Mormon and gay. Where are we going?


Fether
 Share

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

That would be good.

Here is the statement I was thinking about. It is from Dallin H Oaks.

“I think it’s important for you to understand that homosexuality, which you’ve spoken of, is not a noun that describes a condition. It’s an adjective that describes feelings or behavior. I encourage you, as you struggle with these challenges, not to think of yourself as a ‘something’ or ‘another,’ except that you’re a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and you’re my son, and that you’re struggling with challenges.”

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BJ64 said:

Saying a person is homosexual implies a physical trait while same sex attraction implies a behavior. 

To me, this is incorrect in multiple ways. First, the term "homosexual" can't imply a physical trait since there is no such physical trait.  Second,, same-sex attraction speaks only to the attraction, and not the behavior. Whereas, third, the term "homosexual" encompasses both the attraction and the behavior. 

The reason that the leftist language police have attempted to discard the term "homosexual" is because it rightly draws attention to the real issue--i.e. sex between members of the same sex, which traditionally was deem reprehensible, thus undermining the propaganda to make it acceptably about "love." (See HERE and HERE and HERE))

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, inquisitive said:

@lostinwater  did I just read that correctly, electric shock aversion therapy? Blink, blink are you serious? Who would authorize such insanity. Isn't some of these beliefs against the law?

 One might ask why is there so much anexoria, anything that has to do with control and perfectionism. Look around, you see very few girls overweight. How are they treating anexoria, this whole thing is seeming more and more bizarre.  

Yes, that's true.  Vomit aversion therapy also, from what i understand.  On a positive note, they don't do that any more.

Though there was a lesbian girl (Alex Cooper) who was shipped off to Southern Utah by her parents where she was abused in the attempt to 'cure' her of her homosexuality - this was just in 2010.  And there was a pretty strenuous attempt by the State of Utah to label her as ungovernable and let her parents continue to try and change her sexuality.  Thankfully, reason won out in the end.  JAG might have some insight into this - as i know he deals with things like child custody/abuse and such.  In fairness, this was *not* sanctioned by the mormon church - unless you count the bishop who refused to help her during an interview, or the missionaries who didn't say anything when they saw her standing up against a wall with a backpack full of rocks meant to symbolize the burden of her homosexuality.  And really, they probably didn't fully understand everything that was going on.  i hope not at least.  Though i think the mormon culture provides unfortunately fertile ground for that kind of thing.  

i don't know.  The mormon church disagrees with homosexuality, and will act accordingly.  It's certainly got that right.  As much as i disagree with their policies, i don't think they are likely to change - at least for a few leadership cycles.  And in the mean time, i hope that those caught in dark places inside of it can get out.  Just leave, walk away, and surround themselves with people who can accept them and help them live in a stable and responsible manner.  That i think will be what tips the scales in the end.  When there are enough stable, good people that the caricatures people are using to justify their harshness towards them disappear.  And yes, that's just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Here is the statement I was thinking about. It is from Dallin H Oaks.

“I think it’s important for you to understand that homosexuality, which you’ve spoken of, is not a noun that describes a condition. It’s an adjective that describes feelings or behavior. I encourage you, as you struggle with these challenges, not to think of yourself as a ‘something’ or ‘another,’ except that you’re a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and you’re my son, and that you’re struggling with challenges.”

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction

To me, this quote doesn't say anything close to what you asserted earlier. In fact, quite the opposite. it uses the very term you claimed was no longer in use, and it comports with what I state in my post above.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

And in the mean time, i hope that those caught in dark places inside of it can get out.  Just leave, walk away, and surround themselves with people who can accept them and help them live in a stable and responsible manner.  

2

Or grow through Christ, as God intends us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Or grow through Christ, as God intends us.

Change that "or" to an "and" and we're in complete agreement!  :) 

i guess we can argue till we're blue in the face as to whether or not those two things are mutually exclusive - but i'm pretty sure all we'd accomplish is creating mutual dislike.  And while i might be weird enough to merit that dislike (ok, i definitely am), you definitely don't!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Change that "or" to an "and" and we're in complete agreement!  :) 

i guess we can argue till we're blue in the face as to whether or not those two things are mutually exclusive - but i'm pretty sure all we'd accomplish is creating mutual dislike.  And while i might be weird enough to merit that dislike (ok, i definitely am), you definitely don't!

It's a Mormon forum.  I'm unsure why so many people choose to come here to argue Mormon beliefs.  

I wish there were a heavily moderated forum available for uplifting discussions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Yes, that's true.  Vomit aversion therapy also, from what i understand.  On a positive note, they don't do that any more.

Though there was a lesbian girl (Alex Cooper) who was shipped off to Southern Utah by her parents where she was abused in the attempt to 'cure' her of her homosexuality - this was just in 2010.  And there was a pretty strenuous attempt by the State of Utah to label her as ungovernable and let her parents continue to try and change her sexuality.  Thankfully, reason won out in the end.  JAG might have some insight into this - as i know he deals with things like child custody/abuse and such.  In fairness, this was *not* sanctioned by the mormon church - unless you count the bishop who refused to help her during an interview, or the missionaries who didn't say anything when they saw her standing up against a wall with a backpack full of rocks meant to symbolize the burden of her homosexuality.  And really, they probably didn't fully understand everything that was going on.  i hope not at least.  Though i think the mormon culture provides unfortunately fertile ground for that kind of thing.  

i don't know.  The mormon church disagrees with homosexuality, and will act accordingly.  It's certainly got that right.  As much as i disagree with their policies, i don't think they are likely to change - at least for a few leadership cycles.  And in the mean time, i hope that those caught in dark places inside of it can get out.  Just leave, walk away, and surround themselves with people who can accept them and help them live in a stable and responsible manner.  That i think will be what tips the scales in the end.  When there are enough stable, good people that the caricatures people are using to justify their harshness towards them disappear.  And yes, that's just my opinion.

I can’t really say anything about Cooper’s case beyond what’s publicly available.  It seems that she went to Utah CPS which got the ball rolling with the court action; so I would *guess* that the state took her side.  But I really don’t know.  

And like I said earlier, “aversion therapy” (including electro-shock therapy) is still a thing—just not for homosexuality; and (I would hope) is not administered to minors involuntarily.  Whether the “treatments” Cooper went through are representative of other forms of aversion therapy techniques generally, I can’t say.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 

And like I said earlier, “aversion therapy” (including electro-shock therapy) is still a thing—just not for homosexuality; and (I would hope) is not administered to minors involuntarily.  Whether the “treatments” Cooper went through are representative of other forms of aversion therapy techniques generally, I can’t say.  

1

I dated a doctor who was studying electro-shock for behavior treatment.  Pretty interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Grunt said:

It's a Mormon forum.  I'm unsure why so many people choose to come here to argue Mormon beliefs.  

I wish there were a heavily moderated forum available for uplifting discussions.

Yeah, the notion of gay sex being sinful per se is one of those things that—frankly—self-identifying Mormons (and I realize you don’t count yourself in that group, @lostinwater) should know better than to question.  But as I’ve hinted in some recent discussions, there seems to be a certain stripe of Mormon that considers sexual release to be the new keystone of our religion.

One point I am trying to make on the aversion therapy angle, though; is that no one—not the LGBTQ lobby, not @inquisitive, not the APA or the AMA—has a problem with some form of “aversion therapy” as a behavioral modification tool to govern behaviors like alcoholism, nail biting, etc. that we all agree are bad.  And there are other forms of therapeutic interventions for a variety of issues where we put people through some gut-wrenchingly horrifying experiences in the name of helping them, eventually, govern their propensities towards bad behavior.

The controversy really only begins when some people decree that a certain formerly-problematic behavior isn’t really “bad” at all.  

It’s like the gay suicide thing—many LGBTQ advocates don’t care, in the abstract, about kids in treatment being manhandled or suffering physical pain or having their senses of individual worth destroyed and then rebuilt from the ground up; or even *dying* so long as those deaths can be made politically useful.  But when those developments make it so that it appears possible for a LGBTQ kid to grow up and lead a chaste, happy, well-adjusted life free from the chains of the secularized sexual marketplace—hoo, boy; it’s “cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war”.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BJ64 said:

Here is the statement I was thinking about. It is from Dallin H Oaks.

“I think it’s important for you to understand that homosexuality, which you’ve spoken of, is not a noun that describes a condition. It’s an adjective that describes feelings or behavior. I encourage you, as you struggle with these challenges, not to think of yourself as a ‘something’ or ‘another,’ except that you’re a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and you’re my son, and that you’re struggling with challenges.”

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction

I would have to agree with @wenglund on this. I am not seeing how you provided the given last statement in reference to this quote.  This doesn't say there aren't any homosexuals, it specifically states that if you feel you are homosexual you are describing feelings or behavior not a condition.

I only know of one statement that specifically said there are no homosexuals and that is Elder Bednar who also provided a reason (a good reason) as to why he said this. We are not defined by our feelings, behaviors, sins, etc... we are defined by whose children we are. That is who we are. That is who is in the Church, and in the Church are people who are struggling with some challenge. In this sense, Elder Oaks and Elder Bednar compliment each other.

Thank you for providing the quote, if you find a different quote, please share it.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, lostinwater said:

Yes, that's true.  Vomit aversion therapy also, from what i understand.  On a positive note, they don't do that any more.

Though there was a lesbian girl (Alex Cooper) who was shipped off to Southern Utah by her parents where she was abused in the attempt to 'cure' her of her homosexuality - this was just in 2010.  And there was a pretty strenuous attempt by the State of Utah to label her as ungovernable and let her parents continue to try and change her sexuality.  Thankfully, reason won out in the end.  JAG might have some insight into this - as i know he deals with things like child custody/abuse and such.  In fairness, this was *not* sanctioned by the mormon church - unless you count the bishop who refused to help her during an interview, or the missionaries who didn't say anything when they saw her standing up against a wall with a backpack full of rocks meant to symbolize the burden of her homosexuality.  And really, they probably didn't fully understand everything that was going on.  i hope not at least.  Though i think the mormon culture provides unfortunately fertile ground for that kind of thing.  

i don't know.  The mormon church disagrees with homosexuality, and will act accordingly.  It's certainly got that right.  As much as i disagree with their policies, i don't think they are likely to change - at least for a few leadership cycles.  And in the mean time, i hope that those caught in dark places inside of it can get out.  Just leave, walk away, and surround themselves with people who can accept them and help them live in a stable and responsible manner.  That i think will be what tips the scales in the end.  When there are enough stable, good people that the caricatures people are using to justify their harshness towards them disappear.  And yes, that's just my opinion.

What I find most appalling about this sentiment is that, on the one hand there were a handful of electric shock therapies nearly a half century ago, along with a relative few cases of aversion therapy, and a young women with a backpack full of rocks, none of which were life threatening or of serious danger to one's health, though no doubt unpleasant.

Whereas, on the other hand, in the wake of the sexual revolution and the move toward normalization and promotion of homosexuality, more than half a million homosexuals have died of AIDS in the U.S. More than a million have been infected with HIV, and hundreds of thousands have been infected with other STD's, (see HERE), and untold numbers have attempted suicide, with the annual rate of each continually rising along with the acceptance of homosexuality..

Yet, who gets criticized for "dark places" and not accepting or helping? No it isn't the growing masses celebrating and encouraging the destructive lifestyle. and unwittingly virtue signaling while standing idly by in blithe silence and closed eyes while the death and disease tolls continue to mount epidemically (the worst of our time in the US.) for the people they pretend to care about, but quickly forget once they have secured their votes, and move steadily on to the next cause of cultural perversion.

Sadly, it is those who truly care deeply about the physical and spiritual welfare of our homosexual family members and friends, to the point of risking who are the object of public scorn and ironic ostracizing.

Light has become darkness, and darkness light, up is down and down is up.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, wenglund said:

What I find most appalling about this sentiment is that, on the one hand there were a handful of electric shock therapies nearly a half century ago, along with a relative few cases of aversion therapy, and a young women with a backpack full of rocks, none of which were life threatening or of serious danger to one's health, though no doubt unpleasant.

Whereas, on the other hand, in the wake of the sexual revolution and the move toward normalization and promotion of homosexuality, more than half a million homosexuals have died of AIDS in the U.S. More than a million have been infected with HIV, and hundreds of thousands have been infected with other STD's, (see HERE), and untold numbers have attempted suicide, with the annual rate of each continually rising along with the acceptance of homosexuality..

Yet, who gets criticized for "dark places" and not accepting or helping? No it isn't the growing masses celebrating and encouraging the destructive lifestyle. and unwittingly virtue signaling while standing idly by in blithe silence and closed eyes while the death and disease tolls continue to mount epidemically (the worst of our time in the US.) for the people they pretend to care about, but quickly forget once they have secured their votes, and move steadily on to the next cause of cultural perversion.

Sadly, it is those who truly care deeply about the physical and spiritual welfare of our homosexual family members and friends, to the point of risking who are the object of public scorn and ironic ostracizing.

Light has become darkness, and darkness light, up is down and down is up.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks, Wade.

Honestly, i've tried really hard not to criticize.  But i guess if criticizing means holding and respectfully voicing a contrary opinion, then i stand guilty as charged.  Or maybe you're referring to the people in the LGBT movement who blast their bullhorns, try to preach homosexuality in the classrooms, and draw all the media attention.  If you are, then i am as against that as anyone.

i know a lot of people that don't fit the HIV/STD/cultural pervert caricature of homosexuals.  And subjectively, i think i can say i know quite a few people who given the appropriate environment readily transition away from some of those behaviors.  All i am trying to say is that i don't think it's virtue signaling or sitting in blithe silence when someone attempts to help them get to a more stable place.  

If others want to return to the approaches that have been attempted for the past few thousand years, that's fine.  It's not something i've seen work all that well - but i interact with the tiniest part of the tiniest fraction of the whole - and readily acknowledge that.

Anyways, i hope you'll take this in the spirit in which it is written.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow 😯 no wonder I have been totally ghosted and abandoned I had NO CLUE any church thought like this. None!

the church I came from had an LBGT ministry. I don’t identify but NOW I see a bit of what I got into. They think they own ppl in the 2018 and treat them according to one persons moral opinion. 

That would have to mean spying on people illegally to know what they do! Help me Jesus please no disrespect but you don’t know how odd this seems to a new comer it’s like a bad dark move from the 1940’s. They don’t even have the respect to return a call or text msg to tell me how to undo this stuff.

so by trolling the boards there is full control this is scary stuff. Back to the question on suicides, hello!’

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, inquisitive said:

Wow 😯 no wonder I have been totally ghosted and abandoned I had NO CLUE any church thought like this. None!

the church I came from had an LBGT ministry. I don’t identify but NOW I see a bit of what I got into. They think they own ppl in the 2018 and treat them according to one persons moral opinion. 

That would have to mean spying on people illegally to know what they do! Help me Jesus please no disrespect but you don’t know how odd this seems to a new comer it’s like a bad dark move from the 1940’s. They don’t even have the respect to return a call or text msg to tell me how to undo this stuff.

so by trolling the boards there is full control this is scary stuff. Back to the question on suicides, hello!’

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here, but if by  "by one person's moral opinion" you mean God, then yes.  I'm not sure why that surprises you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, inquisitive said:

Wow 😯 no wonder I have been totally ghosted and abandoned I had NO CLUE any church thought like this. None!

the church I came from had an LBGT ministry. I don’t identify but NOW I see a bit of what I got into. They think they own ppl in the 2018 and treat them according to one persons moral opinion. 

That would have to mean spying on people illegally to know what they do! Help me Jesus please no disrespect but you don’t know how odd this seems to a new comer it’s like a bad dark move from the 1940’s. They don’t even have the respect to return a call or text msg to tell me how to undo this stuff.

so by trolling the boards there is full control this is scary stuff. Back to the question on suicides, hello!’

You are stating falsehoods.  Again.

The Church teaches that having sex with a person of the same gender is a sin.  How did you not know this?  Eternal Families is a core teaching of the Church.  You've never heard of a Church that teaches this?  The Islam faith - over 2 billion members worldwide - teach this.  The Catholic faith - over 2 billion members worldwide - teach this.  The Jews teach this, the Hindus teach this... Churches who do not teach this are a minority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/14/2018 at 4:18 PM, Anddenex said:

What is the ultimate vision?

The ultimate vision hasn't changed, and that is to draw all people unto Christ. To show love and respect for all, which doesn't mean we agree with or accept (the tolerance trap) some decisions.

Do we see some day in the future where homosexual couples are freely marrying each other outside of the church yet attending church faithfully? Even holding “minor” callings like a Sunday school teacher? 

Yes regarding church attendance, homosexual couples (even married couples) are already able to attend Church faithfully if they choose to do so.

No (Sunday school teacher isn't a minor calling); however, there are other assignments or callings where I could see allowance. Non-members are able to be called to different callings right now, or even receive invitations to volunteer and serve in specific capacities. Although, there might be specific restrictions subject to the stake or ward they are living in.

Will the LGBTQ community ever stop seeing the church as a religion of bigotry if We never change our view of marriage, but still put as much efforts into strengthening our ties with them?

The community as a whole -- no. Individuals, yes. The community will not be satisfied until their decision is no longer seen as "sin."

Does anyone believe that one day the church will allow homosexuals to receive temple recommends?

No, it would be in a state of apostasy if so, and according to current prophecy regarding the Church never falling away only strengthens this. A caveat though, we are talking about practicing homosexuals not those that identify as homosexual. Those who identify as homosexual can already receive a temple recommend if they are honoring the elements required to obtain a temple recommend.

Go and sin no more

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2018 at 12:21 AM, lostinwater said:

If others want to return to the approaches that have been attempted for the past few thousand years, that's fine.  It's not something i've seen work all that well - but i interact with the tiniest part of the tiniest fraction of the whole - and readily acknowledge that.

I appreciate your measured and respectful response. I even value your criticism, as I hope you value mine.  

Far from wishing to return to the distant past, I wish to acknowledge and appreciate and continue the progress, recognizing that with each step there was good intent, and as we come to know better, we do better-. As imperfect as we members may be, the gospel is about love and enabling each of us to become our very best, and attain our very best. We do so line upon line, precept upon precept, from imperfect to more perfect.

And, on the other hand, I wish to contrast this with the heavily obscured digression (mounting dead and disease-racked bodies) occurring under the  false label of progressive culture and politics, where the banner of compassion is waved to distract attention from the real objective of empowering a few elite. 

In short, I am attempting to dissuade people with good intents from unwittingly turning God's children from the oft uncomfortable path of actualizing the better angels of our nature (i.e. become like Christ) to the seemingly easy and pleasing and popular road to destruction.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

I appreciate your measured and respectful response. I even value your criticism, as I hope you value mine.  

Far from wishing to return to the distant past, I wish to acknowledge and appreciate and continue the progress, recognizing that with each step there was good intent, and as we come to know better, we do better-. As imperfect as we members may be, the gospel is about love and enabling each of us to become our very best, and attain our very best. We do so line upon line, precept upon precept, from imperfect to more perfect.

And, on the other hand, I wish to contrast this with the heavily obscured digression (mounting dead and disease-racked bodies) occurring under the  false label of progressive culture and politics, where the banner of compassion is waved to distract attention from the real objective of empowering a few elite. 

In short, I am attempting to dissuade people with good intents from unwittingly turning God's children from the oft uncomfortable path of actualizing the better angels of our nature (i.e. become like Christ) to the seemingly easy and pleasing and popular road to destruction.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks, Wade.  

Honestly, this is what i really appreciate.  Dialogue.  Just people realizing that the other is not the evil satanic blob that they've been taught to believe.  Because we have a way of meeting one another's expectations.  Or at least the people who scream the loudest from either side do.

You know, i've sat on both sides of this fence.  When i was in secondary school, they were trying to form a gay-straight alliance at a local school.  i got up, amid much fanfare, and quoted the bible to the school board about how homosexuality would result in the destruction of the people who practiced it - yes, really.  i waved signs and basically did everything i possibly could to prevent that club from forming.  

i never once - not a single time - even considered actually talking with the people i was doing my utmost to vilify.   See if they actually were the evil bunch of reprobate deviants everyone told me they were.  i guess the fact that their calling it an alliance might have actually meant something never crossed my mind.

Sadly, i didn't care.  i didn't even consider how my words might have felt or the conclusions that someone might have drawn as a result.  You know - that stinging sensation in your heart that you feel before the emotional scar tissue of anger develops to protect you from it.  And how much of that you quietly take before you know that this is no place for you.  That maybe heading to the gay bar really is better than listening to the pastor talk about how people who feel like you do are mentally ill or demon-possessed.  And that the idea of opening up to someone whose talked about you the way they have (even if they don't know it) is so unfathomably painful, the idea isn't even something your mind can grasp.

But if i had even tried to put myself in their shoes, maybe i might have realized words like mine might have done a splendid job of driving them into the very places that i was condemning them for inhabiting.

It's an odd turn of events as to how you take someone who thought the things i used to think and change them to the way i think now.  i tend to think there is a divine hand in the exceptional ironies that brought it all about.  Who knows.

One thing your words have reminded me about though (and i'm grateful for this) - is that maybe unconditional love can look like persistently insistent stubborn concern on occasion.  

But maybe not everyone needs the same message at the same time.  That maybe you need both a Father O'Mally and a Sister Superior (if you haven't watched Bells of St Mary's, you NEED to!) - assuming that you take humanity into account.

i guess a lot of this is hard for someone to accept who believes there is no difference between what their church believes or what their bible can be made to say and what God believes.  i've gone from knowing absolutely to not knowing absolutely - so in my calmer moments, i tend to think there is less absolute knowledge here on the earth than i'd like to think.  But i can only speak for myself.  And that, entertaining that idea, it's OK to treat someone differently than i would have otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lostinwater said:

Thanks, Wade.  

Honestly, this is what i really appreciate.  Dialogue.  Just people realizing that the other is not the evil satanic blob that they've been taught to believe.  Because we have a way of meeting one another's expectations.  Or at least the people who scream the loudest from either side do.

You know, i've sat on both sides of this fence.  When i was in secondary school, they were trying to form a gay-straight alliance at a local school.  i got up, amid much fanfare, and quoted the bible to the school board about how homosexuality would result in the destruction of the people who practiced it - yes, really.  i waved signs and basically did everything i possibly could to prevent that club from forming.  

i never once - not a single time - even considered actually talking with the people i was doing my utmost to vilify.   See if they actually were the evil bunch of reprobate deviants everyone told me they were.  i guess the fact that their calling it an alliance might have actually meant something never crossed my mind.

Sadly, i didn't care.  i didn't even consider how my words might have felt or the conclusions that someone might have drawn as a result.  You know - that stinging sensation in your heart that you feel before the emotional scar tissue of anger develops to protect you from it.  And how much of that you quietly take before you know that this is no place for you.  That maybe heading to the gay bar really is better than listening to the pastor talk about how people who feel like you do are mentally ill or demon-possessed.  And that the idea of opening up to someone whose talked about you the way they have (even if they don't know it) is so unfathomably painful, the idea isn't even something your mind can grasp.

But if i had even tried to put myself in their shoes, maybe i might have realized words like mine might have done a splendid job of driving them into the very places that i was condemning them for inhabiting.

It's an odd turn of events as to how you take someone who thought the things i used to think and change them to the way i think now.  i tend to think there is a divine hand in the exceptional ironies that brought it all about.  Who knows.

One thing your words have reminded me about though (and i'm grateful for this) - is that maybe unconditional love can look like persistently insistent stubborn concern on occasion.  

But maybe not everyone needs the same message at the same time.  That maybe you need both a Father O'Mally and a Sister Superior (if you haven't watched Bells of St Mary's, you NEED to!) - assuming that you take humanity into account.

i guess a lot of this is hard for someone to accept who believes there is no difference between what their church believes or what their bible can be made to say and what God believes.  i've gone from knowing absolutely to not knowing absolutely - so in my calmer moments, i tend to think there is less absolute knowledge here on the earth than i'd like to think.  But i can only speak for myself.  And that, entertaining that idea, it's OK to treat someone differently than i would have otherwise.

Beautifully stated, and I agree with much of what you have said.

Interestingly enough, I had nearly the opposite journey. During my mid to late teens in the late 1960/s and early 70's out in the mission field, I was acquainted with several of my classmates who were mercilessly ridiculed as homosexuals, and I found the ostracizing and bullying highly objectionable. I was also propositioned several times, and instead of responding aggressively, I attempted to understand their thinking since it was so baffling to mine. And, I worked with several lesbian, and had enlightening discussions.  This ultimately prompted me to advocate against sodomy laws, agreeing that the government had no business sticking its nose in other people's bedrooms. At the time, mine was more a libertarian stance than a moral one, since I have always viewed homosexuality as self-destructive and immoral and a barrier to healthy and happy lives. 

As time went on, and as I witnessed the ravages of AIDs/HIV, and was appalled by how the culture and government were soft-peddling and covering things up under the guise of acceptance and compassion, to the increased detriment of homosexuals, and as I attempted to bring the data to people's attention, while also arguing against state promotion (in the form of same-sex marriage) of what I firmly believed to be destructive behavior, I found myself and my religious faith vilified and on the receiving end of merciless ridicule, when all I and the church were respectfully and reasonably attempting to do was what we believed to be good and just.

However, what I have gleaned from the process, and you have helped somewhat to underscore, are three principles: 1) harmful prejudice against groups of people, whether homosexuals or the church, ought to be objected to; 2) the focus of our endeavors ought to be what is in everyone's best interest rather than what is popular or tribally expedient; and 3) that the tension between the world and the gospel is not only designed by God, but often a valuable thing. To me, even though the way of the world will ultimately lead to misery and unhappiness, we imperfect religionist need a tempering and humbling influence, a check and balance so to speak,  to keep us from coldly pounding the pulpits and pointing the finger of scorn, and instead opening our arms in love, while also placing the firm and steady hand of rightness and good upon the shoulder, and ultimately laying the healing hands of Christ's gospel upon the head.

I am very grateful to you for stimulating this discussion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/17/2018 at 6:16 PM, MormonGator said:

I don't understand it. How could you be married to someone you aren't sexually attracted to? Not making a joke, not being immature. Honestly confused by it. 

How could anyone think that would work or be healthy for either party? 

There has always been homosexuality the increase is because it is the fad way of rebellion. It has taken the place of inappropriate clothing, tattoos, long hair, earrings etc.   What will come next. This community has made it plain they are trying to convert and recruit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share