- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
BKP wrote:
There is a falsehood that some are born with an attraction to their own kind, with nothing they can do about it. They are just “that way” and can only yield to those desires. That is a malicious and destructive lie. While it is a convincing idea to some, it is of the devil. No one is locked into that kind of life. From our premortal life we were directed into a physical body. There is no mismatching of bodies and spirits. Boys are to become men—masculine, manly men—ultimately to become husbands and fathers. No one is predestined to a perverted use of these powers.
I read recently something from Greg Prince. He said it is his opinion that the GAs have a deep seated believe that those who are gay choose this lifestyle.
G. Prince wrote:
[My response] I suspect there are many people in this church who either have written or wish to write the kind of letter you sent me. Let me drop straight to the bottom line: the reason LGBT issues are splitting the LDS Church is that its leadership still clings to the belief—and some leaders cling to it with the tenacity of a death-grip—that homosexuality is a matter of choice, and that having made the bad choice at an earlier time, someone with “same-sex attraction” (a euphemism that I detest) can simply choose to be straight. All of our LGBT-related policies and doctrines are built on this foundation.In earlier decades, the LDS position on homosexuality was consistent with that of most churches and most of society (and is still consistent with that of evangelicals, among others). The problem with that position is that science has increasingly had the say on what the basis of homosexuality is, and in a word it is this: BIOLOGY. The early “hunt for the gay gene” was a futile effort that sidetracked everyone and allowed some to declare victory over biology; but anyone who understood then the complexity of homosexuality—particularly the fact that there are many, many different flavors and they are not simply points along a line—should have known that its biological underpinnings would be equally complex. This is turning out to be the case, where the biology involves the interaction of genes (plural), epigenetics (the manner in which gene expression is regulated), and other environmental factors that are not yet completely understood, with the result being a biological imprinting that cannot be changed, no matter how violent and extreme the attempts. Yet, while science has pointed the way to biology, the LDS hierarchy has persisted in believing that homosexuality is simply behavioral. (The closest they have come to real movement is to concede that biology may be a factor, but then to say, “But that’s irrelevant, because you are still responsible for your behavior.” It’s like saying to an African-American, “You may not have chosen your skin color, but if you act on it you are a sinner.”)
So, celibacy is certainly the only option — BECAUSE they chose to live that life themselves. Thats my take on what the GAs think.
I think it is a cruel position to take.
Rob4Hope wrote:Years ago, the church had a position that sex was for having babies…period. Any form a birth control was consider, and spoken about, as serious sin. I’m not making this up.
You’re right, you are not making that up. It has been a position for a while. But it was not a “mormon” position. Many christian faiths and other faiths had that position as well. Why do you think orthodox Irish Catholic families are so big? Same reason mormon families were. Contraception was viewed as an evil invention of man to justify carnal desires. Like I said…it wasn’t a mormon invention to preach that.
Rob4Hope wrote:So, celibacy is certainly the only option — BECAUSE they chose to live that life themselves.
They have clearly moved off that stance as the only explanation, although I agree it seemed that was the generally held position. The past view statements by the church leaders clearly is stating they don’t know why some have those feelings or attractions, I think because so much research makes it pretty clear it is genetic. But there is always choices people can make along with the genetic cards they were dealt. But I feel confident the church leaders do not think it is all a choice. My frustration is they seem to not move far enough off of that…and are still sending very painful messages to those of our brothers and sisters in the LGBT community. And I don’t find it comfortable. I think the church is wrong. I keep hoping for more change quickly.
Even still…your points are good ones…GA statements need to be weighed with our own conscience and experience in life. Amen, brother!
Rob4Hope wrote:I don’t know the personal feelings of the leadership…but I believe their collective opinion is that celibacy isn’t that big of a problem.
As I have aged, the [ahem] “urges” have subsided considerably.
😳 I’m mid-50s and this has been a steadily (but slowly) dropping thing. I recognize that just like the onset of puberty itself, this can be vastly different for different guys. Why do you think those ED meds are so successful? Celibacy is certainly more doable for me now than it would have been 30 years ago, even though I still don’t think I could do total celibacy by choice. However, the baby of the bunch (Stevenson) still has a few years on me and the granddaddy (Nelson) has a few decades. For the older among them, celibacy is probably a fact of life, hence not a big deal.It is interesting to me that we send out our young men at their peaks (for most) and ask them to be celibate – and most are. There are lots of protections in place, of course, and the de-emphasis of masturbation is also a plus. But as that other thread points out, that celibacy could be very short lived after returning from missions – sinful or not.
I agree, the older you get the physical act (sex) is not as strong as it was at 18. I do miss being intimate (having a close personal relationship).
The need for an intimate relationship is just as strong as it was when I was 18.
You can have an emotional affair without committing the sexual act.
DarkJedi wrote:
As I have aged, the [ahem] “urges” have subsided considerably.😳 I’m mid-50s and this has been a steadily (but slowly) dropping thing. I recognize that just like the onset of puberty itself, this can be vastly different for different guys. Why do you think those ED meds are so successful? Celibacy is certainly more doable for me now than it would have been 30 years ago, even though I still don’t think I could do total celibacy by choice. However, the baby of the bunch (Stevenson) still has a few years on me and the granddaddy (Nelson) has a few decades. For the older among them, celibacy is probably a fact of life, hence not a big deal.
I think these older men see things through their current perspective.
Relationship connection is a big deal, and sexuality often aids and abets that in marriage. But, when you have massive connections (like these men do), and you are older, I believe it can become easier to simply loose sight of the fact many don’t have such connections, and sexuality provides a powerful means for that to happen.
Whether they feel that way or not, the message they often share is one restrictive and stifling. Sexulaity to them is one aspect of life, and they don’t respect it as something that for many is important.
So call me ignorant if you want (just don’t call me late for dinner 
recently(I’m talking last 10 years or perhaps during Monson’s administration) on the subject? My perception is that’s it is talked about with much less frequency and with much less ladling of guilt – but I also paid little attention to anything coming from SLC for several of those years. For instance, the “no birth control” stance has softened significantly and the current GHI says:
Quote:It is the privilege of married couples who are able to bear children to provide mortal bodies for the spirit children of God, whom they are then responsible to nurture and rear. The decision as to how many children to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter.
Married couples should also understand that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a way of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife.
I haven’t heard a GA of any type, much less a Q15, say anything about having large families or “multiplying and replenishing” (a phrase I always thougt was interesting, BTW) lately.I’m not being lazy and asking you to do the research for me, but I’m working on the assumption there have been things said that have rubbed some of us the wrong way and I just am unaware of them. I await further light and knowledge!
😈 DJ, I do think you are right in that the stance of the church has changed. But often (usually) the church does not change at a point in time, but they stop saying/emphasizing something over time and after a generation or two things have just changed. I believe that is a big part of what has happened with church history. Go back a few generations before correlation and the general membership did know much more than they do now (at least before the internet). There never was a release by the PR department stating “we are not going to talk about JS’s polyandry.” I think the frustration you are hearing is the people that get caught during the change. Reading between the lines of what I see (and feel) Rob4Hope trying to say is, “MY marriage was affected by the teachings that me and my wife were taught and I hear no leader doing much of any correction that can help me.” It leaves you with a feeling of leaders made a mistakes in the path (we all do), but rather than owning up to it, leaders will quietly change course and not even admit there the carnage in the tracks.
And at some point if the church leaders are not actively correcting these issues, they hold some responsibility for allowing them to go on without clear course corrections. I feel this is true even if they do it out of ignorance because they don’t take the time to figure out what is going on.
And I still see room for improvement. Reading the March 2014 Ensign article by Elder Callister I read what could have been in the 1970’s Ensign with statements like,
Quote:“Satan is like an octopus trying to capture us. If one tentacle does not work, he will try another and another until he finds one that takes hold” and “It [pornograpy] is a poisonous, venomous, unforgiving snake that will strike the moment you take your first look and will continue to strike with a full portion of venom with each look thereafter.” and “Women particularly can dress modestly and in the process contribute to their own self-respect and to the moral purity of men. In the end, most women get the type of man they dress for.”
The imagery used about sex is all “it is yucky and can kill you!” The next month he gets promoted to Gen SS pres.LookingHard wrote:DJ, I do think you are right in that the stance of the church has changed. But often (usually) the church does not change at a point in time, but they stop saying/emphasizing something over time and after a generation or two things have just changed. I believe that is a big part of what has happened with church history. Go back a few generations before correlation and the general membership did know much more than they do now (at least before the internet). There never was a release by the PR department stating “we are not going to talk about JS’s polyandry.”
I think the frustration you are hearing is the people that get caught during the change. Reading between the lines of what I see (and feel) Rob4Hope trying to say is, “MY marriage was affected by the teachings that me and my wife were taught and I hear no leader doing much of any correction that can help me.” It leaves you with a feeling of leaders made a mistakes in the path (we all do), but rather than owning up to it, leaders will quietly change course and not even admit there the carnage in the tracks.
And at some point if the church leaders are not actively correcting these issues, they hold some responsibility for allowing them to go on without clear course corrections. I feel this is true even if they do it out of ignorance because they don’t take the time to figure out what is going on.
And I still see room for improvement. Reading the March 2014 Ensign article by Elder Callister I read what could have been in the 1970’s Ensign with statements like,
Quote:“Satan is like an octopus trying to capture us. If one tentacle does not work, he will try another and another until he finds one that takes hold” and “It [pornograpy] is a poisonous, venomous, unforgiving snake that will strike the moment you take your first look and will continue to strike with a full portion of venom with each look thereafter.” and “Women particularly can dress modestly and in the process contribute to their own self-respect and to the moral purity of men. In the end, most women get the type of man they dress for.”
The imagery used about sex is all “it is yucky and can kill you!” The next month he gets promoted to Gen SS pres.BULLS-EYE!
Dead right on the numbers.
OK, I do get what you guys are saying and wholeheartedly agree the leaders could be more forthright and proactive in correcting teachings of the past – but we also know that ain’t going to happen and we have what we have. I think we have discussed before here why it is the way it is. And I think I do understand that you have been hurt by these teachings, Rob, and I’m sorry for that. I’m also sorry that there are people who persist in teaching these things despite GAs not teaching them. However WE don’t need to continue teaching and perpetuating them. Let’s put our behinds in the past. DarkJedi wrote:OK, I do get what you guys are saying and wholeheartedly agree the leaders could be more forthright and proactive in correcting teachings of the past – but we also know that ain’t going to happen and we have what we have.
This is where I have to apply hope/faith… I think it’s critical for the Church’s survival for leaders to soften their stance on “Everything from an apostles mouth should be treated as scripture”. And we’re seeing it in other areas, for example, they’re admitting that they don’t actually talk to Jesus face to face; they’re becoming more open about history, etc.
Ironically, the way Joseph Smith originally organized the Church (common consent) would alleviate a bunch of these issues. IIRC, the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS) still follows this sort of process:
* Their “prophet” seeks inspiration and guidance as God’s mouthpiece
* When he thinks he received a revelation, he submits it formally to the entire Church for review. The revelation is dissected and discussed and debated heartily
* The Church votes (through a delegation) to sustain the revelation, on a paragraph by paragraph basis
* The revelation is added to the D&C, and can be removed later
Some may see this as weak and bureaucratic, but I see beauty in the conversation and debate, and creates for a more resilient Church. Once we admit that apostles are not speaking to God face to face, I think it’s reasonable to allow for healthy dissent. I believe we’d end up with a more transparent Church, and a more hardy and involved membership.
DarkJedi wrote:Let’s put our behinds in the past.
This made me chuckle.
My harping on this is more about refusing to white-wash the past. I’ve heard people say: “Oh, but that was in the past.” And then on this very thread there has been a kindof consensus that GAs don’t formally correct mistakes…they just let them dangle out there until a few generations pass by, and then the changes have happened through the policy of “silence”.
I think that is a stupid policy. Frankly put,…its just plain stupid,…and irresponsible.
Why?…because inside of those “generations”, there are casualties. And then the church graciously hides behind some ridiculous plausible deniability where they pull this or that out of their hat and say: “See,…we made this correction in this obscure document that no one knows about….” (or whatever).
Its hard to forgive an organization that doesn’t correct mistakes, and never apologizes (as Oaks said there is NO PRECEDENCE for).
The LDS faith, as far as sex is concerned, is a very messed up organization. There is no way to harmonize what has been taught. Ignoring it doesn’t stem the tide of carnage in the wake. So, the only choice I have is to “be the adult” in this situation–with the CHURCH of JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAYS SAINTS of all things! I have to accept that the church has made mistakes, that they don’t take accountability for them, that they choose to ignore the affect they have in peoples lives and the damage caused, and I get to forgive them for their “childish” position.
This is the “nuanced” position some of you on this thread have suggested. I don’t fault you in the least for this, because it seems like the only way…but it just stuns me,…literally STUNS ME that this is what it has come down to.
end of rant…..
:wtf: Anyway…forgive me for being so direct. I’m coming up on my 1st year anniversary of my divorce, ending 26 years of marriage. I’m a little pissed,…and the wounds are close to the surface.
When the leaders just move on and don’t take the time to clarify their positions from the past, it just reminds me that they do the best they can with what they have, but I don’t need to hang on every word they say, because what they say now could easily just go away. I listen, I consider their intent to help and teach from their perspective, and I dismiss what I don’t agree with…well before they stop talking about it. I forget it well before they forget it. I don’t turn to my pastor to teach me about sex. I prefer to go to experts (and even more prefer personal experience).
Rob wrote Quote:..forgive me for being so direct. I’m coming up on my 1st year anniversary of my divorce, ending 26 years of marriage. I’m a little pissed,…and the wounds are close to the surface.
Thank you for reminding us. 26 years will take a long time to get over. In the recent weeks I have learned a lot about the long term impact of affairs, betrayals, etc. It is not unusual or unexpected to feel the same rage, loss and pain even at 5 years after the event. We (all companions) put a lot of unknown trust in to those relationships. Any reason, not just betrayal, that breaks it is rage inducing. It helps me, when you remind me of the recentness of your pain.
Hawkgrrl uses a phrase I really like – “Becoming an adult with God”. It applies in so many aspects, especially the deep loss of divorce and all the things that surrounded it.
I will keep your pain in my thoughts and prayers.
Rob4Hope wrote:I think that is a stupid policy. Frankly put,…its just plain stupid,…and irresponsible.
Why?…because inside of those “generations”, there are casualties. And then the church graciously hides behind some ridiculous plausible deniability where they pull this or that out of their hat and say: “See,…we made this correction in this obscure document that no one knows about….” (or whatever).
Its hard to forgive an organization that doesn’t correct mistakes, and never apologizes (as Oaks said there is NO PRECEDENCE for).
The LDS faith, as far as sex is concerned, is a very messed up organization. There is no way to harmonize what has been taught. Ignoring it doesn’t stem the tide of carnage in the wake. So, the only choice I have is to “be the adult” in this situation–with the CHURCH of JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAYS SAINTS of all things! I have to accept that the church has made mistakes, that they don’t take accountability for them, that they choose to ignore the affect they have in peoples lives and the damage caused, and I get to forgive them for their “childish” position.
This is the “nuanced” position some of you on this thread have suggested. I don’t fault you in the least for this, because it seems like the only way…but it just stuns me,…literally STUNS ME that this is what it has come down to.
I agree with you, but it is what it is and it doesn’t look like there are major changes on the horizon – Oaks is very likely to occupy the big chair for awhile and he has made his stance clear (although I also see his thoughts evolve on other things, so there might be some small chance). It’s likely Uchtdorf’s “And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes” is as close as we’re going to get. I understand why people don’t like this stance, I don’t like it either and would love it if a statement was made even acknowledging some of the mistakes that have been made. Venting and ranting make us feel better, but they don’t change anything.
Heber13 wrote:When the leaders just move on and don’t take the time to clarify their positions from the past, it just reminds me that they do the best they can with what they have, but I don’t need to hang on every word they say, because what they say now could easily just go away. I listen, I consider their intent to help and teach from their perspective, and I dismiss what I don’t agree with…well before they stop talking about it. I forget it well before they forget it.
I don’t turn to my pastor to teach me about sex. I prefer to go to experts (and even more prefer personal experience).
…OK, this is a freaking RANT. I know it is. Admin’s…you can delete this if you want. I’m just dumping some pent up emotions….no one is being attacked, but this is hot…Right or wrong, my pastors DID teach me about sex….they made it bad, and ugly, and wrong, and shameful, and disgusting (when I was little),…and then they told me to save it for someone I loved. And they said the same thing to my ex-wife, and to my friend and his ex-wife, and his other wife, and to my other friend and my other, and my other and my other…..
And there are divorces and other problems that have and CONTINUE to happen because of these teachings…..from pastors….who represent GOD and tell you that if you receive any direction counter to what they say, it is only from the devil.
And then when I got older,…they went……..silent?
Hunh?
I’m tired of being their guinea pig while they experiment on getting their communication lines figured out with God. Amen to their priesthood.Heber,…I’m going to call you on something respectfully. You said this:
Quote:When the leaders just move on and don’t take the time to clarify their positions from the past, it just reminds me that they do the best they can with what they have, but I don’t need to hang on every word they say, because what they say now could easily just go away.
If someone followed their direction and got hurt in the process, and then was told to not hang on their teachings because it will change anyway…well, that sounds a little like blaming the victim to me. Remember, I grew up in SLC, and the culture here is FOLLOW THE PROPHET (at all costs). If someone does that and gets hurt in the process,…there are 2 general “apologetic” types of responses: 1) Well, you just didn’t have enough faith; 2) you will be blessed for following the prophet, even if you get hurt.
Now you are saying to simply not place much credibility on them?….
Each one of these has a common element: it exonerates them. In each case, they are left alone with impunity as to the responsibility of the affect of their words.
Heber, as an extreme example, if I were to tell a child he was stupid and a failure…and if that affected the child in an adverse way, would I have an responsibility for hurting that child? Of course I would. Well, if a GA says something, speaking as a “messenger for God” and basically says you go to hell if you disobey, and that causes damage, do they then not hold any culpability for the consequences?
At what point are these men accountable?
BIG DEEP BREATH HERE
At this point, there is no choice other than to take your position–they have to be forgiven FOR MY SAKE…but not for theirs. They need to repent and follow their own rules.
And,…I forgive them (until I get pissed again,…and then I will work through it again,…slowly getting pissed happens less) I am slowly ridding my soul of this anger.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.