex Attraction”, edited by Dennis V. Dahle, A. Dean Byrd, et. al., and a few days ago I wrote up my thoughts on the book’s approach. I thought I would post this here, and am interested to hear anyone else’s thoughts as well:

I appreciate the authors’ efforts to address this sensitive and often misunderstood topic. As a homosexually oriented, active member of the Church, I appreciate that this book may help people understand that most (if not all) people who are homosexually oriented did not choose to be so, and hope this may help people respond to this issue with more compassion and Christ-like love.

In this book, many of the authors very forcefully take the stance that homosexual orientation is not inborn and can be changed, and none of the authors question this stance. This is a bit surprising, in light of the fact that in recent years the Church has taken a neutral position on these questions. For instance, when President Hinckley was interviewed by Larry King in 2004 and asked if he thought gays were “born” that way, President Hinckley said, “I don’t know. I’m not an expert on these things. I don’t pretend to be an expert on these things.” And, in their 2006 interview (on the LDS Newsroom under “Same-Gender Attraction”), Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman are fairly ambivalent about whether “therapy” can change a person’s orientation.

I feel that these are very delicate and important scientific questions, calling for careful, thorough investigation. The authors advance many psychological and social explanations for the causes of a person’s homosexual orientation: some argue that unhealthy parental bonding, sexual abuse, or being bullied or teased by peers, can lead to “gender confusion” resulting in homosexuality. Another author argues that a person can cause their own problem with same-sex attraction by being too emotionally sensitive, introspective, and perfectionistic. Other cited factors are childhood gender-non-conforming behavior and exposure to immoral media and peers. Unfortunately, the authors do not provide any reliable scientific evidence to substantiate that these, or any other social factors, can actually cause a person to have a homosexual orientation.

Indeed, over the past decade, evidence has continued to mount that one’s orientation is determined by biological factors before birth. A 2005 study found that the brain of homosexual men responded to (putative) human pheromones differently from heterosexual men, and that the response in homosexual men concorded with the response in heterosexual women. Approximately 8% of male sheep are male-oriented, meaning they will not mate with females, only other males. Does anyone believe this is caused by the sheep being teased by their peers, or being too introspective, or exposed to immoral media? Researchers have been unable to identify social factors for such behaviors in sheep, but a 2004 study found that a certain brain structure associated with sexual behavior was twice as large in female-oriented male sheep than male-oriented male sheep. This same structure also varies in size between male and female sheep, and a 2007 study found that this difference develops before birth. An analagous brain structure also exists in humans and, as in sheep, is found to be on average twice as large in heterosexual men as in homosexual men.

I believe it is certainly possible for a person to control or suppress their attractions (emotional, physical, and sexual), whether they are toward the same or opposite gender; indeed, faithful married people hopefully learn to do this instinctively. And I believe that counseling can be effective in helping people overcome sexual addictions (whether heterosexual or homosexual). There are many people who are bisexual to varying degrees, capable of experiencing attraction to either gender. However, there is no “therapy” that can enable people to experience heterosexual attraction in cases where biologically no capacity for such attraction exists. This is the case for me and many of my friends. I am grateful that in recent years, Church leaders such as Elder Oaks and Wickman have indicated that heterosexual marriage may not be possible as a reasonable option for people like me. It is frustrating that in their zeal to deny that a person’s orientation might be inborn and unchangable, the authors of the book ignore the insight of such Church leaders and dismiss objections of members like me by interpreting our experiences as mere “shadows on the wall”.

The authors believe that the idea that a person’s orientation may be inborn and unchangable is a evil doctrine of the world. From my perspective it’s the exact opposite. It is the denial that homosexual orientation may be inborn and unchangable which leads to pernicious consequences. Families distance themselves from their homosexual loved ones because of a false fear that their children may be vulnerable to “learning” a homosexual orientation from them. Individuals, encouraged by the false promise that a change of orientation is possible, become disillusioned and depressed when they painfully discover that this is not the case. Family and friends judge such individuals because they assume they must not be trying hard enough to change. These difficulties cause families to be divided and even broken. Many individuals lose their faith, and some take their own lives. Is this what we want to happen?

But what about the success stories, of people changing and “leaving homosexuality”? Well, consider the case of “Robert James”, the most detailed personal account in the book, and, I would assume, one of the best success stories that the authors could find. He describes that he found help that enabled him to conquer his sexual addictions, and felt good about marrying a woman. But notwithstanding his faithful commitment to his wife and family, he describes that after six years of marriage, “my desires for male affection and companionship were so strong that it was still all I could do to keep myself from leaving it all and finding a man”. Later he describes how he found more peace by allowing himself to meet his need for emotional and physical closeness to men through healthy friendships, without crossing the line into sexual intimacy. Years later, he describes that the “yearning and attraction” for men were finally “mostly gone”. He attributes this to an epiphany that came as a result of playing softball with a group of men; I would suggest as another possible explanation that, by this time in his life, his libido was simply decreasing naturally. After 25 years of marriage, he asks, “Do I still struggle? Yes, of course I do … Am I still sexually attracted to men? I suppose so, if I thought about it.” Robert’s story is an inspiring story of sacrifice and devotion. It does not, however, appear to be a story of a person changing their orientation.

The basic approach of the book is outlined by the statement, “We begin by standing on what bedrock we can find — the words of ancient and living prophets — and go from there” (p. 16). The irony of this is that the living prophets have announced that they are not experts on the topic at hand, particularly when it comes to the questions of whether a person’s homosexual orientation may be inborn or immutable. The authors appear to derive their position from past statements of Church leaders, statements which are now out-of-date since the Church has now made clear that it takes no position on these questions. I hope that in the future a more careful, thorough approach may be taken on this issue.

– Brent

[Anonymous]

bridget_night wrote:

Here is the link to the trailer on it: http://www.hulu.com/watch/148938/movie-trailers-8-the-mormon-proposition

How do you think it will affect the church and people’s testimonies?

I’ve seen a few clips of this movie, and know many of the principals involved with it. I LOVE what this movie is doing! It is getting stellar reviews around the world at the screenings. I think it is/will bring much needed attention to an outdated teaching that I see as the next civil rights issue of our time — equal rights for all in marriage.

Having said that, I’m sure some of the content is inflammatory, out of context, and will really irritate many in the church. My step-father has already called it all outright lies (no, he hasn’t seen it!). Welcome to Hollywood style PR.

The reason I really like what it is doing is that it is bringing energy to the clearly (IMO) bigoted teaching regarding our gay/lesbian brothers and sisters. The teaching, although evolving to a more PC approach, still tells “them” they are broken if they act out on their feelings of love towards people they are born to love. As my friend Carol Lynn Pearson says in her play “Facing East,” “it is like telling the flowering tree that you are okay, but that blossoming thing you do in the spring is unacceptable!” How many of you would be perfectly comfortable living a totally celibate life your entire existence? We’ve seen what it does to the Catholic clergy!

So I hope this will be a helpful step to motivate the powers that be to reconsider their stance regarding homosexuality; and at the very least, leave the political arena alone and let those different than most live their lives in peace and with equal rights!

[Anonymous]

Rix wrote:

We’ve seen what it does to the Catholic clergy!

Not all Catholic Clergy…but I get the point you’re driving at.

I would imagine Hollywood needs it to be controversial to make money…I can’t imagine it will be fair to the church. So I’m sure there will be some stretched truths (Hollywood does that??? 😯 )

But I still think I would like to see it and see how they raise the issue. I agree with you, it seems to be the new social issue of our time.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

Rix wrote:

We’ve seen what it does to the Catholic clergy!

Not all Catholic Clergy…but I get the point you’re driving at.

Yes…sorry to have implied that. But the point I was trying to make is that for the majority of human beings, sexual intimacy is a desire we have second only to survival.

The church has (mostly) evolved to take a stance that some are “born this way,” but to act on the urge at all is a sin to be avoided to remain in good graces. That concept leaves many with enough guilt and shame that they have taken their lives because of the intense depression and hopelessness they have felt.

I understand the postion the church is in…on the one hand, they lose face if they say “it’s okay” for gays to marry — reversing a hard and fast doctrine deeply ingrained that says marriage is only for heterosexuals. But they also face the reality that this position is bigoted and hateful towards approximately 5% of God’s children — an inconsistent position when the underlying theme of the church is “love.”

But they have been through this challenge before with the doctrines of necessary plural marriage and disallowing blacks full blessings of the gospel…and I’m sure it is possible to take the high road here too and do what is right. It might just take time.

[Anonymous]

Here is another post by my gay friend on how homosexuality and church doctrine might be able to come together someday:

Hi everyone,

In response to my note on the book “Understanding Same-Sex Attraction”, a friend asked whether “homosexuality could coincide with Church doctrine?” I thought I would post here my thoughts on that (which I previously put up on a Facebook note last week); I’m interested in knowing what others here think about this.

First of all, in one respect homosexuality already coincides with Church doctrine, in that the Church recognizes that some people have a homosexual orientation, and this isn’t considered sinful (since it’s not a choice, how could it be?), as long as they’re celibate. Therefore, the Church at this point doesn’t have a problem with a person’s homosexuality per se.

I think it’s interesting that Mormonism has a unique approach to the issue of homosexuality, in comparison with other Christian denominations. Namely, the current Mormon position does not seem to be based on the biblical negative statements. Rather, it is based on the unique Mormon view of marriage and family. The narrative generally goes like this: First of all, marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and is central to His plan for the rearing of children in eternal families; a same-sex relationship does not contribute to this plan and is therefore wrong.

I think this narrative made sense when we were in the paradigm that homosexuals were simply off course and with some help could be guided back and marry normally. But now the Church is gradually acknowledging that it may not be this simple, that heterosexual marriage may not be a reasonable option (in this life) for people who simply are not capable of experiencing any attraction to the opposite gender. What is really being asked then is to live a life of celibacy. I think everyone should now ask, how does _that_ contribute to the plan for families any more than a same-sex relationship?

There are other issues, such as divorce, where the Church used to take a hard line, but has now become more flexible and accommodating. The Church also allows widowed women to remarry; even if it cannot be an eternal marriage (e.g., if she is still sealed to her former husband), and even if she cannot have children through this marriage, the Church still acknowledges the value of such a marriage, as something that provides love, support, companionship, and opportunities for personal growth to the individuals involved. Might it be possible that someday same-sex marriage may be viewed in a similar light for people who cannot reasonably enter a heterosexual marriage? Even if it is not considered “ideal”, maybe it could at least be acknowledged that having this type of family may be better than having no family at all? There are few “ideal” families in the real world.

I think so much harm has been done when people have confused love with lust and have assumed that homosexuals only feel lust. Gay people feel love just the same as straight people; I think it’s exactly the same, except for which gender it’s directed towards. There are definitely stereotypes that say homosexuality is all about sex and lust; and often, when gays are cast out of their religious communities and families, they give up their values about sexual morality, and to an extent the stereotype may become a self-fulfilling prediction.

Right now there are missionaries out there knocking on the doors of families headed by same-sex couples, people who are deeply committed and love their spouse and children. The missionaries, I imagine, move on as quickly as possible; I think that few in good conscience could bring themselves to say to their face that God wants them to break their family up. What is supposed to happen to the children in this situation? I don’t think anyone has a good answer for that. It’s a position that clashes so painfully with the Church’s normally pro-family stance, to say to these people that they just aren’t meant to have a family, to say that their heartfelt attempts to do so are sinful and wrong. It seems inevitable that if this position does not change, it is going to create increasing conflict for the Church, both internal and external, until eventually it reaches a crisis point.

My friends who have spoken with general authorities about this have indicated that this is an issue that many of the Brethren are praying about and struggling with, to find out how to deal with it. There is not a single reference in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, or Pearl of Great Price about this topic; I think there would be no better time than now for an enlightening revelation from above, providing a solution for faithful homosexuals who want to live a moral life but feel a righteous desire to have a family. God rarely reveals new truths until people are asking for them. There were many people praying for years for the revelation on blacks receiving the priesthood before it occurred. Some of those people were apostles, and even now I think there are apostles praying that revelation will come on this issue.

I feel like God is happy when there is deep, honest communication between Church leaders and members. God wants us to be fully united as a Church, and I think effective, respectful communication is how we get there. I’ve had the chance to describe my experiences and openly express my perceptions in many pleasant conversations with Church leaders, and I hope to have many more opportunities to do so. Maybe some would see this as “steadying the ark”, but I guess that’s not how I see it, nor how they seem to see it. Church leaders that I’ve talked to so far have generally thanked me for providing feedback in this way, and have indicated that it is helpful. I feel like this is how progress is made; this is how we as a Church move forward in understanding, in small ways like this, as we speak to each other sincerely and try to help each other understand. I believe that God is happy when this takes place.

– Brent

[Anonymous]

btw. If any Satan worshiper or evil person can get married legally, why not a loving homosexual couple?

[Anonymous]

bridget_night wrote:

Here is another post by my gay friend on how homosexuality and church doctrine might be able to come together someday:

Hi everyone,…- Brent

Thanks Bridget for posting this. Brent is very articulate and composed in his approach, where many who have been hurt are not as calm in their response to this problem. I agree with everything he says; I especially like how he emphasizes the love that exists between same-sex couples — an attitude that is unfortunately not common in the church in my experience.

I also agree that this seems to be the way prayers are answered…the comparison between this and the blacks/priesthood issue is a good one, IMO. We can only hope and pray that the outcome will be as positive as the last one was!

[Anonymous]

bridget_night wrote:

What is really being asked then is to live a life of celibacy. I think everyone should now ask, how does _that_ contribute to the plan for families any more than a same-sex relationship?

BN, I echo Rix, I am impressed with Brent’s loving tone.

I also thought it was interesting to go to the LDS website, look under Gospel Topics and look up Birth Control. It reads:

Quote:

Sexual relations within marriage are not only for the purpose of procreation, but also a means of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual ties between husband and wife.

It seems right now the Church teaches there is value between Husband and Wife, and no other arrangement. But as it says in the quote, sex is not only for procreation. It seems to me it would take a long time for the church to change its position, but it is not hopeless.

[Author]

Posts