7 ms·

Well, maybe things are in the process of changing, but gay Mormons will not feel completely comfortable until the doctrine forbidding homosexual behavior is con

Well, maybe things are in the process of changing, but gay Mormons will not feel completely comfortable until the doctrine forbidding homosexual behavior is consigned to the dustbin of history. You can't say that the behavior is forbidden without having some residue of the belief that homosexuality is inherently sinful, and that residue has impact on people no matter how much you paper over it by trying to be "warm and non-judgmental". From the FAQ accessible via your link: Identifying as gay may mean you experience same-sex attraction but choose not to act on these feelings. Yes, and it might also mean that you experience same-sex attraction which is returned and which you choose to act on gleefully! This page is trying to sound non-judgmental, but it shows its true feelings when it says things like this, without allowing for the obvious alternative. And if you think the subtext isn't heard, guess again!

trcollinson 10y ago
Mormons also believe that any sexual relations outside of a legal, heterosexual marriage are a sin. I believe in this doctrine. I had many friends who found this doctrine hard to live by between that wanted to act on opposite-sex attraction with glee! I also found this doctrine REALLY hard. I wanted, really wanted, to act with some glee on some people I was attracted to and who were attracted to me. But I didn't. I dated, I got married, and now I have a happy marriage and family. Would I have been judged? Maybe. Did I have fear of judgement? Maybe. I do know I felt there was a benefit to following this doctrine of celibacy and marriage. Did I judge my friends who didn't follow this? No I did not. Did they feel judged? Possibly, you'd have to ask them. I do know a number of them wish they had followed this doctrine when they did not in the past. My point is, beliefs by their very nature can make people feel uncomfortable. Beliefs by their very nature can be very hard to live by. Should we remove them all? Where do we draw the line?
- DanBC 10y ago
  > Where do we draw the line? Beliefs that cause an increase in death by suicide probably need to be looked at to see if they're really that important.
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    The myth that an external force can drive otherwise-sane people to suicide merely by disapproving of some of their behaviors needs to go. It is, ironically, perpetuated to shame and humiliate political opponents, by insidiously attempting to saddle them with responsibility for the deaths of the depressed and mentally ill. Healthy people do not commit suicide, and they certainly don't over issues as ethereal and inconsequential as some religion's disapproval. Just having any religion automatically makes you the target of more condemnation than not, because most religions reserve eternal bliss for their own members. Furthermore, almost every religion preaches against theft, dishonesty, duplicity, extramarital sexual conduct of any kind, and a range of other basic moral violations that are consistently verboten throughout the history of the human family. People violate these things routinely and, despite the frequent imperatives issued and social pressures imposed to encourage compliance, somehow refrain from killing themselves. If the argument is that it's about the typical human response to homosexual conduct being so negative that it drives people over the edge, I don't see how the Mormon church, or most other Christian churches, could have any culpability for that, since a universal Christian theme is redemption, forgiveness, and an ability to leave behind a past life of sin and error whenever one commits themselves to doing so. Mormonism in particular, as described in the parent comment, makes an effort to be civil and polite, and to encourage families to fellowship and associate with their children and friends regardless of one's level of agreement with their personal choices, including their sexual choices. That doesn't mean that one must endorse, accept, witness, or accommodate any and all behaviors, but it means that one should remain respectful and polite, treat others with dignity and decorum, and continue to have contact in a positive manner to the fullest extent possible. The Church is compassionate and welcoming to sinners [read: humans] of all types. No special scrutiny or shame is applied to persons who are inclined to sin by engaging in homosexual behaviors vs. those are inclined to sin differently. Any type of sexual misconduct, heterosexual or homosexual, is forbidden by the Church and regularly preached against, and I guarantee you there are many more adulterous husbands feeling guilt and shame over the much-more-frequently discussed topic of marital fidelity than there are homosexuals feeling shame on the rather rare occasion that homosexuality is broached.
    - DanBC 10y ago
- ScottBurson 10y ago
  > Beliefs by their very nature can be very hard to live by. Should we remove them all? Where do we draw the line? A fair question, and one we must each ultimately answer for ourselves. I'm glad your choices worked out for you. I had a number of sexual relationships before I got married. While there are certainly some particular encounters and entanglements I regret -- more the ones where I caused pain than where I felt pain -- there were also several I look back on fondly. Even though we weren't right for each other for the long run, we loved, we shared, we grew, and they are part of who I am now. I love my wife very much, but I'm still glad to have known others.
cookiecaper 10y ago
Yeah, I mean, there is no doubt that there is a fundamental disagreement about homosexuality between Mormon doctrine (and religion in general) and the popular contemporary understanding. The Church condemns a set of behaviors, not a state of being, mind, or attraction, so regardless of one's opinion on the origin or fixed condition of sexual attraction, there is no need to feel guilt for inclinations, inherent or no. There is already ample theological justification for proclivities toward any sinful behavior, which we all have: Earth is a "fallen world", a testing ground where temptation must be presented to all and adequately resisted. This covers forbidden sexual activity, which is not limited to homosexuality, just as well as it covers any other inclination toward sinful or negative behaviors. Unlike other issues that brought Mormonism into conflict with the prevailing social dogma, this is not flexible and should not be expected to change. Despite all this, far from hunkering down and drawing exclusionary barriers, the Church is trying, as best as it can, to communicate that everyone is welcome in the "hospital for sinners" that the Church comprises. Everyone fails to meet the standards that the Church defines along some axes, since Christ literally commands men to be perfect [0]. The goal is to get people accelerating and proceeding toward the ideal, and to provide support in their attempt to do so. Everyone is welcomed to that effort, with as much participation as they are willing to give. [0] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A48&version=KJV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A48&...
bobthechef 10y ago
The idea that desires and attractions must be acted on is an incredibly immature position, sexual or not. Determining if, when, how much, and in what way you should act on your appetites, attractions, or desires is part of what being a mature adult is about. You also seem to be suggesting that disordered attractions can't exist, as if they are infallible, unquestionable, even divine in origin, or that you've somehow given same-sex attraction dispensation that does not extend to other attractions regarded as disordered. People do distinguish between same-sex attraction and the gay lifestyle and there are plenty of people who have the former but do not live out the latter because they believe that pleasure, consent, and social approval do not determine whether something is morally good or not (note that this is not an intrinsically religious question, but one belonging to ethics). It is unfortunate that subjects such as these cannot be discussed in a dispassionate and reasonable manner and that arguing or holding that the gay lifestyle is morally wrong is somehow an act of hatred or bigotry. If youths with same-sex attraction are indeed committing suicide at high rates in Utah, it makes sense to find out why and address that. It does not follow that they are committing suicide because the Mormon church holds the gay lifestyle as wrong and that therefore the church must change its position. If the moral (again, not religious) principles are true, then they aren't the problem.
- ScottBurson 10y ago
  > "the gay lifestyle" There's only one, is there? Stereotype, much? I know several committed gay couples. Is that "the gay lifestyle" that you have in mind? For one of them to cheat on their partner would be destructive, that's true. That applies independent of the genders involved, doesn't it? As for singles who have made no commitments but still have sex with one another, is that more immoral if they're gay than if they're straight? I don't think it's immoral in either case, but if you do, I still don't see how gender preference enters into it.

trcollinson 10y ago

Mormons also believe that any sexual relations outside of a legal, heterosexual marriage are a sin. I believe in this doctrine. I had many friends who found this doctrine hard to live by between that wanted to act on opposite-sex attraction with glee! I also found this doctrine REALLY hard. I wanted, really wanted, to act with some glee on some people I was attracted to and who were attracted to me. But I didn't. I dated, I got married, and now I have a happy marriage and family. Would I have been judged? Maybe. Did I have fear of judgement? Maybe. I do know I felt there was a benefit to following this doctrine of celibacy and marriage. Did I judge my friends who didn't follow this? No I did not. Did they feel judged? Possibly, you'd have to ask them. I do know a number of them wish they had followed this doctrine when they did not in the past. My point is, beliefs by their very nature can make people feel uncomfortable. Beliefs by their very nature can be very hard to live by. Should we remove them all? Where do we draw the line?

DanBC 10y ago
> Where do we draw the line? Beliefs that cause an increase in death by suicide probably need to be looked at to see if they're really that important.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  The myth that an external force can drive otherwise-sane people to suicide merely by disapproving of some of their behaviors needs to go. It is, ironically, perpetuated to shame and humiliate political opponents, by insidiously attempting to saddle them with responsibility for the deaths of the depressed and mentally ill. Healthy people do not commit suicide, and they certainly don't over issues as ethereal and inconsequential as some religion's disapproval. Just having any religion automatically makes you the target of more condemnation than not, because most religions reserve eternal bliss for their own members. Furthermore, almost every religion preaches against theft, dishonesty, duplicity, extramarital sexual conduct of any kind, and a range of other basic moral violations that are consistently verboten throughout the history of the human family. People violate these things routinely and, despite the frequent imperatives issued and social pressures imposed to encourage compliance, somehow refrain from killing themselves. If the argument is that it's about the typical human response to homosexual conduct being so negative that it drives people over the edge, I don't see how the Mormon church, or most other Christian churches, could have any culpability for that, since a universal Christian theme is redemption, forgiveness, and an ability to leave behind a past life of sin and error whenever one commits themselves to doing so. Mormonism in particular, as described in the parent comment, makes an effort to be civil and polite, and to encourage families to fellowship and associate with their children and friends regardless of one's level of agreement with their personal choices, including their sexual choices. That doesn't mean that one must endorse, accept, witness, or accommodate any and all behaviors, but it means that one should remain respectful and polite, treat others with dignity and decorum, and continue to have contact in a positive manner to the fullest extent possible. The Church is compassionate and welcoming to sinners [read: humans] of all types. No special scrutiny or shame is applied to persons who are inclined to sin by engaging in homosexual behaviors vs. those are inclined to sin differently. Any type of sexual misconduct, heterosexual or homosexual, is forbidden by the Church and regularly preached against, and I guarantee you there are many more adulterous husbands feeling guilt and shame over the much-more-frequently discussed topic of marital fidelity than there are homosexuals feeling shame on the rather rare occasion that homosexuality is broached.
  - DanBC 10y ago
ScottBurson 10y ago
> Beliefs by their very nature can be very hard to live by. Should we remove them all? Where do we draw the line? A fair question, and one we must each ultimately answer for ourselves. I'm glad your choices worked out for you. I had a number of sexual relationships before I got married. While there are certainly some particular encounters and entanglements I regret -- more the ones where I caused pain than where I felt pain -- there were also several I look back on fondly. Even though we weren't right for each other for the long run, we loved, we shared, we grew, and they are part of who I am now. I love my wife very much, but I'm still glad to have known others.

cookiecaper 10y ago

Yeah, I mean, there is no doubt that there is a fundamental disagreement about homosexuality between Mormon doctrine (and religion in general) and the popular contemporary understanding. The Church condemns a set of behaviors, not a state of being, mind, or attraction, so regardless of one's opinion on the origin or fixed condition of sexual attraction, there is no need to feel guilt for inclinations, inherent or no. There is already ample theological justification for proclivities toward any sinful behavior, which we all have: Earth is a "fallen world", a testing ground where temptation must be presented to all and adequately resisted. This covers forbidden sexual activity, which is not limited to homosexuality, just as well as it covers any other inclination toward sinful or negative behaviors. Unlike other issues that brought Mormonism into conflict with the prevailing social dogma, this is not flexible and should not be expected to change. Despite all this, far from hunkering down and drawing exclusionary barriers, the Church is trying, as best as it can, to communicate that everyone is welcome in the "hospital for sinners" that the Church comprises. Everyone fails to meet the standards that the Church defines along some axes, since Christ literally commands men to be perfect [0]. The goal is to get people accelerating and proceeding toward the ideal, and to provide support in their attempt to do so. Everyone is welcomed to that effort, with as much participation as they are willing to give. [0] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A48&version=KJV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A48&...

bobthechef 10y ago

The idea that desires and attractions must be acted on is an incredibly immature position, sexual or not. Determining if, when, how much, and in what way you should act on your appetites, attractions, or desires is part of what being a mature adult is about. You also seem to be suggesting that disordered attractions can't exist, as if they are infallible, unquestionable, even divine in origin, or that you've somehow given same-sex attraction dispensation that does not extend to other attractions regarded as disordered. People do distinguish between same-sex attraction and the gay lifestyle and there are plenty of people who have the former but do not live out the latter because they believe that pleasure, consent, and social approval do not determine whether something is morally good or not (note that this is not an intrinsically religious question, but one belonging to ethics). It is unfortunate that subjects such as these cannot be discussed in a dispassionate and reasonable manner and that arguing or holding that the gay lifestyle is morally wrong is somehow an act of hatred or bigotry. If youths with same-sex attraction are indeed committing suicide at high rates in Utah, it makes sense to find out why and address that. It does not follow that they are committing suicide because the Mormon church holds the gay lifestyle as wrong and that therefore the church must change its position. If the moral (again, not religious) principles are true, then they aren't the problem.

ScottBurson 10y ago
> "the gay lifestyle" There's only one, is there? Stereotype, much? I know several committed gay couples. Is that "the gay lifestyle" that you have in mind? For one of them to cheat on their partner would be destructive, that's true. That applies independent of the genders involved, doesn't it? As for singles who have made no commitments but still have sex with one another, is that more immoral if they're gay than if they're straight? I don't think it's immoral in either case, but if you do, I still don't see how gender preference enters into it.