LDS Stance on Homosexuality

[Fluffy]

Thank you to everyone for you questions and answers. I don't have very much time so I apologise if I am abrupt or miss anyone.

Heya Becky,

I think it's odd how y'all who aren't LDS think it's a step backward.

Apparently you haven't read or talked to members that grew up in the 40's and 50's.

I do not disagree that this is a more tolerant view than in the past. However, I feel that since it does not go far enough according to my own beliefs, this will have the affect of entrenching the church into this position thereby preventing or at least inhibiting further progress. If the church had made no statement and waited then by that point, the way homosexuals are viewed today might be looked down about in the same way as blacks were viewed 40 years ago and, in this way, they might be prepared to go further.

Heya DS,

I don't see how this position is more "clarified" than any of the others that have come before. This is the latest of many direct statements on the subject of homosexualitiy from apostles of the LDS church. That puts it on the same level of "clarity" (actually authority) as the Missionary Library (Jesus the Christ, Articles of Faith, Truth Restored, et. al.), which are a step below the Standard Works (Bible, BoM, D&C, PoGP).

In 1969 another apostle made another such statement, in "The Miracle of Forgiveness." There, Spencer W. Kimball calls homosexuality disgusting, an abomination, a crime against nature, and, when discussing the degeneracy of society, says "In some countries the act itself isn't even illegal" (gasp!--emphasis mine)

Based on this and other comparable statement in the past, I'd call this a step forward.

My response to Becky is fairly relevant here but also, I got the distinct impression that the official LDS position was unclear since the interview stated that there were many questions directed at LDS officials about the matter. I reasoned that if the LDS position had been clear, such questions would have been answered far more easily and not require an official statement.

If the LDS position on homosexuality was clear beforehand then why ask questions? It would be a little like asking the Pope how he felt about murder being a sin. Therefore, I assumed, and I admit perhaps incorrectly, that the situation was unclear.

It also bears mentioning that the LDS view "sin" differently than other religions. Sin requires that one know that their actions are against the will of God. It's impossible to sin (or be saved) in ignorance; after the Spirit confirms that what we are doing is wrong, we can sin or avoid sin, but until that happens, the worst we can do is "transgress."

I had forgotten about that. I do think that is an incredibly progressive position to be in. However, I would say that, given this, the LDS should offer homosexual marriage to those who honestly say that they do not believe they have been provided with sufficient evidence that homosexuality is a sin as long as they vow that, if they were to come across such evidence, they would attempt to renounce their sin (ie in the afterlife).

Excellent point! Our stance is that we distinguish between "being tempted" and "cultivating" a temptation. As one of my Bishops used to say, "It's not a sin to have an sinful thought go through your head. It's a sin to offer it a chair and ask it to stay around for a while."

I suppose that it does come down to interpretation of the passages. I cannot, in all honesty, say that I believe that those who wrote such things felt that way about what they wrote and so I choose to dismiss their writings instead of attempting to reinterpret them. However, I believe what you believe... I just reach it from another angle.

Unfortunately, it does imply that, but we do acknowledge female homosexuality.

In this day an age, I would be surprised if you didn't although that kind of lack of acknowledgement was rife amongst Christian groups historically which was why I asked. I assume that the elder was merely speaking in order to be clear rather than literally.

Well, in Elder Oaks' article on the subject in the Ensign several years back, he gave an explanation: marriage is intended by God for reproductive purposes. While it doesn't always work out that way--many couples who want to have children are infertile--an arrangement that by its very nature cannot possibly produce offspring is contrary to the church concept of "marriage."

If that is the case then I can see two possibilities that may allow homosexual marriage:
1) In the very near future, homosexuals will be able to reproduce without any 3rd party doner. The scientific techniques involved are already developed. In this way, a homosexual might marry another homosexual and produce offspring. Therefore, if this is the only thing currently barring homosexual marriage, might the LDS consider allowed gay marriage in the future, if this changed? Consider that the alternative would be for homosexuals to have kids with each other anyway but be unable to marry.
2) Does the LDS church currently reject couples who wish to marry even though they know they cannot reproduce (ie no chance such has having no womb)? Does the LDS currently encourage seperation for those couples who they married but then find out they are unable to reproduce?

I just want to apologise if I caused any offence to LDS members. I do think very highly of the church and they are one of the few denominations that continue to make me hopeful for the religion as a whole. Obviously any view that does not cohere with my own I am going to view as "not good enough" but that is potentially as much my problem as it is the church's. I do consider this view to be a very tolerant one compared with many of the alternatives but I must be honest and say that I would still like to see even more.

 

[Katzpur]

Paul,

I stated a few posts ago that I am bowing out of all future discussions on issues involving homosexuality, and I intend to do so. However, it would seem unfair to not at least respond to your post.

There is a lot i like about the LDS Church, but despite that i couldn't be around a God that forces people to be something they are not. If i am insulting the Church, which wasn't really my intention, then all i am insulting is its intolerance toward homosexual love.

The God in whom I believe doesn't force people to be anything. He merely tells us what He expects of us and then leaves it up to us whether to obey His commandments or not. It goes without saying that where there is agency, there is also accountability. We believe that God has made it clear that sexual intimacy is forbidden outside of the marriage covenant and that marriage is to be between a man and a woman. God isn't forcing homosexuals to be heterosexual any more than He is forcing single people to be married. So, leaving homosexuality aside entirely, you might as well just hate the LDS God for commanding unmarried heterosexual people to remain celibate. If you don't like His rules, that's fine with me. If you choose to deny Him to His face because you don't like them, that's fine with me, too, although it strikes me as cutting off your nose to spite your face.

EDIT: To clarify, the question in the OP was "So, what do you think of the LDS Church's "official" stance regarding this issue?"

My answer is that i don't like it, and i won't pretend that i do.
With respect to what i said before, i think i could have worded it a lot better. However, it does convey my message.

I understand that. You don't like the LDS stance on homosexual relationships, and you don't like the LDS God. You actually made yourself quite clear.

If i were to die and discovered that the LDS relgion was true, or that Islam, Catholocism or any other religion that condemns or denounces homosexuality as a sin or problem to be overcome was the true religion. It would mean that the doctrine of condemning homosexuality that exists in the LDS Church and these other faiths stems from God Himself. I'd rather by apart from God than be with Him and accept the condemnation of my homosexual friends, and i would be angry at God.

For the upteenth time, we don't believe that homosexuality is a sin any more than heterosexuality is a sin. We believe that sexual relations outside of marriage is a sin. To you, it's probably one and the same; to us, it's not.

If God were to reveal to your Prophet that He doesn't view homosexuality as an evil sin, then i would happily accept the LDS religion if i died and found out it was the true one. But until that time, your Church's stance on homosexuality creates a line that i am unwilling to cross.

That's fine with me. I don't personally care whether you'd accept it or not. To me, the issue really ought to be about conforming our will to God's instead of expecting Him to conform His will to ours.

 

[PetShopBoy88]

I don't consider homosexuality a sin.

Yes, I understand that. But, if you died and found out that LDS was right (ie, that homosexual actions ARE sinful), you say you would essentially hate god, and therefore be glad to not spend eternity with him. I'm asking if this is the case with every sin (whether or not YOU consider it a sin or not).

If God gave someone cancer and then called them a sinner for having cancer, then yes, i would reject him.

But, I think this statement fairly effectively answers the question I posed (even if I did pose it in a rather unitelligeable manner )

 

[Fluffy]

Heya Kathryn

For the upteenth time, we don't believe that homosexuality is a sin any more than heterosexuality is a sin. We believe that sexual relations outside of marriage is a sin. To you, it's probably one and the same; to us, it's not.

I do not wish to speak for Paul but I suspect that the conclusion that LDS believe homosexuality to be a sin is not because of issues of extra marital sex. It is because heterosexual marriage is considered a worthy goal whilst homosexual marriage is considered a sin. If homosexual marriage is a sin then, by implication, homosexuality is also a sin. The fact that homosexual and heterosexual relations outside of marriage are equally sinful is moot.

To me, the issue really ought to be about conforming our will to God's instead of expecting Him to conform His will to ours.

I agree with you fully. I intend to do so by finding out why God considers homosexual marriage to be sinful so that I can adopt that belief for myself. Unfortunately, I have not yet discovered why God feels this way and so I am unable to do so.

 

[nutshell]

Heya Kathryn



I do not wish to speak for Paul but I suspect that the conclusion that LDS believe homosexuality to be a sin is not because of issues of extra marital sex. It is because heterosexual marriage is considered a worthy goal whilst homosexual marriage is considered a sin. If homosexual marriage is a sin then, by implication, homosexuality is also a sin. The fact that homosexual and heterosexual relations outside of marriage are equally sinful is moot.

So you say. Who are you to presume that what Katz posted is incorrect? I'll back Katz up and let you know she was right.

I agree with you fully. I intend to do so by finding out why God considers homosexual marriage to be sinful so that I can adopt that belief for myself. Unfortunately, I have not yet discovered why God feels this way and so I am unable to do so.

Is this your way of creating an excuse so you never discover why God feels this way?

 

[Ðanisty]

Yes, I understand that. But, if you died and found out that LDS was right (ie, that homosexual actions ARE sinful), you say you would essentially hate god, and therefore be glad to not spend eternity with him. I'm asking if this is the case with every sin (whether or not YOU consider it a sin or not).

I would imagine that Halcyon's opinion of whether or not something is a sin would have everything to do with whether or not he would reject God. Personally, if I were in this scenario and found out that the LDS was right about God, I would naturally reject him because I feel he is wrong. This is pretty hypothetical though considering I already hate God...

 

[Fluffy]

Heya nutshell,

So you say. Who are you to presume that what Katz posted is incorrect? I'll back Katz up and let you know she was right.

Hopefully I haven't presumed anything. I don't believe that I am wrong and Kathryn is right or the reverse.

What I was trying to say is that the perception that homosexuality is a sin is gained not from any ideas about extra marital relations but on ideas about homosexual marriage. I am not trying to imply that this perception is accurate although it is a perception I share. I do not mean to assert my beliefs over yours... just that I currently do not understand how you have reached your conclusion and that I wish to understand.

Is this your way of creating an excuse so you never discover why God feels this way?

No I am genuinly searching for the truth and fully admit that I do not know what the truth is. If I am told "God says A" then I can say "I believe that God says A" but this does not mean that I truly believe it. I do not understand how I can come to believe something like that.

An excuse implies that I am attempting to deny what I know to be the truth because I don't like what that truth is. I feel that I want to know the truth but I can't accept what I don't know to be the truth. When I know it to be the truth, I will accept it.

In this particular case I view homosexuality to be amoral. If I were to be persuaded that it was moral or immoral then I would need some kind of argument in order for me to understand since comprehension would be a big requirement for my belief.

Are you saying that if I stop asking for a reason, God will tell me his reason? I am not entirely sure I could completely shut off that mental process although I would be willing to try. If you have any advice it would be much appreciated.

 

[Halcyon]

Yes, I understand that. But, if you died and found out that LDS was right (ie, that homosexual actions ARE sinful), you say you would essentially hate god, and therefore be glad to not spend eternity with him. I'm asking if this is the case with every sin (whether or not YOU consider it a sin or not).

Well, most things that are considered sins hurt other people in some way; stealing, murder, adultery etc. I have no problem with them being sins. But being gay is the total opposite, its just like any other relationship, its about love for another person.

Other sins like idol worship i'm not too bothered about, if i found out the LDS God was true then its fair he'd want us to worship him alone.

I understand that. You don't like the LDS stance on homosexual relationships, and you don't like the LDS God. You actually made yourself quite clear.

The only thing i don't like about the LDS God is his view of homosexuality, simple as that, and i don't hate him, but i also couldn't worship him because of that one detail.

 

[Green Gaia]

Back to the OP.... I would be much happier with the LDS on homosexuality if they included support for legal civil marriage for same gender couples. Really, that's all I ask of anyone....

 

[michel]

For the upteenth time, we don't believe that homosexuality is a sin any more than heterosexuality is a sin. We believe that sexual relations outside of marriage is a sin. To you, it's probably one and the same; to us, it's not.

Kathryn, what do you then think of a married homosexual couple ? Presumably, from the above comment, you would not disapprove?

 

[Green Gaia]

For the upteenth time, we don't believe that homosexuality is a sin any more than heterosexuality is a sin. We believe that sexual relations outside of marriage is a sin. To you, it's probably one and the same; to us, it's not.

I understand that. But we are banned from civil marriage. That's the difference. If that's what the LDS believe, then I have nothing to say about that. But that discrimination is not right in the civil arena where we are being banned from civil marriage on religious grounds. This is my major frustration with this whole issue. Religions should be allowed to make their own rules, but everyone else should not be forced to abide by them, nor should we be banned from civil rights (I believe civil marriage is a civil right, I know not all agree) because of the rules of someone else's religion.

Do you forsee a time when the LDS church will support civil marriage rights for same gender couples?

 

[DeepShadow]

What I really resent is the way the Church lobbies against gay rights and same-sex marriage, and seeks to deny equality under the law to all GLBT people, Mormon or not.

That appears to be what Maize is saying, too, am I right? If so, then I must have missed the news; where has the LDS church been lobbying against homosexual marriage? Individuals are one thing, but I have yet to see the church take a political stand on this issue.

I'm serious, now. Someone please educate me.:help:

 

[Bishka]

That appears to be what Maize is saying, too, am I right? If so, then I must have missed the news; where has the LDS church been lobbying against homosexual marriage? Individuals are one thing, but I have yet to see the church take a political stand on this issue.

I'm serious, now. Someone please educate me.:help:

Don't quote me if I'm wrong --- but didn't bishops read a letter urging the congregation to vote for the one man/one woman marriage amendment?

 

[Green Gaia]

That appears to be what Maize is saying, too, am I right? If so, then I must have missed the news; where has the LDS church been lobbying against homosexual marriage? Individuals are one thing, but I have yet to see the church take a political stand on this issue.

I'm serious, now. Someone please educate me.:help:

"In 2006 the LDS Church stepped up its campaign against same-sex marriage by mailing letters to congregations asking them to lobby Congress for the Federal Marriage Amendment."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Utah

 

[nutshell]

"In 2006 the LDS Church stepped up its campaign against same-sex marriage by mailing letters to congregations asking them to lobby Congress for the Federal Marriage Amendment."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Utah

I'm not going to say the information isn't true, but I would like a better source than wikipedia - only because I have no knowledge or memory of such a letter.

 

[Green Gaia]

I'm not going to say the information isn't true, but I would like a better source than wikipedia - only because I have no knowledge or memory of such a letter.

http://www.lds.org/newsroom/showrelease/0,15503,3881-1-23448,00.html

http://lds.org/newsroom/showrelease/0,15503,4028-1-23253,00.html

 

[DeepShadow]

It's possible such a letter was read in some areas, but all I heard was the same letter that they always read, about the need to be politically active. It says the church does not take a position on political issues but rather encourages us to all vote our conscience.

Now I know that during the last presidential election they added a clause about making moral judgements a central issue in the voting, and that clause was taken by some as being opposed to same-sex marriage, but it wasn't anything so clearly partisan. It just seemed to me to be an attempt to cut past a lot of the look-at-the-monkey distractions of politics.

I'm still looking for more info. If there was a church-wide letter, why wasn't it read in every congregation? Anyone got anything else?

 

[Green Gaia]

DS, do you forsee a time when the LDS church will support civil marriage rights for same gender couples?

 

[DeepShadow]

Well there it is, straight from the newsroom. Thanks, Maize!

I'll be giving this a lot more thought.

EDIT: I try not to do a lot of "forseeing," Maize, but I wouldn't be that surprised if things went in that direction eventually. To be painfully clear, I wouldn't be suprised if it didn't, either--see above under "foreseeing."

 

[nutshell]

http://www.lds.org/newsroom/showrelease/0,15503,3881-1-23448,00.html

http://lds.org/newsroom/showrelease/0,15503,4028-1-23253,00.html

Thanks, Maize. I wasn't aware of this letter, but there it is. The only thing I can say is that it's silent on civil unions so perhaps the Church hasn't taken an official stance on that.