LDS Stance on Homosexuality

[nutshell]

I just came across an article in the Salt Lake Tribune mentioning that the LDS church had put up some "official" information on the church's stand on homosexuality in the newsroom section of its website. The interview can be found here:

http://www.lds.org/newsroom/issues/answer/0,19491,6056-1-202-4-202,00.html

I put this in the LDS section because I am interested in what the LDS members of these forums think about these answers.

Here are some quotes from Elder Oaks & Elder Wickman that I think were important for members of the church to understand:











It's a pretty long article, but I think that is enough to get the discussion going.

Jonny posted this in the LDS forum, but I am interested in hearing what the rest of the RF thinks.

So, what do you think of the LDS Church's "official" stance regarding this issue?

 

[nutshell]

Hold on, everyone. The quotes didn't show up. I'll add them.

 

[PetShopBoy88]

I read the quotes in the other forum, so I won't be holding on!

I think it's kind of strange that they can have the opinion that a mere internal attraction isn't bad, that only the actions are bad, if Jesus said that simply lusting after a woman in his heart was the same as committing adultery.

 

[nutshell]

Here are some quotes:

"The distincition between feelings or inclinations on the one hand, and behavior on the other hand, is very clear. It's no sin to have inclidnations that if yeilded to would produce behavior that would be a transgression. the sin is in yielding to temptation. Temptation is not unique. Even the Savior was tempted.


"What's more, merely having inclinations does not disqualify one for any aspect of Church participation or membership, except possibly marriage as has already been talked about. But even that, in the fullness of life as we understand it through the doctrines of the restored gospel, eventually can become possible.

In this life, such thinks as service in the Church, including missionary service, all of this is available to anyone who is true to covenants and commandments."

"We don't know exactly 'why,' or the extent to which there are inclinations or susceptibilities and so on. but what we do know is that feelings can be controlld and behavior can be controlled."

"The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions - whether nature or nurture - those are things the Church doesn't have a position on."

"Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices."


OK. There are the quotes. Let me know what you think and feel free to read the whole article linked in the OP.

 

[Green Gaia]

I understand that your church teaches that no one should have sex outside of marriage. That's fine, I get that. What I don't understand is how it is fair to homosexuals to deny them marriage and insist they remain partnerless and celibate. How do you reconcile the fact that you give heterosexuals an outlet for love, partnership and sexual desire, but not homosexuals?

 

[nutshell]

I read the quotes in the other forum, so I won't be holding on!

I think it's kind of strange that they can have the opinion that a mere internal attraction isn't bad, that only the actions are bad, if Jesus said that simply lusting after a woman in his heart was the same as committing adultery.

I don't believe an inclination is the same thing as lusting. One seems to be a predisposition of sorts while another is consciously creating a scenario in one's mind. Is it a sin to be attracted to people? I don't think that's what Jesus was saying.

 

[nutshell]

I understand that your church teaches that no one should have sex outside of marriage. That's fine, I get that. What I don't understand is how it is fair to homosexuals to deny them marriage and insist they remain partnerless and celibate. How do you reconcile the fact that you give heterosexuals an outlet for love, partnership and sexual desire, but not homosexuals?

Because God said so. It's really that simple. We all have urges and God has told us which ones we may give in to and how and which ones we are not to give in to. The Church has said it does not know the "why."

I know you disagree, but "how is it fair" isn't an excuse for what the Church considers sin.

A small example: My Church recommends teens don't date until they are 16 and then only in groups. I always thought it wasn't "fair" because many of my friends were dating and I didn't get to. But that doesn't mean the Church didnt' have its reasons for its position - it was looking after my best spiritual interest.

 

[Green Gaia]

Because God said so.

Thanks for your answer. I guess now I have to wonder why God would be so unjust to homosexuals to deny them love and partnership with another person.

 

[Katzpur]

I understand that your church teaches that no one should have sex outside of marriage. That's fine, I get that. What I don't understand is how it is fair to homosexuals to deny them marriage and insist they remain partnerless and celibate. How do you reconcile the fact that you give heterosexuals an outlet for love, partnership and sexual desire, but not homosexuals?

Well, we don't give single heterosexuals "an outlet for love, partnership and sexual desire." From the Church's perspective there is really not a heck of a lot of difference between heterosexual sex outside of marriage and homosexual sex outside of marriage. If I were a single, heterosexual female (instead of a married, heterosexual female) I would be expected to remain celibate, and the ramifications for my failure to do so would be the same as if I were a single, homosexual female.

 

[nutshell]

Thanks for your answer. I guess now I have to wonder why God would be so unjust to homosexuals to deny them love and partnership with another person.

I'd like to stay on the OP and not debate the fairness of God.


Do you think the stance the Church has taken is a step in the right direction or going backwards? And why?

 

[PetShopBoy88]

I'd like to stay on the OP and not debate the fairness of God.

:yes:

 

[Katzpur]

I don't believe an inclination is the same thing as lusting. One seems to be a predisposition of sorts while another is consciously creating a scenario in one's mind. Is it a sin to be attracted to people? I don't think that's what Jesus was saying.

I agree. I don't think that Jesus was saying that at all. There are some people who would, for instance, have an affair in a heartbeat if they thought they could do so without being caught. Such a person is not being emotionally faithful to his or her spouse. In other words, if a person is only morally clean because he doesn't think he could get away with being unfaithful, that person is essentially guilty of "lusting in his heart." The reason he doesn't step out on his wife has nothing whatsoever to do with acknowledging that it would be sinful to do so.

 

[Green Gaia]

I'd like to stay on the OP and not debate the fairness of God.

That's fine, I really have no desire to debate this subject. I was just giving my thoughts on the answer you gave.

Do you think the stance the Church has taken is a step in the right direction or going backwards? And why?

From what I read, and I admit I didn't read the entire article, it seems like it is in the right direction. Although as you've already pointed out, I will still disagree with many points and of course I don't think it goes far enough to giving fair and equal treatment to homosexuals.

 

[Green Gaia]

Well, we don't give single heterosexuals "an outlet for love, partnership and sexual desire."

Yes you do, they have the option to find a partner and get married. Homosexuals do not.

 

[nutshell]

Yes you do, they have the option to find a partner and get married. Homosexuals do not.

That's debateable, but it is not the OP so I won't debate.

 

[Katzpur]

Yes you do, they have the option to find a partner and get married. Homosexuals do not.

I see what you're saying, but there are a lot of LDS women who would like more than anything in the world to get married. A girl I went to highschool with never got married, and I don't suppose it was her choice. She just never met a man who asked her to marry him, and at 57 she probably won't. Since she is a practicing Latter-day Saint (has a gorgeous voice and was in the Tabernacle Choir), I'd say the chances are very high that she is a virgin. I don't think her having to repress her sexual desires throughout her life has been any easier than it would have been for a 57-year old LDS lesbian woman. I guess that's all I'm saying.

 

[Green Gaia]

I see what you're saying, but there are a lot of LDS women who would like more than anything in the world to get married. A girl I went to highschool with never got married, and I don't suppose it was her choice. She just never met a man who asked her to marry him, and at 57 she probably won't. Since she is a practicing Latter-day Saint (has a gorgeous voice and was in the Tabernacle Choir), I'd say the chances are very high that she is a virgin. I don't think her having to repress her sexual desires throughout her life has been any easier than it would have been for a 57-year old LDS lesbian woman. I guess that's all I'm saying.

I understand there are many heterosexual people who would like to get married, but haven't met the right person. But at least the church leaves the door open to them and gives them the option should they find that right person. Homosexuals have no option for that and no choice. That's what I'm saying. Across the board whether they've found the love of their life or not, they are denied simply because of their sexuality.

From what I understand from the quotes, they are saying it is OK to be gay, but you can't act on it, you can't get married. Why? If there is something so wrong with you that the church says you don't deserve to be married to the person you love, then why do they say it's OK to have these feelings in the first place. I'm confused...

I'm really not trying to debate, but just trying to understand how LDS see that is being fair to homosexuals.

 

[PetShopBoy88]

Sorry for stealing your thunder, LDS folks, but I like to fancy myself "well-versed" in different religions...

51 Behold, I will liken these kingdoms unto a man having a field, and he sent forth his servants into the field to dig in the field.
52 And he said unto the first: Go ye and labor in the field, and in the first hour I will come unto you, and ye shall behold the joy of my countenance.

53 And he said unto the second: Go ye also into the field, and in the second hour I will visit you with the joy of my countenance.

54 And also unto the third, saying: I will visit you;

55 And unto the fourth, and so on unto the twelfth.

56 And the lord of the field went unto the first in the first hour, and tarried with him all that hour, and he was made glad with the light of the countenance of his lord.

57 And then he withdrew from the first that he might visit the second also, and the third, and the fourth, and so on unto the twelfth.

58 And thus they all received the light of the countenance of their lord, every man in his hour, and in his time, and in his season—

59 Beginning at the first, and so on unto the alast, and from the last unto the first, and from the first unto the last;

60 Every man in his own aorder, until his hour was finished, even according as his lord had commanded him, that his lord might be glorified in him, and he in his lord, that they all might be glorified.

61 Therefore, unto this parable I will liken all these akingdoms, and the binhabitants thereof—every kingdom in its hour, and in its time, and in its season, even according to the decree which God hath made.

62 And again, verily I say unto you, my afriends, I leave these bsayings with you to cponder in your hearts, with this commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall dcall upon me while I am near—

v 60 is an answer to this (from the LDS perspective, that is). Things happen in an order, one after the other, not all at once. And it happens this way so that each group can be glorified.

Now, keep in mind, this is the interpretation of LDS scripture by a non LDS, so it might be wrong anyway. :sorry1:

 

[nutshell]

I understand there are many heterosexual people who would like to get married, but haven't met the right person. But at least the church leaves the door open to them and gives them the option should they find that right person. Homosexuals have no option for that and no choice. That's what I'm saying. Across the board whether they've found the love of their life or not, they are denied simply because of their sexuality.

From what I understand from the quotes, they are saying it is OK to be gay, but you can't act on it, you can't get married. Why? If there is something so wrong with you that the church says you don't deserve to be married to the person you love, then why do they say it's OK to have these feelings in the first place. I'm confused...

I'm really not trying to debate, but just trying to understand how LDS see that is being fair to homosexuals.

It has nothing to do with fairness. There are many thoughts, urges, inclinations, and so on they we are not to act on because they are considered sin. Homosexuality is not an exception.

 

[Because_I_am]

Because God said so?

No.

God never said that lesbians were bad, I'm pretty sure.