New LDS Church Website: Mormons and Gays

[MartyFunkhouser]

A great perspective.

In case you or someone else was worried never fear, Mpfunk is here to be offended on your behalf.

I don't need to be offended on his behalf. I'm willing to listen to and consider the perspectives of marginalized individuals that differ from my own preconceived notions.

It is interesting hearing his perspective. It is good to consider in evaluating the proper approach for these problems. I'm not going to tell him how to live his life as a homosexual and LDS church member, it is ultimately his decision. However, I'm not just going to ignore the perspectives of other homosexuals who disagree. Are you willing to listen to those people? Or are you only going to listen to those that support your preconceived notions and support your view of the LDS church?

[smokymountainrain]

yeah, non seq I'm as against the church on the gay issue as much as anybody, but to state that [all] Mormons hate the sinner is complete and utter bullshit.

[imanihonjin]

I don't know your particular situation, but I have a nephew who believes and is gay and is active and pretends that he is accepted. He has resigned himself to a life of celibacy, and it breaks my heart. I want to shake him and tell him that Mormonism is bullshit and that he needs to be himself, but I don't because I know he would be unmoved. It kills me. The Church does a lot of good and improves a lot of peoples lives, but when I see how it treats gay people it sickens me. The video is nice, but it doesn't reflect LDS views of homosexuality. Mormons hate the sin and they hate the sinner. It's always going to be that way.

Haha, you are my favorite poster here.

[Moliere]

To be honest, if the church backed away from its "traditional doctrine," I don't see how I could continue to believe in it. As much as trying to live in accordance with Church standards sucks for me (and I don't claim to be very good at it), the doctrine makes sense to me. And eternal marriage where procreation is possible (if not in this life, at least in the next) is fundamental to my understanding of the plan of salvation. Take that away, and the whole thing would likely fall apart for me. It's hard to say exactly how I would react if it actually happened, but I don't believe I could ever view a change in the doctrine as an act of humility. I think I would view it as an admission that everything the Church teaches is a bunch of hogwash. Given that I don't find the social aspects of the Church very fulfilling (at least not where I am right now), I don't see how I could justify sticking around.

Your last question is an interesting one for me. I would stay that I am at peace with the doctrine as it stands in the sense that I understand it, accept it, and believe it. With that said, I am far from at peace with figuring out how to live it. Life as a gay Mormon who believes in what the Church teaches sucks. I think this guy nails it on the head when he describes how out of place you feel in the Church:

That is part of the reason why I have been pretty much inactive for the last few years (I know that is odd given everything I said in the first paragraph ... I don't fully understand it myself). There are a lot of times when I wish I could just stop believing in this stuff and find a man to be with. But, for whatever reason, I can't. So, in that sense, I am far from at peace.

That sounds like an incredibly tough situation. I can't empathize but I think most church members, when they stop to really think about it, can sympathize with gay members that just can't fit in. The church, rightly or wrongly, has put its eggs in the family basket. I personally think this is a slight perversion of the sealing power idea, but family emphasis sells, for the lack of a better term. None of us understands what it means to eternally progress and have spirit children. Heck, many members either don't believe or won't admit that we could become like god and have spirit children. Who's to say two gay men can't be sealed together and form/raise spirit children. Are we going to have spirit sperm and ovaries/spirit eggs in heaven? Who the hell knows.

There's an out for the church in all of this and they'll eventually get there. We just need enough people, both in and out of the church, to accept that. While not a perfect parallel, the priesthood ban does come to mind. I'm sure many people left the church when the ban was lifted because, frankly, it was taught as doctrine for a long time before it became policy. It took a long time to make that change and people got excommunicated for opposing it, pretty much right up until the ban was lifted. I'm sure many black members had accepted the ban and still believed and maybe some of them left when it was lifted, but I bet most rejoiced in the lifting of what had become to be viewed as an archaic and racist/discriminatory doctrine/policy.

The church will soften. It will be forced to soften. The outcome is known, it's just a matter of how many battles or casualties the church is willing to endure before giving up and finally receiving a revelation for god to change the doctrine, errr, I mean clarify the policy as it pertains to the doctrine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Northwestcoug]

To be honest, if the church backed away from its "traditional doctrine," I don't see how I could continue to believe in it. As much as trying to live in accordance with Church standards sucks for me (and I don't claim to be very good at it), the doctrine makes sense to me. And eternal marriage where procreation is possible (if not in this life, at least in the next) is fundamental to my understanding of the plan of salvation. Take that away, and the whole thing would likely fall apart for me. It's hard to say exactly how I would react if it actually happened, but I don't believe I could ever view a change in the doctrine as an act of humility. I think I would view it as an admission that everything the Church teaches is a bunch of hogwash. Given that I don't find the social aspects of the Church very fulfilling (at least not where I am right now), I don't see how I could justify sticking around.

Your last question is an interesting one for me. I would stay that I am at peace with the doctrine as it stands in the sense that I understand it, accept it, and believe it. With that said, I am far from at peace with figuring out how to live it. Life as a gay Mormon who believes in what the Church teaches sucks. I think this guy nails it on the head when he describes how out of place you feel in the Church:

That is part of the reason why I have been pretty much inactive for the last few years (I know that is odd given everything I said in the first paragraph ... I don't fully understand it myself). There are a lot of times when I wish I could just stop believing in this stuff and find a man to be with. But, for whatever reason, I can't. So, in that sense, I am far from at peace.

Thank you for your candor.

I've been watching 2 gay extended family members from a distance. One went on a mission, married in the temple, and had children. He continues to struggle with his sexuality to this day, yet the benefits of an active church life mean a lot to him. I see disillusion in him rear up every now and then, most recently with the policy change with children. Yet I think he will stay active. The other is a teenager who has experienced none of the important mormon benchmarks. After some time of supporting the church on social media, he just recently came out as gay. I suspect he will be fully out of the church within a couple of years.

A testimony of the church is such an emotionally powerful thing. It affects your entire perception of life. When a moral issue comes in direct conflict with a testimony, it can be devastating. I'm pretty sure we've all had to weigh the importance of a testimony with some moral issue. I still find it very interesting to see the different decisions people in the church make when confronted with moral conundrums. Two people may feel just as strongly about an issue, yet one will stay in the church and one will leave. I assume they go through the same mental calculus and weigh the testimony in the balance. I doubt I'm any more moral than many active people here, yet I left and others stay. However, I cannot imagine how damaging it would be when a testimony comes in conflict with sexuality.

I hope you eventually find peace with your place in this world, UVA.

[CardiacCoug]

You know Uvacoug there are a whole bunch of churches where gay people are fully included and accepted and strangely it doesn't make everything they teach "hogwash." In fact a lot of Christians think shunning and failing to include gays and actively fighting against their civil rights while claiming to be the true Christian church with a direct line to what Christ wants us to be doing is the actual hogwash going on here.

Prioritizing an abstract theological ideal of a perfect "celestial" marriage in this hypothetical plan of salvation over happiness and fulfillment right now in the only life we know for sure you are going to have is a bold move, in my opinion.

I feel like we had this discussion before but just so crazy for straight LDS people to say to gay LDS people "Marriage and family are the most important thing in life that bring more joy and satisfaction than anything else. But you should forego all this stuff until you die because of our theory that all this good stuff that will happen in your next life. Hang in there!"

[Non Sequitur]

To be honest, if the church backed away from its "traditional doctrine," I don't see how I could continue to believe in it. As much as trying to live in accordance with Church standards sucks for me (and I don't claim to be very good at it), the doctrine makes sense to me. And eternal marriage where procreation is possible (if not in this life, at least in the next) is fundamental to my understanding of the plan of salvation. Take that away, and the whole thing would likely fall apart for me. It's hard to say exactly how I would react if it actually happened, but I don't believe I could ever view a change in the doctrine as an act of humility. I think I would view it as an admission that everything the Church teaches is a bunch of hogwash. Given that I don't find the social aspects of the Church very fulfilling (at least not where I am right now), I don't see how I could justify sticking around.

Your last question is an interesting one for me. I would stay that I am at peace with the doctrine as it stands in the sense that I understand it, accept it, and believe it. With that said, I am far from at peace with figuring out how to live it. Life as a gay Mormon who believes in what the Church teaches sucks. I think this guy nails it on the head when he describes how out of place you feel in the Church:

That is part of the reason why I have been pretty much inactive for the last few years (I know that is odd given everything I said in the first paragraph ... I don't fully understand it myself). There are a lot of times when I wish I could just stop believing in this stuff and find a man to be with. But, for whatever reason, I can't. So, in that sense, I am far from at peace.

I don't know your particular situation, but I have a nephew who believes and is gay and is active and pretends that he is accepted. He has resigned himself to a life of celibacy, and it breaks my heart. I want to shake him and tell him that Mormonism is bullshit and that he needs to be himself, but I don't because I know he would be unmoved. It kills me. The Church does a lot of good and improves a lot of peoples lives, but when I see how it treats gay people it sickens me. The video is nice, but it doesn't reflect LDS views of homosexuality. Mormons hate the sin and they hate the sinner. It's always going to be that way.

[UVACoug]

I really appreciate hearing your point of view. I'm curious, would it be different for you if someone described the church as 'humble' as opposed to 'mealy mouthed', if it backed away from it's traditional doctrine about gays? I think a lot of progmos (JL included) feel that if there is to be an eventual change in the doctrine, it will be because the leaders are humble enough to rethink what they used to believe and ask god if it's time to change.

And if I may ask, are you at peace with the doctrine as it stands?

To be honest, if the church backed away from its "traditional doctrine," I don't see how I could continue to believe in it. As much as trying to live in accordance with Church standards sucks for me (and I don't claim to be very good at it), the doctrine makes sense to me. And eternal marriage where procreation is possible (if not in this life, at least in the next) is fundamental to my understanding of the plan of salvation. Take that away, and the whole thing would likely fall apart for me. It's hard to say exactly how I would react if it actually happened, but I don't believe I could ever view a change in the doctrine as an act of humility. I think I would view it as an admission that everything the Church teaches is a bunch of hogwash. Given that I don't find the social aspects of the Church very fulfilling (at least not where I am right now), I don't see how I could justify sticking around.

Your last question is an interesting one for me. I would stay that I am at peace with the doctrine as it stands in the sense that I understand it, accept it, and believe it. With that said, I am far from at peace with figuring out how to live it. Life as a gay Mormon who believes in what the Church teaches sucks. I think this guy nails it on the head when he describes how out of place you feel in the Church:

That is part of the reason why I have been pretty much inactive for the last few years (I know that is odd given everything I said in the first paragraph ... I don't fully understand it myself). There are a lot of times when I wish I could just stop believing in this stuff and find a man to be with. But, for whatever reason, I can't. So, in that sense, I am far from at peace.

[Northwestcoug]

I don't understand why you think the Church explaining its doctrinal position with absolute clarity is taking a "step backwards." Would you prefer they be vague about the doctrine? That's not going to help anyone. As a gay member of the Church (with a testimony) who has had to struggle through figuring out how to make sense of the doctrine, the absolute worst thing the Church could do is be mealy mouthed about what it's doctrine is. If that hurts some feelings, I'm truly sorry about that. But the alternative is far worse.

I really appreciate hearing your point of view. I'm curious, would it be different for you if someone described the church as 'humble' as opposed to 'mealy mouthed', if it backed away from it's traditional doctrine about gays? I think a lot of progmos (JL included) feel that if there is to be an eventual change in the doctrine, it will be because the leaders are humble enough to rethink what they used to believe and ask god if it's time to change.

And if I may ask, are you at peace with the doctrine as it stands?

[Shaka]

I don't understand why you think the Church explaining its doctrinal position with absolute clarity is taking a "step backwards." Would you prefer they be vague about the doctrine? That's not going to help anyone. As a gay member of the Church (with a testimony) who has had to struggle through figuring out how to make sense of the doctrine, the absolute worst thing the Church could do is be mealy mouthed about what it's doctrine is. If that hurts some feelings, I'm truly sorry about that. But the alternative is far worse.

A great perspective.

In case you or someone else was worried never fear, Mpfunk is here to be offended on your behalf.

[UVACoug]

Wait so you can engage in fundamental change by taking 2 steps backwards for every 1 step forward?

I don't understand why you think the Church explaining its doctrinal position with absolute clarity is taking a "step backwards." Would you prefer they be vague about the doctrine? That's not going to help anyone. As a gay member of the Church (with a testimony) who has had to struggle through figuring out how to make sense of the doctrine, the absolute worst thing the Church could do is be mealy mouthed about what it's doctrine is. If that hurts some feelings, I'm truly sorry about that. But the alternative is far worse.

[UVACoug]

That's a very nice video by the church. One thing that I wondered about is how do you have a 24 year old son come out to you and you're surprised. I would have thought that several things along the way would have given you a pretty good idea he was gay.

Not all gays fit the stereotype. I think it would be pretty easy to hide up to that point. I came out to my parents when I was 22. I don't know that the suspected anything before then.

For those that liked a video, here is a blog post from the mom in the video that I thought was very well done. I liked it much better than the video actually.

https://www.lds.org/blog/navigating-...LOG_xLIDyL2-3_

[MartyFunkhouser]

While not as visible as the anti homosexual rhetoric in the Ensign, they did post this nice article with the video on the lds.org blog.

I'll give credit for trying to make this more visible even if I have my skepticism why they did it.

https://www.lds.org/blog/navigating-...prclt=Tw6EjpH7

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Topper]

You're so out of touch. Sharing the first presidency's message isn't even required anymore.

That means, I was always decades ahead of my time!

[falafel]

I don't believe you. Certainly, you do you home teaching each month and share the message from the Ensign with your families.

You're so out of touch. Sharing the first presidency's message isn't even required anymore.