What a sad screed!

There are many here who make various cases for what they feel is the error of same sex attractions and they manage to do it with civility, logical persuation and minimal discursive skills. You might take a lesson from them because you do your own argument no service by displaying your lack of knowledge and personal bitterness.

Since you are conversant with Paul’s letters I remind you what he said in 1 Thesalonians 4:8, “He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit.”

I am utterly offended by your unwarranted and vitriolic attacks on Bored in Vernal and john but anyone who has read their contributions and yours already knows everything they need to about what they add to this community.

It’s not something I do because it’s “funny”… my wife points guys out and asks me my opinion on them because she’s genuinely trying to understand me, and also because she has come to believe (as I have) that it’s healthier to give my feelings an innocent, non-threatening outlet than it would be to try to suppress them and deny them.

She’s more worried that I will get frustrated with the situation and leave her than the other way around. I do my best to be conscious of her feelings and to not abuse them, but I’m also trying (with her help) to find the right balance between not suppressing my attractions and not focusing on them too much.

re: the phrase in God Loveth His Children that’s been the topic of discussion: FWIW, I read it the same way Nick did, and nearly every gay member of the Church I’ve spoken to has read it about the same way.

Ray (and Nick) – When I first read the pamphlet “God Loveth His Children,” I had a similar reaction to that of Nick when I read the section he quoted above, for many of the same reasons Nick cited. I think at the time I was coming to terms with my sexual orientation, I was much harder on myself in relation to this issue than anyone else. My interpretation of what Church leaders said about this much more literalistic and uncompromising than anyone else. That’s probably partly why, when after 13 years (from the time I first was aware of sexual feelings, around the age of 11 or 12) of trying to change by being as faithful as I could and nothing happened, I was left with only one desperate final solution: suicide. I agree that so many gay men and lesbians, coming from a similar framework and personal history, would read those words and be unable to see them as anything but an indictment and condemnation that they have still failed when “some” succeeded.

Still, I also agree that the intended sense of those words was to provide reassurance. I am now a bit more aware of some of the behind-the-scenes efforts that produced those words, and I know that the intention was to teach members of the Church that gay people do not choose their sexual orientation, and that it is beyond the capability of most to change it. I think that in practice, the pamphlet is being used in pastoral situations to provide the reassurance that gay men and lesbians in the Church desperately need. I suspect that as time goes on, those words will be used to open more doors, not shut them.

BIV – Again, thanks for your compassion and openness!! XOXOXO

I’m not sure what sort of educational system produces people who aren’t aware that being sensitive, compassionate, understanding, and tolerant are criteria for being a decent human being, but I’m awfully glad that I wasn’t educated in it.

Actually, Jared, I don’t see being gay as a burden, let alone a crushing one. It’s true that some gay men and lesbians carry enormous burdens as a result of their religious/social beliefs, but those burdens are not the direct result of being gay. In my own experience, hiding my sexual orientation was a huge and constant burden, always causing me to worry that someone would figure out the truth, or that my friends and family would reject me if they knew that I was gay. If you’ve ever carried on a deception for any significant length of time, you know how heavy that burden can be, in terms of worry, self-loathing guilt, and investing more time and effort to prevent discovery.

The only way for a person who has deceived others to be free of that burden is to repent of that deception—to come clean with the truth, apologize to those who’ve been deceived, and deal with the natural consequences stemming from the newly-revealed truth of the matter.

In my own case, this repentance took the form of coming out of the closet, and beginning to live my life as an openly gay man. It was then that I discovered that it was the deception that weighed me down, not the fact that I was gay. Rather than a burden, I’ve found that being gay is a blessing in my life, in inumerable ways.

I carefully included the phrase “inspired bishop”. My experience with bishops is that inspiration can come to a bishop when those who seek their help have the Lord’s ear.I mean by this that when the Lord gets involved, the inspired bishop will show up. The Lord will make that happen.

Part of the struggle, based on my experience, is getting the Lord involved. That doesn’t happen automatically. There might be a season of trial before the powers of heaven will be manifest.

For all of the inspiration we would like to think bishops are imbued with, I’ve talked to three bishops regarding homosexuality. They have been of no help whatsoever. Two of them said as much, to their credit. One had been a long-time LDS chaplain. The one who thought he knew the answers felt simply in-depth conversations with my son would help him see the errors of his chosen path.

I have no idea what it’s like to be gay, I imagine it can be a crushing burden to bear. Is it the most difficult of all burdens to carry that mankind are called on to bear? Those in the gay community who have a testimony of the restored church (Mormons) certainly have an added burden. Is it bearable? The Lord tells us it is. He promises His followers that He will bless and support them in their difficulties and trials (many scriptures could be sited).

I don’t understand what it is like to be gay, but I do understand sin. And sin is the real issue for a follower of Christ, no matter what kind of sin it is.

If a follower of Christ is going to overcome temptation and sin, the scriptures, and the Book of Mormon in particular, in conjunction with an inspired bishop, will get the job done. But I can say, based on my experience, be prepared for a difficult struggle.

I hope Mormon Matters will seek out those who have embraced the gospel of Jesus Christ to conquer sin, and invite them to relate their experiences.

Another example of this kind of intentional ambiguity is the evolving doctrine of patriarchy, where we now have the puzzling situation of a husband who presides over his fully co-equal partner. It shouldn’t surprise us that the current position toward homosexuality isn’t completely self-consistent. In fact, I’m not even sure the leaders of the Church are of one mind on the subject of homosexuality. You get a very different vibe from Elders Holland and Oaks, for example.

In general, I’m willing to live with the ambiguity and understand its institutional importance, but in this case there’s a deadly cost. As Nick points out, many young gay Mormons will struggle needlessly to change what can’t be changed, and the Church will do next to nothing to help them. Some of these young people will end up taking their own lives. Others will enter into into ill-advised marriages that bring sorrow not only to themselves but their spouses. Again, this misery is preventable, but it would take clearer guidance than is currently provided by the Church.

There is no question to me but that the Church has changed their stance on homosexuality, as Ray pointed out. But I do read the statements similarly to Nick. In addition, with the comparison that Elder Wickman made and the statements in the Proclamation on the Family about gender being eternal I get the impression that current LDS leaders are beginning to define homosexuality as being an affliction or a handicap or something that has gone wrong in the individual which may or may not be able to be corrected in this life. And that if it is not, the afflicted person just has to live with their handicap, a life without sexual intimacy, until they are “healed” in the next life.

I can’t give an opinion on whether or not I think homosexuality is eternal. However, it seems that GLBTs do better in the here and now if they are able to accept and embrace their sexuality as a whole and healthy person, rather than regarding themselves as deficient or handicapped. That is why I see the current Church statements and explanations as being damaging.

I usually feel like when you get involved in these discussions about gays that the cavalry has arrived. This time, though, I think you are overreaching. So many conflicting things have been said by the church (most recent Hafen’s DNA talk) that it’s hard to really talk about the real teachings of the church. As anti-church rhetoric as I am on this issue, I don’t believe the church now (they have historically) feels gays don’t change because of a lack of effort. I think the Church’s basic thought is same sex attraction is a cross to bear but it doesn’t get presented that way because they don’t want to plant the idea that all shouldn’t at least try. And in that they do a great injustice to those who can’t change.

By the way, ever since Elder Wickman was chosen to be part of the Oaks-Wickman “interview”, I have felt he was chosen simply to use his daughter as the example of someone who will never marry. I know he has a connection (don’t remember what it is) to dealing with LDS gays. But that’s what I though as soon as I read him mention her. Very cynical, I know. He didn’t need to interject her personal situation, but did.

I understand the difference between what is written and what is interpreted from what is written. I understand that. I never claimed they are the same. I didn’t say that the words couldn’t be interpreted that way; I said that it’s not how I read them.

I disagreed with one specific statement you made – and you didn’t make the same claim initially that you just made in your last comment. I agree with what you just said, but I disagree with what you said previously. I apologize if that wasn’t as clear as I tried to make it – if it was hard for you to understand.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Good night, Nick. May God continue to bless you and yours.

Perhaps I can be more specific for you. You’re right–the LDS church does not teach that all homosexuals can change their sexual orientation. Rather, the LDS church teaches that those homosexuals who sufficiently demonstrate “individual effort, the exercise of faith, and reliance upon the enabling power of the Atonement” can change their sexual orientation.

Those “other” homosexuals—the one’s who fail to reach that ill-defined bar of sufficiency, get a polite pat on the head—sort of like the mentally handicapped daughter in the Oaks-Wickman interview.

“I can only assume that neither of you have the slightest inkling of the anguish experienced by gay and lesbian individuals who attempt to live in accordance with the teachings of the LDS church.”

and you would be wrong. That’s why assumptions are so dangerous.

You know I don’t agree 100% with the Church’s political stances on homosexuality, and you certainly know I don’t like the Church’s former positions regarding the “treatment” of homosexuals. I disagree with your assertion that the Church still teaches that all homosexuals can change their orientation. It doesn’t, and it has left a door open for sexual orientation to not condemn someone. I wish there was more at the moment, and I understand why you also wish there was more, but to state that I have no inkling . . .

You are wrong.

#78:
What Martin said, Nick.

I can only assume that neither of you have the slightest inkling of the anguish experienced by gay and lesbian individuals who attempt to live in accordance with the teachings of the LDS church. Neither of you comprehend the tears, the prayerful begging, the fasting, the extreme tactics, and the mental punishment engaged in by persons who literally want nothing more than to “overcome” what they’ve been taught from the cradle to hate within themselves, all in a desperate attempt to be acceptable to their church’s understanding of deity. You have little or no idea of the mental conditioning which your homosexual brothers and sisters have been subjected to, and how that mental conditioning almost invariably determines how they will understand teachings like those in the pamphlet.

Perhaps it’s effortless for the two of you to convince yourselves that the words in question are filled with assurance and benevolence. Perhaps your own choices preclude you from seeing how anything out of LDS HQ could cause mental anguish to well-intentioned souls. I can only hope that neither of you ever have to experience the feeling that a core aspect of who you are makes you filthy and loathesome beyond all but murderers in the eyes of deity, only to have that same deity refuse your years of begging and pleading for a miracle that would make you acceptable to him.