"New booklet seeks to reconcile Mormon faith with gay youth"

[KirtlandSaintinZion]

New booklet seeks to reconcile Mormon faith with gay youth - chicagotribune.com

I find a few things wrong with this article...

- The LDS Church doesn't teach that homosexuality is a sin. It teaches that sexual immorality is a sin.

- If you believe you have to choose between "accepting" a "gay" relative or LDS church teachings, you don't understand LDS Church teachings.

- I am interested in exactly what this booklet says to do, the article seems to imply that any speaking against the lifestyle is a "rejecting" behavior.. so what exactly ARE you supposed to do?

Repentance needs to be preached to those involved in the lifestyle, just as much to those involved in any other sin. To do less would place some burden of their sin upon our own garments...

Jacob 1:18 "For I, Jacob, and my brother Joseph had been consecrated priests and teachers of this people, by the hand of Nephi.

19 And we did magnify our office unto the Lord, taking upon us the responsibility, answering the sins of the people upon our own heads if we did not teach them the word of God with all diligence; wherefore, by laboring with our might their blood might not come upon our garments; otherwise their blood would come upon our garments, and we would not be found spotless at the last day."

[Loudmouth_Mormon]

You can find the pamphlet here. It asks you for an email and zip code, then downloads the pdf file.

I've only spent around 10 minutes looking through it, but I didn't really find anything wrong with it. (I agree with KirtlandSaint that the article has some big problems.)

This paragraph helped clarify what they meant by supporting your gay kid:

Supporting your LGBT child does not mean that parents and other family members must accept behaviors that they consider inappropriate or against their family’s standards; what it does mean is that children who engage in behavior or express an identity that is not approved by the family still need love and acceptance, still need to feel that they are a part of the family, and still need a positive sense of self and hope for the future. As with any behaviors that parents find inappropriate or unacceptable, care should be taken not to send rejecting messages to the child or young person himself.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by KirtlandSaintinZion

- The LDS Church doesn't teach that homosexuality is a sin. It teaches that sexual immorality is a sin.

It's a bit ambiguous, in that it depends on how one defines "homosexuality." The Church doesn't teach the homosexual feelings/tendencies/orientation alone is sinful. It does teach that homosexuality activity or behavior is sinful. Some people think of the word "homosexual" as a state of being, while others think of it as a state of doing.

[norah63]

How does the part of the word sexual, not apply to doing? That is how it seems to me.
Confessing our faults to one another must be diffrent than giving our weakness a lifestyle name.
What might be the next lifestyle that becomes accepted in our society.
Just my thoughts.

[Sicily510]

Homosexuality

"People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are" (Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71).

I can agree to this, people sin differently...we must all possess moral standards and heed to the law of chastity according to the gospels of Jesus Christ as Latter-day Saints.

[HEthePrimate]

Originally Posted by Wingnut

It's a bit ambiguous, in that it depends on how one defines "homosexuality." The Church doesn't teach the homosexual feelings/tendencies/orientation alone is sinful. It does teach that homosexuality activity or behavior is sinful. Some people think of the word "homosexual" as a state of being, while others think of it as a state of doing.

Let's see how it sounds when we switch it around. Is heterosexuality a state of doing or being? That is, in order to be considered heterosexual, does a person have to currently be sexually active with a member of the opposite sex?

I am a widower. If my heterosexuality was dependent on being sexually active--that is, on doing--then I was heterosexual while my wife was alive, but after she died, I must have suddenly become asexual, because I keep the Law of Chastity. Right? Can you see why I'd take umbrage to that suggestion?

IMO, hetero- or homosexuality are states of being, not doing. I am not currently sexually active, because I follow the Law of Chastity, but I am still heterosexual because I am attracted to members of the opposite sex.

[HEthePrimate]

Originally Posted by Sicily510

"People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians."

I agree with what President Hinckley said in that quote, about the important thing being whether or not one acts on one's inclinations. But I wonder why he said "so-called gays and lesbians." That seems to imply that they're not really gay or lesbian, which casts doubt on the rest of what he says.

[Soulsearcher]

Originally Posted by HEthePrimate

I agree with what President Hinckley said in that quote, about the important thing being whether or not one acts on one's inclinations. But I wonder why he said "so-called gays and lesbians." That seems to imply that they're not really gay or lesbian, which casts doubt on the rest of what he says.

The "so called" wording comes from the church's reluctance to apply a label. They usually use the term "same sex attraction" so as not to box one in.

[Soulsearcher]

Originally Posted by KirtlandSaintinZion

New booklet seeks to reconcile Mormon faith with gay youth - chicagotribune.com

I find a few things wrong with this article...

- The LDS Church doesn't teach that homosexuality is a sin. It teaches that sexual immorality is a sin.

- If you believe you have to choose between "accepting" a "gay" relative or LDS church teachings, you don't understand LDS Church teachings.

- I am interested in exactly what this booklet says to do, the article seems to imply that any speaking against the lifestyle is a "rejecting" behavior.. so what exactly ARE you supposed to do?

Repentance needs to be preached to those involved in the lifestyle, just as much to those involved in any other sin. To do less would place some burden of their sin upon our own garments...

it's easy to see why the points you list worry you. The current teaching and phrasing of how to deal with the subject don't lend themselves to this interpretation. How ever the way the church used to approach the subject made it seem like it was advocating the first two points you list. The church didn't used to separate the attraction and the activity very well. Gay was gay and a lot of the talks made it kinda clear the attractions were part of the sin. This leads into your second point, if someone was gay but celibate it didn't change much because people still weren't really drawing a clear line between the attractions and the actions. A lot of what the church is doing right now is a bit of "damage control" from the past, clarifying, restating and even changing some thoughts straight out. You'll find some of what's being done raises some flags, but it's not because it tends to address what's being said by the church now, but what and how it was said in the past.

[Soulsearcher]

Originally Posted by norah63

How does the part of the word sexual, not apply to doing? That is how it seems to me.
Confessing our faults to one another must be diffrent than giving our weakness a lifestyle name.
What might be the next lifestyle that becomes accepted in our society.
Just my thoughts.

I'm a gay man who has never been with another man. I am attracted but have never acted on it. Seems very easy to tell the difference between thought and action as long as you are honestly trying to see the difference.