Defined by sexuality

[Emower]

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/i ... attraction

Thinking about homosexuality and how it gets butchered in Mormon thought. The TLDR of the above "interview" with oaks and wickman is kind of two fold, 1. We aren't defined by our sexuality, and 2. it's a mortal challenge.

The church doctrine, at its core defines all of us by our sexuality by emphasizing the great plan of happiness! It is all about families, babies, marriage and multi-generational families. The old guys define us that way,and then they say, "don't be defined by your sexuality you gutter minded heathen."
I know I am not sharing anything new, or expressing any thought you all haven't already had, but the double talk is something I am starting to pick up on. And the new MS episode was pretty heartbreaking.

[Corsair]

I understand the deep difficulty of the nuanced position in the LDS church. I would love to find some hard line LDS leader and see if they would admit how much easier it was back when having attraction to the wrong gender stayed firmly in the closet. That might be amusing.

But let me give one nod to the hardliners and propose that their own rights to freedom of association at least have merit. If they want to draw the line and exclude LGBT people, they should have that right as a private organization. But I would really prefer that they came out and said it publicly and let LGBT people and their families have a real choice between living LDS standards or leaving for another church. LDS leaders could simply say, "If you are LGBT, this might not be the church for you. We would welcome you in our congregations, but you should expect to live a single, celibate life for the rest of your mortality. Otherwise, you should find another church or start your own. We are not changing fundamental doctrine simply to accommodate what we firmly believe is a sin."

These are harsh words, indeed. I won't tell any you that you have to like this kind of message. But it's honest and does reflect reality. I would actually respect that kind of candor if the LDS church is not going to embrace LGBT family members and friends that are certainly there. This does run head long into the universalizing doctrine that Mormons are definitely known for. Certainly it would cause many to leave the LDS Church. But that would be an honest move and the status quo is killing too many young people and leaving the pain on individual members who suffer mostly in silence.

[alas]

I understand the deep difficulty of the nuanced position in the LDS church. I would love to find some hard line LDS leader and see if they would admit how much easier it was back when having attraction to the wrong gender stayed firmly in the closet. That might be amusing.

But let me give one nod to the hardliners and propose that their own rights to freedom of association at least have merit. If they want to draw the line and exclude LGBT people, they should have that right as a private organization. But I would really prefer that they came out and said it publicly and let LGBT people and their families have a real choice between living LDS standards or leaving for another church. LDS leaders could simply say, "If you are LGBT, this might not be the church for you. We would welcome you in our congregations, but you should expect to live a single, celibate life for the rest of your mortality. Otherwise, you should find another church or start your own. We are not changing fundamental doctrine simply to accommodate what we firmly believe is a sin."

These are harsh words, indeed. I won't tell any you that you have to like this kind of message. But it's honest and does reflect reality. I would actually respect that kind of candor if the LDS church is not going to embrace LGBT family members and friends that are certainly there. This does run head long into the universalizing doctrine that Mormons are definitely known for. Certainly it would cause many to leave the LDS Church. But that would be an honest move and the status quo is killing too many young people and leaving the pain on individual members who suffer mostly in silence.

Well, they kind of did come out and say that directly to the married ones. Both my daughter and her wife heard loud and clear that they are not wanted. What is more, they said pretty loudly that they don't want any children of gays either.

But yeah to the idea that the church defines us all by our sexuality and by nothing else.

As a woman, I never once felt that all the church saw in me was a baby incubator, nope, never once felt like the church saw nothing but Madona/ho. Nope, in the church I am a whole person, not just a baby making machine that needs to be kept pure for some man. [end sarcasm]

I suspect that this is more a message of "deny your sexuality because it is the wrong one, just like we define you by nothing but your priesthood, (maleness) and then deny that you really are different than straights. So, you gays better not define yourselves by your sexuality cause you don't get any sexuality."

There, did I translate the church message correctly?

[Emower]

I understand the deep difficulty of the nuanced position in the LDS church. I would love to find some hard line LDS leader and see if they would admit how much easier it was back when having attraction to the wrong gender stayed firmly in the closet. That might be amusing.

But let me give one nod to the hardliners and propose that their own rights to freedom of association at least have merit. If they want to draw the line and exclude LGBT people, they should have that right as a private organization. But I would really prefer that they came out and said it publicly and let LGBT people and their families have a real choice between living LDS standards or leaving for another church. LDS leaders could simply say, "If you are LGBT, this might not be the church for you. We would welcome you in our congregations, but you should expect to live a single, celibate life for the rest of your mortality. Otherwise, you should find another church or start your own. We are not changing fundamental doctrine simply to accommodate what we firmly believe is a sin."

These are harsh words, indeed. I won't tell any you that you have to like this kind of message. But it's honest and does reflect reality. I would actually respect that kind of candor if the LDS church is not going to embrace LGBT family members and friends that are certainly there. This does run head long into the universalizing doctrine that Mormons are definitely known for. Certainly it would cause many to leave the LDS Church. But that would be an honest move and the status quo is killing too many young people and leaving the pain on individual members who suffer mostly in silence.

I think I agree with alas on this corsair, the church has said that they expect you to live single celibate lives for the rest of mortality. They have, more or less, said go find a different church by labeling homosexuality as excommunicatable. They could dispense with the whole "but we love you sweetie" kind of talk, but apart from that I am not sure how much more blunt they can get? I just don't like them saying we shouldn't define ourselves by our sexuality, when this whole bleepin church is based on sexuality!

Thinking about whether they should be allowed to include or disclose who they want. It seems that they should be allowed that, and constitutionally the church definitely should. But isn't it interesting that the general membership has profoundly and absolutely no control over the direction of the church. That muddies the water for me when I think about the church being "allowed" to do whatever the heck it wants. If it is not being led by God, which all of us here believe it isn't, then is this (the church) just one giant reflection of religion's subconcious?

[Corsair]

I suspect that this is more a message of "deny your sexuality because it is the wrong one, just like we define you by nothing but your priesthood, (maleness) and then deny that you really are different than straights. So, you gays better not define yourselves by your sexuality cause you don't get any sexuality."

There, did I translate the church message correctly?

You translated it correctly, but am not so sure about much of the local leadership in most wards and stakes.

Thinking about whether they should be allowed to include or disclose who they want. It seems that they should be allowed that, and constitutionally the church definitely should. But isn't it interesting that the general membership has profoundly and absolutely no control over the direction of the church. That muddies the water for me when I think about the church being "allowed" to do whatever the heck it wants. If it is not being led by God, which all of us here believe it isn't, then is this (the church) just one giant reflection of religion's subconcious?

Yes, this is the challenge of a top-down, hierarchical church. The public, correlated message is that everyone is invited, but policies from top leadership complicate that immensely.

[Emower]

I don't know at times that the church is even lead by the q15. It seems to have its own sense of momentum and very little sense of intense purpose. Maybe it's just me and my attitudes projecting. The church feels like a rough stone rolling, getting more rough and jagged with time.