Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

Oh, absolutely. I agree with that completely.

Gimgimno wrote:Here's my personal feelings on the issue:

My faith that the Brethren are inspired and leading us aright is stronger than my personal leanings on the matter we're discussing. Supporting Prop 8 doesn't and shouldn't affect temple worthiness, but I think that members who see the issue differently should tend more to silence than to outspoken disapproval. It is extremely difficult for me to think that 15 of God's anointed royally screwed up here. It is much easier for me to come to the conclusion that my feelings are less informed and possibly "incorrect" than the conclusion that the Brethren are off-base on the matter.

Call it blind faith, but when I follow the counsel of men for my entire life and they never lead me or my family astray, I don't think it's "blind" to accept further exhortations without receiving direct, significant, spiritual confirmation of the accuracy and validity of their words. Personally, I think that sort of decision-making is more informed than reading all the news media that I could possibly stomach on a given issue.

Anyway. Continue discussing—that's just how I feel.

Thanks for putting succinctly what I've been trying to wrestle into words for a while. This sums up my feelings very well.

At what point should I, when asked, say that I agree with the brethren and not add any disclaimers about how I feel about it? Is there a point where bringing up my personal qualms with prop 8 is disrespectful to the brethren, or should I mention it every time?

If in your view homosexuals are born that way, and that for centuries they have been the victims of hate, discrimination, and bigotry, and that they want nothing more than to be treated with dignity and respect, and afforded all the rights, privileges, and benefits afforded every other citizen of this land, then I can see why you might have a problem with Prop. 8. You might think it is unfair, inequitable, and discriminatory; that it forces on a certain class of individuals second class status. If that is your thinking I can understand your feeling that supporting Prop. 8 is morally wrong.

Because we love our friends, we usually want them to have what they want, because it seems that it will make them happy. But sometimes we are given to know that what they want is not what will make them truly happy, or be good for society as a whole. I think we walk a fine line treating one another as brothers and sisters, wishing them well, hoping for their happiness, letting them know of our love for them, and yet refraining from giving them what they so desperately want, tacit approval of their behavior when that behavior is not in accordance with God's laws. Sometimes friends will fall away from us when it is clear that we cannot condone their behavior, yet we will have something to answer for if what we are doing (or failing to do) is encouraging them to sin.

I'm convinced that calling same-sex relationships “marriage” is on the whole not truly in the best interests of these individuals, and not in the overall best interest of society. That is the decision I have come to after prayerful consideration and listening to our Church leaders. I am not calling anyone an apostate who does not feel the same way about it as I do.

Walking the line between respecting and following the brethren as God's sanctioned servants on the earth, and the only conduit through which revelation for the earth as a whole can come, and realizing that they are also men with their own agency who are also given leeway in the conducting of the day to day affairs of the church, is a hard line to walk. Too easily we fall into either assuming that the plan of action they develop for a specific issue or conflict is the only one possible, or the only one that could be sanctioned by God, or believing them to be merely men with good intentions, who usually are out of touch. Either side leads us into stifling our own development eternally.

In line with this, walking the line between showing that we cannot condone any sin (including our own) and showing everyone on God's earth that we love them and want the best for them is equally difficult. Too often we discard those we would disagree with as immoral, rejecting the individual along with the behavior, or accept fully everything that they do, thinking that to accept them we must accept all their behavior.

Vorpal, the paragraph that you present at the beginning of your most recent post is the one most of the scientific/historic community agrees with, and the church has no position on. I think it almost certain the there are innate qualities within an individual that lead to same-sex attraction. In my opinion, this isn't really up for debate. But every one of us has tendencies toward behavior which is immoral. Should I be sanctioned in giving freedom to my sexual desires towards women, because I was born that way?

I don't think any of the solutions that the legislative or judicial systems have offered, as of yet, adequately answer the problem, and walk that fine line of allowing people their agency, even when they use it in ways we disagree with, and fostering a moral environment which will be truly good for all involved. This will take the blood, sweat, tears, and the thought, prayer, and compassion of many on both sides of this issue before we have an answer that anyone can truly feel comfortable with.

Marduk wrote:.

Should I be sanctioned in giving freedom to my sexual desires towards women, because I was born that way?

If you don't do it in the Lord's way, then yes! Absolutely!

Craig Jessop wrote:

Marduk wrote:.

Should I be sanctioned in giving freedom to my sexual desires towards women, because I was born that way?

If you don't do it in the Lord's way, then yes! Absolutely!

psst, I think sanction as used here means the opposite of what you think it means.

And do people really believe that homosexuals are "born that way" anymore? I thought it was well-established that while the vast majority of people don't choose their sexual orientation, their sexual orientation is formed through some interaction of genetic, hormonal, and environmental/social forces—i.e. both nature and nurture.

krebscout wrote: At what point should I, when asked, say that I agree with the brethren and not add any disclaimers about how I feel about it? Is there a point where bringing up my personal qualms with prop 8 is disrespectful to the brethren, or should I mention it every time?

That's a tough question. Let me just say that I've known parents who thought they were supporting the bishop, but let it be known privately--and within earshot of their children--that they had some personal qualms about some of the decisions the bishop had made. Like the person chosen to be Relief Society President. They say that perhaps the bishop didn't know this or that about the person. Or perhaps the bishop was acting more out of desperation than inspiration. These parents plant doubts in the minds of their listeners. They may feel that the bishop was actually inspired, but the net effect is to okay second guessing and calling into question the actions of church leaders. I'm not saying we must blindly follow our leaders. I'm not saying that the leaders are infallible, but we do have measures we can take to privately talk to the bishop or the stake president and come to a better understanding. Sometimes we will never be privileged to know all that went into the decision. I just know that the parents who expressed these kind of doubts in front of their children find their children fall away from the church, and the parents can't understand it.

Waldorf and Sauron wrote: And do people really believe that homosexuals are "born that way" anymore? I thought it was well-established that while the vast majority of people don't choose their sexual orientation, their sexual orientation is formed through some interaction of genetic, hormonal, and environmental/social forces—i.e. both nature and nurture.

I'm not so sure that people are as well informed as you are, Sauron. I'd like to add another factor that is a little more controversial. There is also the interaction with what we choose to let our imagination, desires, and thoughts dwell on.

vorpal blade wrote:That's a tough question. Let me just say that I've known parents who thought they were supporting the bishop, but let it be known privately--and within earshot of their children--that they had some personal qualms about some of the decisions the bishop had made. Like the person chosen to be Relief Society President. They say that perhaps the bishop didn't know this or that about the person. Or perhaps the bishop was acting more out of desperation than inspiration. These parents plant doubts in the minds of their listeners. They may feel that the bishop was actually inspired, but the net effect is to okay second guessing and calling into question the actions of church leaders. I'm not saying we must blindly follow our leaders. I'm not saying that the leaders are infallible, but we do have measures we can take to privately talk to the bishop or the stake president and come to a better understanding. Sometimes we will never be privileged to know all that went into the decision. I just know that the parents who expressed these kind of doubts in front of their children find their children fall away from the church, and the parents can't understand it.

Pardon my aside, but this reminds me of a personal story that I'm just itching to share... A roommate of mine had a real problem with this particular issue. She would say that she supported our bishop, but she would also say that he was wrong about this, he was wrong about that, and he did this other thing completely different from how it was supposed to be done. I never found any fault with the man, personally. I thought he was perhaps a bit more laid back than other bishops, but overall I thought he was a great bishop. In the end, she decided to move out of the ward because his actions bothered her so much. So what were her concerns?

1) He wouldn't use the ward budget to buy Ensigns for all the members (for those who don't know, this is common practice in BYU singles wards).
2) He allowed the activities committee to plan an unsupervised overnight activity (a legitimate concern).
3) He also allowed the activities committee to plan several activities that lacked heavy-duty spiritual components, like a formal lesson.

Did she ever talk to him about it? No. Does she know the reasons behind his actions? No. She just moved out. I think there are better ways to handle situations like that, and it starts by talking to the person. Maybe there are good reasons for their actions. Maybe there aren't. Maybe the person could use a suggestion or two! But there's no need to get offended over silly things like that.

Anyway...let's get back on topic. Carry on.

Perhaps I was unclear; thanks for clarifying, Sauron. The conservative side would accuse the liberal of saying that all innate desires should be given full freedom, the liberal would accuse the conservative by pointing to factors beyond an individual's control that lead to these actions. As usual, both sides have truth, but neither side has the entirety of it.

Let me also clarify the usage of sanction there; sanction means "to give effective or authoritative approval or consent to" in this case. So should I be given approval or consent in giving full freedom to my sexual desires towards women? That, after all, is my natural inclination. But we can easily see the folly there. (For the record, I don't think anyone is arguing that a homosexual should be given full freedom to express those desires either; just that they be allowed the same modicum of expression a heterosexual is. This one is a bit tougher to give a priori style arguments against.

Waldorf and Sauron wrote:And do people really believe that homosexuals are "born that way" anymore? I thought it was well-established that while the vast majority of people don't choose their sexual orientation, their sexual orientation is formed through some interaction of genetic, hormonal, and environmental/social forces—i.e. both nature and nurture.

Absolutely! A few years ago, I heard an interesting lecture from a BYU biology professor who absolutely believes this and has a whole packet of research studies to back it up. The studies look at various physiological correlations with sexual orientation...it's been so long that I can't remember his name or the details of the research. But if I dig around in my things, I bet I could find the packet. I think one of the studies had to do with index finger length...or something random like that. Really weird stuff.

That guy had one of the most controversial LDS opinions I've ever heard. He's disappointed in the whole situation because he's talked to hundreds of gay BYU students about their conflicted feelings. He's basically hoping that this will end the same way as the priesthood being extended to all worthy males--in a few years, a revelation will come, and it will be revealed that our gay brothers and sisters can be extended full fellowship and will be allowed to marry, perhaps even in the temple.

It's an interesting theory, but...

thebigcheese wrote:He's basically hoping that this will end the same way as the priesthood being extended to all worthy males--in a few years, a revelation will come, and it will be revealed that our gay brothers and sisters can be extended full fellowship and will be allowed to marry, perhaps even in the temple.

I think this change would be a much bigger deal than the priesthood revelation. In that case, it was a matter of eliminating a restriction based on race. Allowing gays and lesbians to marry in the temple would effectively mean dismantling our entire doctrine of gender roles. (I.e., who presides in a gay couple? Is it a problem if a lesbian couple doesn't have the priesthood in their home? Who is supposed to "provide" and who is supposed to "nurture" if both parents are of the same gender?, etc.)

Marduk, I should have been more clear: I was saying that Craig got the meaning of the word wrong, not you.

Waldorf and Sauron wrote:Marduk, I should have been more clear: I was saying that Craig got the meaning of the word wrong, not you.

Right, was clarifying for him and anyone else who may have misunderstood. I think the usage in terms of imposing sanctions on foreign countries is one of the more common ones, and throws people off.

vorpal blade wrote:I'm not so sure that people are as well informed as you are, Sauron. I'd like to add another factor that is a little more controversial. There is also the interaction with what we choose to let our imagination, desires, and thoughts dwell on.

I'd agree with that, but at the same time, that's hard to empirically measure in the same way one can measure certain social, hormonal, or biological factors. Additionally, you could subsume this factor into the social/environmental category — for example, it could help explain why it is that lessening social taboo on homosexual relations correlates with more people that identify as bisexual or homosexual.

The difference here is that, for instance, the marked increase in the number of homosexual women in the United States is a measurable phenomenon tied to a certain social environment (namely, the contemporary United States), whereas an explanation involving a persons level of control to choose or not choose to repress homosexual curiosity is something that must remain in the realm of theory. I find it credible (though problematic), but it doesn't really seem to be in the realm of scientifically obtainable knowledge.

I think we are in agreement, Sauron. Our choice to dwell on certain thoughts could be subsumed in the social/environmental factor. I chose to emphasize it because it might be assumed that all the factors which go into leading a person to identify himself as a homosexual are beyond the control of the individual. But in fact we know that what we choose to think about is within our control, and that factor can make a huge difference.

I know you are aware of the great talk given by Elder Dallin H. Oaks. Among other things in that talk he emphasized individual responsibility, including this comment; (Ensign, October 1995)

Although immoral thoughts are less serious than immoral behavior, such thoughts also need to be resisted and repented of because we know that “our thoughts will also condemn us” (Alma 12:14). Immoral thoughts (and the less serious feelings that lead to them) can bring about behavior that is sinful.

It might be difficult to prove "scientifically" that dwelling on thoughts of homosexual behavior leads to identifying yourself as a homosexual and practicing homosexual behavior, but this concept seems to be pretty well established in the scriptures or talks by General Authorities. It would be interesting to see a study done on it.

What I find interesting in the idea of environmental/social forces acting on an individual to cause him to self-identify his sexual orientation as homosexual and therefore act upon this self concept, is that our social policies can alter the environment and social forces. In other words, the political choices we make, such as whether to include same-gender relationships in the term "marriage" can have a direct impact on the number of practicing homosexuals. As we make same-gender relationships more social acceptable--perhaps out of compassion or as sense of equal rights to respect and esteem--we are changing the social environment to foster or increase that behavior.

There is, therefore, a power struggle going on with some trying to increase homosexuality, and those trying to hold the line.

Katya wrote:I think this change would be a much bigger deal than the priesthood revelation. In that case, it was a matter of eliminating a restriction based on race. Allowing gays and lesbians to marry in the temple would effectively mean dismantling our entire doctrine of gender roles. (I.e., who presides in a gay couple? Is it a problem if a lesbian couple doesn't have the priesthood in their home? Who is supposed to "provide" and who is supposed to "nurture" if both parents are of the same gender?, etc.)

Not to mention that homosexual behavior is considered a sexual perversion and gross sin.