Conference tecrus::mormonism

    Yes, there is a ward of non-practicing gays in San Francisco.  There
    are also many gay men who participate fully in the church activities of
    other wards.  About six months ago Dialogue had a number of articles on 
    the activites of gay men in the church. It was very thought provoking as 
    well as touching to hear the stories of these children of our Heavenly 
    Father and their struggle to follow His commandments.  I think it is
    great that they are able to continue serving Him and their fellowbeings
    in the wake of all the controversy that surrounds this issue.  I guess I 
    have thought about it in terms of a single person who is celebate.  The 
    restriction on full activity is around one's active participation in 
    activities that are not condoned by the church, therefore, if one is 
    celebate (regardless of their sexual preference) they are living within 
    the dictates of the church.  
    
    Just my two cents worth.  
    
    Regards :)  

	RE: <<< Note 395.1 by CARTUN::BTAYLOR >>>

>    therefore, if one is celebate (...) they are living within 
>    the dictates of the church.  

	Not really.  Church leaders, especially Pres. Kimball, spoke against
	celebate living.  He spoke against putting off marriage.  

	To reach our full potential as a child of God, then one must marry 
	(or be sealed) in the temple, and raise a family. Otherwise, we fall 
	short and do not get to live where God lives.

	Charles

    <	To reach our full potential as a child of God, then one must marry 
    <	(or be sealed) in the temple, and raise a family. Otherwise, we fall 
    <	short and do not get to live where God lives.

     Charles,
    
    Are you saying that people who do marry and cannot have kids and thus
    raise a family thru no fault of their own fall short of this glory?
    
    scott

	RE: <<< Note 395.3 by CSC32::S_JOHNSON 
    
>    Are you saying that people who do marry and cannot have kids and thus
>    raise a family thru no fault of their own fall short of this glory?
    
	Nope.  I didn't say that.  I intentially left that out because to
	go into the ramifications of physical disabilities was not my
	intent.  However, to take your question a step further, just
	because they cannot have kids does not preclude them from having
	a family.  Adoption can solve that, but I believe they will be held
	accountable if they *decide* to not have any children at all (unless
	there are other circumstances which I am sure someone could bring up).

	Two healthy adults (and I am speaking only of male and female as I
	totally reject same sex marriages) who intentionally decide to not 
	raise a family will be lacking in the skills and empathy department
	when it comes to being a God.  How could someone who does not want
	children here be a "heavenly" parent if they have not had the 
	experience here?  That's what this life is for -- to learn how to 
	do the same things eternally.  But then, this is just my opinion
	because of the pain I have had to endure.  Could Abraham really know
	how God felt in sacrificing his son if he had not had a similar 
	experience?

	Charles

>	Two healthy adults (and I am speaking only of male and female as I
>	totally reject same sex marriages) who intentionally decide to not 
>	raise a family will be lacking in the skills and empathy department
>	when it comes to being a God.  How could someone who does not want
>	children here be a "heavenly" parent if they have not had the 
>	experience here?  That's what this life is for -- to learn how to 
>	do the same things eternally.  But then, this is just my opinion
>	because of the pain I have had to endure.  Could Abraham really know
>	how God felt in sacrificing his son if he had not had a similar 
>	experience?

Hi Charles,

I think I understand what you are saying, but I have problems with it.
None of us can live lives worthy of Exaltation, because we all sin.  None
of us can learn enough science to create worlds.  None of us can have
enough love to have the charity that Christ had.  And so on.  In each case
that I have mentioned, we can have those accomplishments to a degree, but
not to the degree needed for Exaltation.  I think that for those who 
receive Exaltation, the Atonement of Christ will make up the difference and
they will be given the fulness of the attributes they need to be Exalted.

If people haven't had the experience of raising children but do receive 
Exaltation, then I think that the skills and empathy they will need
after being Exalted will be given them through the Atonement--Christ does
for us what we can't do for ourselves.

Allen

I would hope that as long as gay members live the law of chastity they would
be accepted as full members, i.e. not disfellowshipped or excommunicated.
Regardless of whether they live the law of chastity or not, I would hope
they would not be ostracized by ward members.  Likewise, I would hope the
same for straight members.

I don't think that any of us understand why people are gay, and I think we
(Church members in general) should refrain from judging them, either overtly or
covertly.  Let God do the judging while we offer sincere hands of fellowship.

Allen

    Re .6, very well said, Allen.
    
    Ann

	RE: <<< Note 395.5 by ROCK::LEIGH "Feed My Sheep" >>>

>None of us can live lives worthy of Exaltation, because we all sin.  None
>of us can learn enough science to create worlds.  None of us can have
>enough love to have the charity that Christ had.  And so on.  In each case
>that I have mentioned, we can have those accomplishments to a degree, but
>not to the degree needed for Exaltation.  I think that for those who 
>receive Exaltation, the Atonement of Christ will make up the difference and
>they will be given the fulness of the attributes they need to be Exalted.

	Hi Allen.  I agree completely with what you said here, and I did
	not mean to imply otherwise..  The main concept I was trying to point
	out was that a person must choose what they want to do, and that the
	matter of their exaltation will depend on it.  To *decide* not to
	marry or have a family, is IMO a step away from gaining exaltation.

>If people haven't had the experience of raising children but do receive 
>Exaltation, then I think that the skills and empathy they will need
>after being Exalted will be given them through the Atonement--Christ does
>for us what we can't do for ourselves.

	Yes, only through the grace of Christ are we saved, but I do not 
	believe the atonement will cover what we decide not to do.  The 
	milinimum will be used for many things, but only if allowed.  

	So I would have to disagree with you that skills and empathy are 
	covered by the atonement, however, the *ability* to obtain them will
	be covered as it will determine if a person will be given the chance.
	This, again, goes back to the person's attitude in the decisions
	they make.

	Charles

I think we're in agreement with each other, Charles.  Certainly, the
Atonement won't do things for us that we could have done for ourselves
but chose not too.

>	To *decide* not to
>	marry or have a family, is IMO a step away from gaining exaltation.

I think you're right in a general sense.  If we look at particular examples,
it gets sticky.

Consider a gay LDS.  As long as that person is gay, he or she can't marry,
but he or she could be very spiritual and faithful LDS in other ways.  If he
or she is able to go straight, then the way for marriage could open up.  But,
if he or she stays gay then the way for a successful marriage is closed.
Without knowing why he or she is gay, I'm not sure I would want to say they
have taken a step away from Exaltation, because I don't know how much the
persons freedom of choice is involved with him or her being gay.   I'm sure
glad we've been commanded to not judge others; I'd sure hate to have to decide
things like this.

I wasn't aware that there are gay Wards, and I'm glad to hear that there are.
This means that the Church has sanctioned gays grouping together for fellowship
and worship, because Wards don't exist as units of the Church without Church
approval.  I don't know what it would be like to be gay in a straight world,
but I imagine that being able to come out of the closet and live ones religion
as much as possible would help.  If the Church refused to allow gay wards, it
is likely that many of those persons would leave the Church, because they
probably would not be accepted into full fellowship by the members of straight
Wards.  I don't think that Church approval of gay Wards implies Church
approval of the members being gay, since the Authorities have clearly stated
the Church's position on that.

Allen

    Sorry, but I object to the way [we] are using the word 'Gays'.  You all
    make it sound like the sins they are 'stumbling over' make them a
    different race of people.  Kind of like they were born that way.  I
    don't think any of you believe that...?  For example, would you say
    that in the city of 'Tim-buck To' there is a ward there of
    non-practicing smokers?  Or would you more likely say that all the
    members of [a] ward in 'Tim-buck To' have had problems keeping the Word 
    of Wisdom...?  Just a nit I know - but I think its important.
    
    And I have a simple answer to the statement made earlier that stated,
    "...dont think that any of us know why [the're] gay...".  {I think
    that's what was stated}  Sure we do - we all have weaknesses and people
    who practice homosexuality are no different than other sinners.  Some
    of us just aren't tempted that way.  It may not be our potential
    'stepping stone/stumbling block' but obviously it is someones.  
    
    Maybe I'm out to lunch but it seems to me that society is calling Gays
    a race of people.  I dont buy it.  Its not the same thing as blacks,
    whites or indians etc.  I believe the human mind is sooooo powerful
    that we can direct it and BECOME anything we want to be.  And I mean
    that literally.  For example, self-fulfilling prophesy works on the 
    power of the human mind.  If we believe something, we see the world
    through this belief and our 'bias', if you will, determines what we 
    reject and accept in our lives.  
    
    I guess that I don't want the definition of the word to change.  I
    choose to believe that we direct our own destiny.  But anyway,
    back to the base note:  If such a ward exists I hope they can help each
    other overcome...and If I've offended anyone with this reply - I'm truly
    sorry...but the prophet said, "...stick to the facts...stand for
    truth..."  I think thats what I was doing.  If anyone is interested in
    what I've learned about the human mind I'd be glad to discuss it in
    another note...its what I learned thats given me a whole new insight 
    into free-agency and lots of other things (hint: keep your thoughts
    positive!!!!)
    
    
    David

Hi David,

Thanks for sharing your views with us.

>Kind of like they were born that way.  

Maybe they were.  I don't know.  Doctors and researchers don't know.  The
Lord knows, but he hasn't said much through his prophets (I'm referring to
the question of whether gays are born that way, i.e. genetics or whether
they pick it up from society, or both).

If there really are gay wards in which the gays are living the law of chastity
and are active L, and are active Priesthood holders and are performing
Priesthood ordinances and aren't disfellowshipped or or excommunicated,
then that tells us something.  It tells us that the sin of being gay isn't
so much in being gay but in committing sexual sin as the Lord has defined
sexual sin.  The scriptures are blunt about the sin of homosexuality, but
they don't differentiate whether the sin is due to the sexual orientation of
the people, their committing sexual sins with each other, or both.  I think
that a ward of gay people who do not commit sexual sin and who are able to
perform Priesthood ordinances would make that differentiation.

Since the Lord has clearly defined marriage as not including gay marriage,
then gay LDS have no choice but to be celibate, as those in the gay wards
are reported to be.  Before people misunderstand my comments, I am not
saying that gay relationships are approved by the Lord, because both the
scriptures and the prophets have said that proper relationships are between
men and women.  But the presence of gay wards approved by by the Church and
gay priesthood holders performing priesthood ordinances would imply that the
sin of being gay is different that we have always assumed.

Again, before my comments are misunderstood, I am assuming that the gay
wards have gay Priesthood holders who are performing priesthood ordinances.
I don't know if that is true.  For all I know, the gays could all be
disfellowshipped and the ordinances could be performed by straights.  If so,
then that would also tells us something about celibate gays being sinful.

Allen

    I didn't make myself clear (nothing new considering I'm trying to use
    words to do it with - slippery things these words).  I'm not a fan of
    the written word - probably because tone of voice and body language is
    absent.  Some writers are very good at expressing emotion etc. but even
    then the reader is left to intrepret what they have read.  You missed
    my point - my fault.  
    
    I'm trying to say that there is no such thing as a group of beings
    called Gays.  I was trying to point out that the word 'gays' is being
    intrepreted as a literal group of people.  I beleive that this is a
    result of that term being commonly applied to their actions.  Now it
    is used without any thought on anyones part do describe someone who
    performs that act.  As a result I feel society has lost track of the
    fact that we can choose who we are. 
    
    For example, look at the word "living together".  Two people in the
    same house - but not married.  Now living together is ok to society but
    it wasn't always that way.  The meaning of the words have changed in the
    minds of the people.  Does this make any sense to you?  Calling a group
    of people  'non-practicing gays' implied to me that they are not
    literal children of our heavenly father.  Gays = practice homosexuality.
    If they are not practicing it then they are not gay.  How do you know
    if they've truly repented or not; and if they have repented then how
    anyone still attach some kind of label to them (even if its a past
    tense label such as 'ex-con', ex-gay).  If they've paid the price then 
    they are Joe, or John or whatever not Joe the ex-con etc.  I guess that
    this is what was really bugging me.
    
    Have a good day everyone!
    
    David
    

Hi David,

Your message in your previous reply that you feel that the word 'gay'
is being used wrong by society did come across; I just chose to focus
on something else you had said.

>    Calling a group
>    of people  'non-practicing gays' implied to me that they are not
>    literal children of our heavenly father.  Gays = practice homosexuality.
>    If they are not practicing it then they are not gay.

I think we have different definitions for the word 'gay', David.  You use
the word to refer to people who have sexual relations with others of the
same sex.  I use it to refer to persons who prefer intimate relationships
with persons of the same sex but may or may not have such relationships.
I'm glad that you clarified what the word means to you, because that helps
me better understand your thoughts.  To me, the phrase 'non-practicing gays'
has a clear meaning--persons who prefer relationships with others of the 
same sex but do not engage in such relationships.  They are 'gay' because
of their preference not because of their practice.  If the earlier reports
about gay wards are true, then those LDS are 'non-practicing' gays, as I
define the term 'gay'.

You commented that 'non-practicing' gays were not literal children of our
Father in Heaven.  I don't understand what you mean, David, and if you care
to elaborate, I'll be appreciative.


>    How do you know
>    if they've truly repented or not; and if they have repented then how
>    anyone still attach some kind of label to them (even if its a past
>    tense label such as 'ex-con', ex-gay).  If they've paid the price then 
>    they are Joe, or John or whatever not Joe the ex-con etc.  I guess that
>    this is what was really bugging me.
    
If they've repented [I assume you mean from practicing gay relationships]
but still have preference for the same sex, then the label 'gay' can still
be applied to them since it refers [from my view at least] to their
preference not to their practice.

Allen

    Now there's an interesting question. What does "gay" mean?
    Does one have to engage in same sex behaviours to be gay?  Or, is it
    just have having the desire/preference (but not engaging in it) for the
    same sex that makes one gay?
    
    I am trying to think of a comparison with another sin that might help
    me in this question. For example:
    
    I desire to be more righteous, and when I am doing the works of
    righteous, I become thus. But, at the same time I remember that I do
    sin. While my preference is for righeousness, my acts are sometimes
    sinful.   So what am I? A sinner? Or a righteous man? I don't know if
    this comparison works, or not.
    
    I would appreciate hearing from others.
    
    Paul
    
                              

	I also had some problems with the term "gay" in that if a person
	repents then they should not be termed by the sin, i.e. an
	"adulterer" or such.

	But them it hit me that maybe the term could be used more towards 
	orientation than current status.  Another similar problem came to
	mind, and that is alcoholism.  An alcoholic is always an alcoholic
	no matter if they had not taken a drink in ten years; they still
	consider themselves one because it is so easy to start drinking
	again.  So maybe the "gay" ward consists of the orientation where
	it can be a big support group to help one another just like AA is.
	Since we don't know all the particulars, this is just my guess.

	Charles

    Excellent, excellent excellent!  Thank you - its the definition that I
    was having trouble with (reply .13).  NO - I DIDN'T say they were not
    literal children of our Heavenly Father - I said that I FELT the term
    "Non-practicing Gays" made me FEEL that way.  I know very well who we
    ALL are in that sense.  And yes, we do have different definitions of
    the term 'Gays'.  Along that same vein (reply .15) about alcoholics...
    
    I have a very good friend who calls himself an alcoholic and it is for
    a very good reason.  However, it is for a POSITIVE reason that he does
    this.  A person who is bodily/chemically addicted to alcohol needs to
    realize that they cannot stop with just one drink.  Thus the term
    alcoholic - you are always one.  You can go 'dry' for years and years
    and years and years and the minute you take 'just a little drink' 
    WHAM!  Guess what?  You're drunk because you didn't stop with just one
    drink.  And I still think the 'worlds' definition of gays stinks.
    
    I've got it!   An alcoholic must admit that their body will
    always abuse alcohol!  Admitting this fact ALLOWS the person to start
    working to change their habits and is a necessary part of their
    treatment.  However, the term gay refers to both practicing
    homosexuals and those who just feel a preference for the same sex!  Its 
    used to define two different [different in action] types of people and
    thats the problem and the reason I dont like the word.  Just because
    you are tempted in that way doesn't make you a sinner.  (although we
    can be guilty of sin if our thoughts are unclean).  Don't forget that 
    daily prayer and scripture reading will totally remove those desires -
    but then I guess it could fix an alcoholic too.
    
    If the advisary has succeeded in getting the definition of the word gay
    to mean two things: 1) Sexual preference' and 2) the practice of
    homosexuality - then how do you seperate the sin from the temptation to
    sin????  If both groups are called gays its seems that society has
    already passed judgement on them.  NOt a good idea in my book - even if
    the people involved say that they do indeed feel that way.
    
    Maybe thats what the evil one had in mind.  To swap the word sinner with 
    the word gay.  Also, the world seems to be abusing the word sinner too. 
    The advisary might be trying to dis-credit the word sin so that the
    word gay is accepted more.  Saying that someone is a sinner should
    bring up images of compassion in your mind...Maybe we need to define
    the word sinner too.  I suspect that this is what is happening.  
    
    ...A ward of 'non-practicing gays'...watch who you say that to.  You
    don't know which definition they associate with the word gay.  And
    judging by the replies - I'm not the only one having trouble with those
    words.  I'd advise using a different definition - use the word sin
    instead.  Now the issue becomes, "...I heard that there is a ward in
    San Francisco".  Anyone like to throw a stone and call them a ward of
    sinners!?  I hope not.  I like this wording much better.
    
    David

    There are two types of Alcoholics, those who have a chemical imbalance
    and those who want to drink.  In the past people labled all alcoholics
    as people with a weak character trait.
    
    Since we know that there are dominate male traits (genes) and female 
    traits in ever person, is it possible that there are people that have 
    a problem creating an intament relationship with someone of the oppeset 
    sex.  Does this constitute the label of GAY.
    
    Or
    
    Does this refer to the fact that all Alcoholics have a character flaw.
    Does this refer to the fact that all Gays have a character flaw.
    
    Think about it.
    
    We are all Gods children no mater what imperfections that our physical
    bodies have.  There are those who DO have a character flaw.  These are
    the ones who have to deal with the Lord when it comes to repentance. 
    As Allen has said, I am glad I do not have to judge..
    
    Lee Wrede
    

    This is exactly what I'm referring to - labels.  Its too easy to apply
    a label and walk away (so to speak).  ON the other hand, its much more 
    difficult to make a righteous judgement (probably why we aren't to
    judge others).  I'm not judging people, I'm defining homosexual activity
    as sin (which the scriptures also do) and I think/feel that the word
    'gays' as used in this context hids this fact.  
    
    Did you know that your mind works on positive ideas and thoughts? 
    However, you are the one, that over time, defines what is positive and 
    what is negative.  The word gay is easier to accept than is the word
    sinner.  That is what is happening - Satin is trying to get the world
    to accept (as positive) homosexuality.  If this ever happens (or has
    happened) then what is to stop someone who is  tempted with this sin
    from committing it!!!
    
    Christians should probably avoid using the word 'gays'.  Besides, gay
    used to be used with 'happy and gay'.  It was indeed a positive word.
    
    All this has nothing to do with judging people - but has to do with
    standing against evil.  The Lord is supposedly deeply offended by
    homosexual activity (Sodom and Gumorrah {sp}).  Therefore, the word
    'gays' as defined by society today, is an ugly word.   Please don't
    apply it to anyone.  Has anyone ever heard a prophet use the word? 
    Also, I cannot recall ever having heard it used in church.
    
    David
    
    (PS - I learned alot by opening up and facing something I really
    consider ugly.  I hope others have benefitted too.  If anyone has been
    offended by my words I apologize.  I'm learning and growing too.)

    Hmmm.  From a religious point of view, there is no sin in being tempted
    to sin.  We all must face temptation.  It is how we react to temptation
    that is important.  If a person is tempted to drink alcohol, to have
    sex with the wrong person, to murder or whatever that does not make
    that person bad or good.  How they react to that temptation reveals
    their true spiritual character.  How they learn to react in the face of
    temptation is what's critical.  This includes how they react to
    avoiding situations where there my likely be temptation, BTW.  There's
    seldom valid excuse for seeking or not avoiding temptation.
    
    Thus, I don't really care if a person has "gay" tendencies.  I only
    care about how they react to those tendencies.  Even then, I love the
    person regardless of what I think of their actions, leaving God to
    judge.
    
    Steve

Hmm. It amazes me how involved this whole conversation has become, and 
all around a speculative ward. Was it in .1 that someone said, "Yes, 
there is such a ward.", and likewise cited Dialogue's articles on the 
subject?

A couple of points:

1. The Lord remarked that to look upon a woman with lust in your heart 
was to commit the sin of adultery. Perforce, to look upon a man with 
lust, or desire, if I am a man, must also be sinful. I think the logic 
there is pretty straightforward.

Paul also addressed the subject in Romans, and he was talk about homo- 
sexuality being a perversion of that which was right. I really find it 
difficult to believe that Heavenly Father's stand on the subject has 
changed at all.

2. When we say, "gay ward," which is a misnomer, if ever I heard one, do 
we mean a.) a ward where former gays, converted to the Gospel of Jesus 
Christ, do their best to act as a support group in helping one another 
combat (active voice required for repentance!) the temptations and 
emotional difficulties involved with quitting something as additive as 
sex sin, or b.) a group of men who, like the polygamists in Utah, claim 
full fellowship in the Church, because they feel that what their doing 
is truly sanctioned by the Lord, but the ubiquitous "church leaders" 
haven't figured it out yet? (And don't forget "Saints Alive!")

3. Dialogues. Uh, I'd really feel more comfortable with the subject if 
the Ensign had taken it up, thanks. It's nice that the subject was 
discussed frankly, and with deep sensitivity, but is the fact that a 
LDS-oriented readership is reading these articles really a statement of 
gospel principles? (Just a question, not a flame.)

4. Drinking. Well, while I can't say much about gays from any kind of 
direct experience, I can say something on the subject of drinking. As a 
former "heavy drinker," who finally realized one night that I was not in 
control, I want to say something very succinctly: Alcoholism is not a 
disease, it is a symptom! 

Nonetheless, it is still wrong to drink, and in order to be baptised, I 
had to stop. At the same interview with the zone leader where this 
subject was discussed, he also brought up sexual sin. Now, in both 
cases, if I could not demonstrate to his satisfaction that I had 
repented, it was a "no-go" on the baptism.

In order to get to the point where I could say that I had overcome my 
drinking problem, I had to stop. Period. Yes, there have been a couple 
of times where I have been tempted, but that's about it. The steps?

First, and foremost, acknowledging that what was being done was a 
sin. If I didn't stop, it didn't matter how much of a testimony I had, I 
was not going to get baptised, and was not therefore fit for member- 
ship in the Lord's kingdom.

Second, and no less important, was a change of environment. In "The 
Miracle of Forgiveness," Pres. Kimball makes it clear, and if I re- 
member correctly, he was discussing sexual sin in this context, that a 
change of environment is many times required. Not just recommended, but 
required.

It was what I had to do. New friends, new job, new home, new life- 
style, etc. 

Third, leaning on the arm of the Lord. I really think that trusting the 
Saviour is the only way to combat any kind of sin. 

5. Okay, in summary, what am I getting at? Let's be honest. The word
"gays" in today's vernacular means that someone has developed a
preference for sexual relations with others of the same gender. The Lord
is entirely against this practice. 

Yes, He invites those involved with this practice to come unto Him, for 
the price of their sin is paid by the same Atonement that hides all 
sins, if they are repented of. Do I judge a man as going to hell if he 
is a practicing gay? Yes. Just the same way I am going to go to hell if 
I don't get certain things in my life straightened out.

Do I therefore condemn the man? No, and I can hate the deed, but love 
the man. I, least of all, would want to be found guilty of Phariseeism, 
but I have a question: What shall I tell my children about homo- 
sexuality? That a permissive society today, in some parts of the world, 
condone this activity, and their free agency, or genetics, more likely,
may determine that they are "made differently?"

I think not. I will teach my children that this practice is wrong. That, 
as either Pres. McKay or Pres. Kimball said, in paraphrase, "Today's 
'New Morality' is the 'Old Immorality'." And that they want to avoid 
certain associations the same way I have to stay out of bars.

Ken de Montigny

	RE: <<< Note 395.20 by TLE::DEMONTIGNY "Ken de Montigny, >>>

	Hi Ken,
		Welcome to the discussion, and thanks for your input.
	My feeling around the subject parallel yours, but I would like to
	make a few points for discussion.


>3. Dialogues. Uh, I'd really feel more comfortable with the subject if 
>the Ensign had taken it up, thanks. It's nice that the subject was 
>discussed frankly, and with deep sensitivity, but is the fact that a 
>LDS-oriented readership is reading these articles really a statement of 
>gospel principles? (Just a question, not a flame.)

	I personally think it will be a while before the Ensign discusses
	this subject like we have done.  The scriptures are very, very clear 
	on the Lord's viewpoint, but I feel it is good to discuss and talk
	to obtain whatever views there are, even if I don't agree with them.
	It is my reponsibility to determine why I don't, and then be able
	to lead my family.  People's viewpoints in this conference don't
	necessarily make a statement of gospel principles, but should bring
	out the things that do.


>What shall I tell my children about homosexuality? That a permissive society 
>today, in some parts of the world, condone this activity, and their free 
>agency, ...

	What you want to tell you children on this is correct, but also
	include the fact that these are the latter days and this is all
	part of it.  Because of the God given agency of man, decisions
	will have to have responsibilty taken, but maybe not in this life
	or on this earth.  Conditions with homosexuality, drugs, and other
	wonderfull things of the *world* will become more and more accepted
	by the *world* as it rushes headlong to ripen in inequity.  This is
	all detailed in the scriptures for those that have eyes to see, and
	those who have ears to hear the voice of the Lord.

	Charles Roney

Hi Ken,

Nice to visit with you again!

>1. The Lord remarked that to look upon a woman with lust in your heart 
>was to commit the sin of adultery. Perforce, to look upon a man with 
>lust, or desire, if I am a man, must also be sinful. I think the logic 
>there is pretty straightforward.

I'm sure you're right; to look upon any person with lust is sinful.
The report given about supposed wards of LDS "gays" (Dave, please
excuse me for continuing to use the word "gay"--it's part of the
vocabulary of society, and regardless of whether we agree or
disagree with that vocabulary, that's the way society uses the words),
the report given about those LDS is that they have a sexual orientation
towards others of the same sex but that they do not have sexual activities
with such persons.  I don't think we can assume that those people are guilty
of lust, anymore than we can assume that LDS who have a sexual orientation 
toward others of the opposite sex are guilty of lust.  People are guilty of
lust if they have lust, and that is a separate issue from the issue of
sexual orientation.  In addition, I don't think we can say that persons who
have a "gay" orientation are more prone to lust.  Sexual attraction is sexual
attraction and it can lead to lust if we're not close to the Lord, and it
doesn't matter whether that attraction is "gay" or "straight".

>5. Okay, in summary, what am I getting at? Let's be honest. The word
>"gays" in today's vernacular means that someone has developed a
>preference for sexual relations with others of the same gender. The Lord
>is entirely against this practice. 

You're right, Ken, the Lord is against this practice of sexual preference.
We need, however, to be careful to not automatically equate this practice
with adultery.  If people have sexual relations outside the definition of the
Lord then they are guilty of adultery, and this is a completely separate
issue than the sin of sexual preference.  If the reports given earlier are
true about persons who have sexual preferences toward others of the same sex
but who are living the law of chastity and in other ways are faithful LDS,
then that implies the Church also makes a distinction between the sin of
adultery and the sin of wrong sexual orientation.


>I think not. I will teach my children that this practice is wrong. That, 
>as either Pres. McKay or Pres. Kimball said, in paraphrase, "Today's 
>'New Morality' is the 'Old Immorality'." And that they want to avoid 
>certain associations the same way I have to stay out of bars.

Yes, definitely teach your children that proper sexual orientation is
towards others of the opposite sex.  Teach than that proper relationships with
others must be within the bounds the Lord has set if your children want to be
happy.  But, also teach them to have love, patience, and compassion towards
those who are different.  Teach them that there are many who have different
attitudes and practices than they (your children) have and that they should
allow the others to be different without (your children) adopting their ways.

Allen

    Does "GAY" mean sexual preference, or does it mean;
    
    "perfers to be with the same sex rather than the opposite sex"
    
    Explaination:
    
    Some men/women PREFER to be with the same sex and can build good long
    lasting relationships with with said persons.  When put into a mixed 
    company, they have problems (physical & emotional).
    
    Some men/women have no preferences.
    
    Some men/women prefer to be with the opposite sex and can build good
    long lasting relationships with their partners.
    
    Which group is "GAY", which group is normal, which group does society
    shun, which is the perfered group.
    
    Maybe we can all learn from all the above groups?
    
    Lee

>Nice to visit with you again!

Thanks! I don't know if you're aware of it or not, but we're back up 
here in New England. I transferred into the languages group in Nashua, 
so we're up here for a while, and mighty glad of the change!

>the report given about those LDS is that they have a sexual orientation
>towards others of the same sex but that they do not have sexual activities
>with such persons.  I don't think we can assume that those people are guilty
>of lust, anymore than we can assume that LDS who have a sexual orientation 
>toward others of the opposite sex are guilty of lust.  People are guilty of
>lust if they have lust, and that is a separate issue from the issue of
>sexual orientation.  In addition, I don't think we can say that persons who
>have a "gay" orientation are more prone to lust.  Sexual attraction is sexual
>attraction and it can lead to lust if we're not close to the Lord, and it
>doesn't matter whether that attraction is "gay" or "straight".

Well, the way Paul describes it in Romans is that they "burn in their
lust," and "work that which is unseemly." I will agree that anyone can
be guilty of lust, but I also think that this line of thought tends to
minimize the sinful nature of homo- sexuality, or of any sin, for that
matter. 

>If the reports given earlier are
>true about persons who have sexual preferences toward others of the same sex
>but who are living the law of chastity and in other ways are faithful LDS,
>then that implies the Church also makes a distinction between the sin of
>adultery and the sin of wrong sexual orientation.

After reading and replying to this note last week, I went home, and told
my wife about this rumored ward. She told me that in one of the October
1990 or April 1991 conference sessions she attended, Elder Packard came 
right out in open discussion on this whole issue of a gay ward, de- 
nounced it as rumor, and stressed that the church does not now, nor 
never has, recognized homosexual avtivity.

Now, I haven't yet verified this, but I have to give Debbie some credit, 
as she did attend this seesion of conference. I also suspect that use 
of the word "activity" here would leave me open to your earlier state- 
ments differentiating between "orientation" and "lust." But I would ask 
you a question: If a man says to you, "I am a homosexual," and you are 
the bishop of a ward, what would you do?

My own answer is that I would immediately want to discuss this very 
sensitive issue with the individual, and ascertain whether or not they 
were still involved with another man or men, and if so, let them know in 
very loving, but also very certain, terms that they were in grave danger 
as far as their standing in the church was concerned.

If already on the road to repentnance, they would feel remorse. Perhaps 
they've given up, and feel trapped, not knowing how to stop. Or, they 
have halted these relationships, insofar as actual "practice" is con- 
cerned. In either case, they would need counseling. And I would not send 
them to any counselor, secular or ecclesiastical, who would not rein- 
force the correct teaching that this homosexuality is a symptom, not a 
disease -- that there is something deeper underlying all this mess that 
may have led to the preference and/or relationships, but does not excuse 
it.

If you think about this first step, it's not any different for any other 
kind of infraction of gospel principles. I understand mercy and loving- 
kindness, though I claim to be no expert on practicing either, but I 
also understand the claims of God's justice. I think the Lord is the 
final judge of all this, but He has provided means for all to know and 
understand His will via one's conscience.

And in regard to conscience, I will readily admit that many today are 
perplexed by the cries "Lo, here!" and "Lo, there!" including in this 
area. But the conscience does exist, and can be hearkened to, by any who 
have not seared it so badly that it no longer speaks. And I don't think 
most people, whether in the state we're discussing, or otherwise, are so 
lost, but I think we have the responsibility for sending out the message 
loud and clear that we know "a more excellent way."

>Yes, definitely teach your children that proper sexual orientation is
>towards others of the opposite sex.  Teach than that proper relationships with
>others must be within the bounds the Lord has set if your children want to be
>happy.  But, also teach them to have love, patience, and compassion towards
>those who are different.  Teach them that there are many who have different
>attitudes and practices than they (your children) have and that they should
>allow the others to be different without (your children) adopting their ways.

A good suggestion, one I hope I'm already implementing. But I will also 
teach them that as much as we may respect another's free agency, they 
should also beware the wolf in sheep's clothing. Another words, don't 
trust in the arm of the flesh, or the philosophies of men.

Regards,

Ken

    re: .22
    
    Sorry Steve, if society wants you to pierce your ears - ya gonna do it? 
    Besides, you are not addressing society.  You are addressing your
    brothers and sisters (with a few others mixed in).  Also, the title of
    this NOTES conference is 'MORMONISM' - right...how's about working to
    change society (ie - stand for truth).  I think the word in question is
    NOT used by the apostles but you can use it if you want to :-) 
    
    But I think a much better approach would be to address anyone you hear
    using that word - maybe ask them if they mean 'sin' or 'temptation'
    etc.  We might discover that many people who have labeled themselves as
    'gay' would be delighted to know that they are not sinners but only
    tempted that way.  Lets 'em free themselves...just a thought.  
    
    Follow the Lords servants - they emulate Him.  Teach society truth and 
    light to the degree that you have learned it.  Even the apostles know the
    meaning of the word gays - so why don't they commonly use it like the
    rest of the world (society) does?
    
    Dave

In reply to .23: I think you're confusing semantics with syntax. It may
be correct syntactically to say "I prefer to be with members of the same
(or opposite) sex," but as far as semantics are concerned, it can have
two completely different meanings, best understood in distinguishing
between "eros" and "agape." 

In the case of "eros," we are discussing erotic love. A physical attrac- 
tion between two (or more) people, regardless of gender. The other type 
of love, the "agape" of the New Testament, is a pure love, and involves 
no lust, or eroticism.

So, when someone says "I prefer," in the context of a relationship with 
another human, which one do they mean? When someone tells me that they 
are gay or homosexual, which one of the two do you suppose I am going to 
choose as their actual meaning? And, if asked how they meant it, do you 
suppose they would respond?

Now another area of discussion here is latency versus activity. It seems 
that there is a tacit admission here in this note that there is a divid- 
ing line between those who do something because they want to (activity), 
and those who do something because they can't help it (latency). 

This issue has certainly been in the forefront of discussion and re- 
search into homosexuality, with one group saying it's latent, and 
another coming to the opposite conclusion; namely that it's active. I 
believe, on the basis of reference to the scriptures, that the Lord has 
determined that active choice is the real determinant here, and that 
people need to change that activity level, internally and externally.

Which is the next point. When I smoked, I was dealing with a two-level 
problem. First, I would go through all the outward motions associated 
with smoking: Pick up the cigarette, light it, stick it in my mouth, 
inhale, etc. Second, and much more to the point here, is the internal 
activity, the desire. I wanted that cigarette. And, when it came time to 
quit, there was only one way out: I had to stop wanting it. Otherwise, I 
would just be putting the cigarette down, without really putting it out 
of my mind.

To me, the same principle can be applied to homosexuality (read erotic 
love between two people of the same gender). To really stop, and the 
Lord has enjoined that this practice ought not to exist, both the 
external practice and internal desire (or feelings) need to be put away. 

Now, for this "Moral Majority is Neither." So who are the moral ones?
And where then does the majority stand? I think that most people I've
met since I've been accepted the Gospel (just over 13 years) are living
non-celestial lifestyles, and I include myself in that list. But I
would not hesitate to say that most of them are good people. Perfect,
no. Many of them, however, are "kept from the truth, only because they
know not where to find it." 

My observation is that if certain leaders and special interest groups 
did not hold so powerful a sway on the general public, many people would 
be very pleased with the improvement. Do you think that the Founding 
Fathers of this country were using a pleasantry when they espoused 
"Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness?" I hardly think so, and I 
am willing to bet (sic) that most people in the U.S. would just love to 
be given a better opportunity to live a higher law.

Things may well be on their way to ruination, and the pattern is 
unfortunately all too familiar, but I hardly fault the Moral Majority. I 
have found myself over the last couple of days, as I have been thinking 
about this note, recalling a man I worked with in Georgia. He is a fun- 
damentalist Christian, and therefore very much opposed to some of "our" 
doctrine. Although it curtailed any really deep religious discussion, we 
became good friends.

The reason I bring him up here is because of the anti-abortion demon- 
stration in Washington, D.C. in 1990. He, his wife, and two sons, joined 
a throng estimated by the Park Service at over 1/2-million strong to 
demonstrate to the Government that there was indeed a large group of 
people in this country who for certain principles, and against certain 
practices. Hooray for the Moral Majority, at least the ones who get out 
there and show it!

Please, don't grouse about the lack of morals of one section of the 
population at the same time you're trying to justify the lack thereof 
for another segment!

Ken de Montigny

>After reading and replying to this note last week, I went home, and told
>my wife about this rumored ward. She told me that in one of the October
>1990 or April 1991 conference sessions she attended, Elder Packard came 
>right out in open discussion on this whole issue of a gay ward, de- 
>nounced it as rumor, and stressed that the church does not now, nor 
>never has, recognized homosexual avtivity.

Thanks Ken, for posting that.  That answers one question I had raised
earlier, whether men who were living the law of chastity (and other Church
laws) but had a sexual preference toward men would be active in leadership
positions in gay wards.  No.

>But I would ask 
>you a question: If a man says to you, "I am a homosexual," and you are 
>the bishop of a ward, what would you do?

Well, never having been a Bishop, I don't know if the Church has given
Bishops special instructions about dealing with homosexuals.  I expect
that I would question him whether he had ever had or was currently having
sexual relations with men.  If so, I expect I would follow whatever guidelines
that may exist for that situation.  If none, I expect I would follow the
guidelines for adultery, which usually leads to being disfellowshipped or
excommunicated, depending on the situation.

Now, Ken, its your turn; you're the Bishop.  Suppose you question him and
find that he has never had sexual relations with anyone--he is a virgin.
What would you do?

Allen

    Ken,
    
    You put into words what my thoughts are.  I agree with what you say
    about "GAYS" (re:.26).
    
    The major problem that I see is that people as a whole are having
    problems making long lasting relationships.  That is why the divorce
    rate is so high, that is why this GAY issue is so strong, and that is
    the one thing the Lord stress; LOVE.  We, as a human race, have poluted
    the word so much that it does not mean the same to everyone.
    
    I was being sinical (sp) when I said that the Moral Majority is
    Neither.
    
    I believe that you got the message about how everyone is labeling
    "GAYS".
    
    Thanks for explaining it better than I could put into words.
    
    Lee

Hi Allen!

>Now, Ken, its your turn; you're the Bishop.  Suppose you question him and
>find that he has never had sexual relations with anyone--he is a virgin.
>What would you do?

Okay. I think first I need a context, so I'll use the following: A man 
has come into my office for a worthiness interview. During the course of 
the interview, he tells me that he has had feelings of attraction toward 
another man. He further elaborates that these are not the kinds of feel- 
ings that he would expect to have about a man, in fact, he would think 
that he would feel this way about a woman, but has not. 

He says he is confused by these feelings, and emphasizes his abstinence, 
as well.

There's my context. My response, with the standard disclaimer about not 
having ever actually done this, or necessarily wanting to, is: 

1. Encourage the man for having refrained from taking any action based 
on these feelings. Emphasize that he continue to stand a strong stand in 
resisting this temptation.

2. Likewise, and perhaps more important, thank him for his trust, and 
let him know that both the Lord and I are very deeply concerned about 
his welfare.

3. Having established some sense of ease for the individual, I would 
then ask him more about these feelings. How long has he had them? Is 
this the first time he has felt this way? Has he discussed these feel- 
ings with anyone, by way of either counsel or confidante? 

4. Of course, the one thing that will be the most difficult at this 
point is the main question: Where does he think these feelings come 
from? 

This is the crux of the whole matter, and will be the determinant for 
the direction of the rest of this interview, and perhaps other coun- 
seling sessions, as well. You see, my first responsibility in this 
context is to determine worthiness. I know from experience, having sat 
on the opposite side of the desk, that a Bishop is there as the Lord's 
representative. As such, what he does, he does with a mantle of loving- 
kindness that is superlative.

But a bishop may perforce be required to remind anyone he counsels that 
there was one who denied the plan of salvation, who sought to usurp the 
rights and privileges of Heavenly Father's children, as well as the 
throne of the Almighty Himself. That this one goes forth today as a 
roaring lion, seeking his prey, and that he doesn't play fair, nor is 
considerate of the feelings of his victims.

Further, that this adversary has many minions, spirit and human, who do 
his bidding, and try to blind and confuse those of Heavenly Father's 
children who kept their first estate.

And, if this man with whom I am interviewing has not yet been able to 
answer the question of where these feelings he has come from, I would 
hope and pray that he would understand that the devil is the source of 
them.

5. This is the groundwork. Now the real work would begin. I am sure that 
a person with these kinds of feelings, whether confronted for the first 
time with this idea, or having already realized it, would be in extreme 
doubt of their self-worth, and of Heavenly Father's love for them. But I 
would feel to rejoice if this man were to have gotten to the point where 
he could admit to himself that the feelings themselves needed to be re- 
moved, for that would be the first step to repentance: recognition.

If, however, the individual became angry or withdrawn, I would feel 
great anxiety for their soul, and would tell them so.

What my next step in either case would be is hard to say. In the case of 
the man's coming to grips with the idea the feelings of being drawn to 
another man by way of sexual preference was a temptation to be avoided, 
I would think half the battle was already won, though the hardest part 
would still lie ahead. In the case of defiance or rejection, I would 
probably resort to higher authority for counsel myself, both by way of 
prayer, and discussion with the Stake President, but I think my course 
of action would be pretty clear: disfellowshipment, possibly associated 
with a trial if no signs of improvement were showing.

In summary, two points:

1. Disclaimer. I inserted a disclaimer above intentionally. I have never 
been a bishop, so what I have put down here as my thoughts are based on 
my understanding of the role of a bishop only.

However, since I have been ordained an Elder, I have been in some very 
delicate situations. I have:

a. Gone into the home of a man whose wife had abandoned him. He was 
threatening suicide, so I went as a friend to try and discourage that 
line of thought. While I was in his home, he discovered that his wife 
had taken a large sum of cash with her. He then pulled out a .38, and 
started loading it, all the while talking about shooting her. I found 
myself now trying to disuade him from committing a worse act, all the 
while hoping that it wouldn't be me that got shot instead!

b. Gone into the home of a man possessed. A very bad situation indeed. I 
will not elaborate.

c. Visited repeatly with a family where there was much internal con- 
flict, and the father was threatening physical violence to all. I went 
there to help calm him, and to let him know that the Lord had a great 
love for both he and his family, and that there was indeed a much, much 
better way.

In these three scenarios, I have felt as though I were walking with 
haste where angels would fear to tread. But it was where the Lord wanted 
me to be, and I am very grateful, as I recollect these experiences, for 
the shadow of His power being over and protecting me. 

I would hope for, and fully believe, that that same power and discern- 
ment would be mine to call on if I were in a position such as we are 
discussing. Life is very fragile, so people's feelings must always be 
taken into consideration, but so must the desires and dictates of our 
Heavenly Father.

2. Context. I chose my context carefully. I wanted to make sure that 
anyone reading would understand that, by substituting a few words, this 
interview could be with anyone, at anytime.

It doesn't matter if ths subject is homosexuality or not, though that is 
the point at hand. For the principles are exactly the same, regardless 
of the wrongdoing.

Also, for any who would feel indignant with my having judged a person. I
would offer as a reminder that a Bishop is, by virtue of his calling, a
Judge in Israel. 

Regards,

Ken de Montigny

In reply to .28:

Hi Lee!

>    We, as a human race, have polluted the word so much that it does
>    not mean the same to everyone. 

A good collective analysis of the problem with "the world" today. The 
Saviour did prophesy, "Because of iniquity, the love of many shall wax 
cold." A sad commentary indeed. Victor L. Brown, Jr., in his book "Human 
Intimacy," has touched on the whys and wherefores of humanity's downfall 
in the area off affection.

Its been several years since I read it, but the main point behind the 
book is that most of us are dealing with mere "fragments" of ourselves. 

For example, If we think in terms of a successful marriage being based 
on satisfying sexual relations, then we are doomed from the start to a 
less than satisfactory relationship with our spouse, because we are 
dealing only with a fragment of ourselvf and our spouse.

Brother Brown extends this into all types of intra- and interpersonal 
relationships, and suggests that we reassess the way we look at both 
ourselves and others.

An excellent book...

>    I was being cynical when I said that the Moral Majority is
>    Neither.

I picked up on the cynicism. I hope you'll forgive my near-flame tirade,
but I came away with the impression that you were using the statement in
a relativistic way: "Yeah, so the gays are gay, but who are we to talk,
since we're all messed up?" 

Sooooo sorry!

Ken

In reply to .21:

>>3. Dialogues. Uh, I'd really feel more comfortable with the subject if 
>>the Ensign had taken it up, thanks. It's nice that the subject was 
>>discussed frankly, and with deep sensitivity, but is the fact that a 
>>LDS-oriented readership is reading these articles really a statement of 
>>gospel principles? (Just a question, not a flame.)
>
>	I personally think it will be a while before the Ensign discusses
>	this subject like we have done.  The scriptures are very, very clear 
>	on the Lord's viewpoint, but I feel it is good to discuss and talk
>	to obtain whatever views there are, even if I don't agree with them.

I was referring to the magazine "Dialogue." (See note .1) While I've 
never actually read it myself, I've heard from a number of people that 
it's pretty liberal in its outlook. Any comments? 

>>What shall I tell my children about homosexuality? That a permissive society 
>>today, in some parts of the world, condone this activity, and their free 
>>agency, ...
>
>	What you want to tell you children on this is correct, but also
>	include the fact that these are the latter days and this is all
>	part of it.

You've sort of pulled this rhetorical question out of context. What I 
said was:

>I, least of all, would want to be found guilty of Phariseeism, but I
>have a question: What shall I tell my children about homosexuality?
>That a permissive society today, in some parts of the world, condone
>this activity, and their free agency, or genetics, more likely, may
>determine that they are "made differently?" 
>
>I think not...

What I was doing here was leading up to the "I think not" part of the 
next paragraph. The whole point here is that I decided a long while ago, 
in company with my wife, that we would be especially careful about cau- 
tioning our children to avoid at all costs certain traps, and that this 
"New Morality" is one of them.

Regards,

Ken

>I was referring to the magazine "Dialogue." (See note .1) While I've 
>never actually read it myself, I've heard from a number of people that 
>it's pretty liberal in its outlook. Any comments? 

FYI: Note 125.7 gives the mailing address for Dialogue and one persons comments
about the magazine.  If people would like to discuss that magazine, you
are invited to open a new note on it.

Re .29

>4. Of course, the one thing that will be the most difficult at this 
>point is the main question: Where does he think these feelings come 
>from? 

>And, if this man with whom I am interviewing has not yet been able to 
>answer the question of where these feelings he has come from, I would 
>hope and pray that he would understand that the devil is the source of 
>them.

Both the scriptures and the prophets have made it clear that the practice of
homosexual relations is a grievous sin.  This has been discussed in previous
replies to this note, and I agree with those comments.

However, in regard to *feelings* of homosexuality, I'm not sure we can say 
those feelings are *always* from the devil.  I've heard a number of homosexual
men discuss their feelings, and they claim they have had those feelings since
they were very young--very young being before the age of eight.  If they are
being truthful in saying that, and I think we have to give them the benefit
of the doubt on their honesty, then they had feelings of homosexuality while
they were not accountable for their decisions and while they were not capable
of being tempted as we adults are.

The Book of Mormon teaches that mistakes made by children are removed via the
Atonement and the children are not held responsible because they were not
accountable for their actions.  Thus, I'm led to the conclusion that young
children who have homosexual feelings have them due to some other causes than
from Satan.  We don't know to what extent genetics and social conditions 
influence our feelings of sexuality.  A person of one sex can have a chemical
unbalance and develop strong characteristics of the other sex.  

The Gospel is clear that the proper physical relationship between people is
between people of the opposite sex, and people who have homosexual feelings
should try and change if that is possible.  I've heard some homosexuals say
it isn't and others say it is.  And, regardless of their sexual preference,
people must, if they are to avoid grievous sin, keep their sexual relationships
within the bounds the Lord has set, between married men and women.

The reason I'm talking about this, Ken, is not to encourage people to develop
homosexual feelings or practice, but to point out that we need to avoid being
dogmatic about the causes of homosexual feelings because we don't know if they
are always from Satan or some of the times are from other sources.  I expect
that many adults with such feelings do have them because of the influence of
Satan, and I expect that people who have had such feelings from childhood also
(as adults) have those feelings magnified due to Satan's influence.  Satan is
quick to take natural (i.e. mortal) conditions and use them for his own 
purposes.

Allen

    Allen,
    
    I can understand now why you are the moderator.  You covered all the
    issues, without, injuring anyone.
    
    Well, done.
    
    Lee

    RE: 395.33

> I've heard a number of homosexual men discuss their feelings, and they 
> claim they have had those feelings since they were very young--very young 
> being before the age of eight.  If they are being truthful in saying that, 
> and I think we have to give them the benefit of the doubt on their honesty, 
> then they had feelings of homosexuality while they were not accountable for 
> their decisions and while they were not capable of being tempted as we 
> adults are.

Allen,

As I was reading this I got to wondering about something.  What is a feeling 
of homosexuality, especially in a person under the age of eight?  Either I
am naive, led a sheltered life, or just don't understand (or all three?).

It seems to me that a person under eight could recognize feelings of love for
another person, certainly for parents and siblings, even for persons of the
same sex, but I don't see how these feelings of love would have any sexual
content to them; hence how could a child have homosexual feelings?

I don't classify feelings of love for another person of the same sex as
homosexual feelings.  I think a homosexual feeling would be one of desiring
some sort of sexual relationship with a person of the same sex.  I believe 
that it is possible to feel love for another person (of either sex) without
desiring a sexual relationship with that person.  Indeed, I think it is 
*ESSENTIAL* to have feelings of love for other people, but to control/direct
our feelings of desire for a sexual relationship to the person to whom we
are legally and lawfully married (or use these feelings to give us the courage
to attempt to enter that state).

Bill

Hi Bill,

You've brought up a good point, one which I don't understand either.  About
all I can do is refer to comments I've heard gay people say and try to 
understand them within my context.  The people felt they were homosexual as
small children. 

Suppose a child thinks about family with a mother and father.  That child
feels comfortable with that concept and would feel uncomfortable with a
concept of a family with two men as parents.  On the other hand, suppose the
child felt uncomfortable with the image of a family with man and woman and felt
comfortable with the image of two men as parents.  Lets assume the child had
grown up in a relatively happy family with a mother and father and that the
child hadn't been influenced by others toward a homosexual image.  Let's 
assume it is sorta an instict with the child.  This is the way the men I've
heard have come accross--a "natural" instinct with them to feel comfortable
with the image of two men as a family unit.

I don't understand those type of feelings, whether in children or adults,
because I've never felt them.  But, I can understand how a aperson might
feel that way through some genetic problem, through glandular problems,
through social influence, and in the case of older children and adults
through the influence of Satan.  I think it is a complicated situation.

Allen


PS.  Please tell your wife hello for me.  I still have fond memories of the
Stake Blazer Day Camps she had for us back in the mid 70's.

In reply to 395.33:

Hi Allen!

1. Homosexual feelings in young children. I'm sorry, but I don't buy
this. Let me explain why:

When I was studying microbiology in high school, I did an expirement to 
determine if our tap water had infectous bacteria in it. The method for 
doing so was to collect a sample of the water to be tested, put it in a 
petri dish with some "soup," or culturing medium, and wait 48 hours to 
see if there were any colonies.

Of course, one of the things stressed in this kind of a test is that a 
control must exist. By control, I mean a benchmark, or proof, against 
which the results can be measured. In this case, I chose a two-level 
control: I sampled some water from a local lake, one which was known to 
have been infacted with human waste, and also sampled some sterilized water.

If my controls worked correctly, the lake water would have the bacteria 
in it, and the sterile water would not. Then, if the tap water had any 
colonies in it, I could be very certain of my results. If the sterile 
water did have, or the lake water did not have, the bacteria in it, then 
I would have to restart the expirement.

The point? Very simple. The controls you are using to determine whether 
or not homosexuality is latent, or inborn, are not valid. From what you 
have indicated in notes .33 and .36, you are assuming that a man who 
professes homosexual feelings now is correct in stating that he did so 
as a child. This is not a control, it is a circular reference!

The logic here says: I have determined that I am homosexual. Further 
studies by my doctors, both through psychiatric and medical evaluation, 
have confirmed this assessment. Now, I also vaguely remember as a child 
that I really liked being close to my father, and didn't care for my 
mother that much at all. Therefore: I was born to be what I am!

2. Studies. There are three things that I would keep in mind as I assessed 
my position relative to the conclusions being reached in many of the 
studies being done on human sexuality.

a. Evolution is an implied basis for these studies. (It shows up in the 
use of words like "natural.")

b. Not all doctors and scientists agree with the results of these studies. 
In fact, a woman doctor in our ward in a Relief Society meeting brought 
this up. Her reply: "That's fascinating, but what does the Lord say?"

c. Bad controls. Yup, here it is again. For example, the Masters-Johnson 
Report (I read it before I was joined the Church). There is such gra- 
phic detail on the nature of human intimacy, as revealed in the study of 
the sexual act in front of researchers, as would be embarrasing to even 
remember.

But do you see the flaw? "In front of researchers." These people were
willing to perform a sacred act in front of the world, for all that it
matters, and people now have a sexual role model based on exhibitionism!

Could you honestly, even as a scientist, rely on the conclusions reached 
here?

3. Dogmatic stance. There are two definitions for "dogmatic." First, "of 
or pertaining to doctrine;" and second, "opinionated." I guess I'll 
admit to both. I believe that my position on this subject is correct, 
and based on a sound scriptural and ecclesiastical foundation, and I 
have cited Paul's epistle to the Romans, chapter 1, to back it up. I am 
enclosing at the end of this note a extract from the Boyd K. Packer talk 
I mentioned several notes ago. I feel this should clarify the Lord's 
view on the subject.

As far as being opinionated is concerned, I'll admit it. I am very much 
so, and I expect that on some subjects, it's better to remain so. And 
this is one of them, as far as I'm concerned. Am I a bigot? I don't 
think so, unless you define a bigot as one who refuses to take a wishy- 
washy stance on a subject just because the world is getting pretty nasty 
about demanding its "rights."

If, during the course of any of the remarks in this or earlier notes, 
I've offended anybody, I apologize. I never have admitted to being all 
that good at putting my feelings down on paper, and being involved in 
this discussion group has been a very positive experience for me.

Thank you all,

Ken de Montigny

=======================================================================

"Gay and Lesbian Rights," excerpted from a General Conference talk, 
"Covenants," given by Elder Boyd K. Packer, October 1990. (Published in 
the November 1991 issue of The Ensign, pages 84-86.)

"Several publications are now being circulated about the Church which
defend and promote gay or lesbian conduct. They wrest the scriptures
attempting to prove that these impulses are inborn, cannot be overcome,
and should not be resisted; and therfore, such conduct has a morality of
its own. They quote scriptures to justify perverted acts between
consenting adults. That same logic would justify incest or the molesting
of little children of either gender. Neither the letter nor the spirit
of moral law condones any such conduct. 

"I hope none of our young people will be foolish enough to accept those 
sources as authority for what the scriptures mean. Paul, speaking on 
this very subject, condemned those 'who changed the truth of God into a 
lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator.' 
(Rom. 1:25.) In that same reference the word 'covenantbreakers' is used 
for the only time in scripture. (Rom. 1:31.)

"Some chose to reject the scriptures out of hand and forsake their 
covenants. But they cannot chose to avoid the consequences. That choice 
is not theirs or ours or anybody's.

"All of us are subject to feelings and impulses. Some are worthy and 
some of them are not; some of them are natural and some of them are not. 
We are to control them, meaning we are to direct them according to the 
moral law.

"The legitimate union of the sexes is a law of God. The sacred covenants 
made by husband wife with God protect the worthy expression of those 
feelings  and impulses which are vital to the continuation of the race 
and essential to a happy family life. Illicit or perverted conduct leads 
without exception to disappointment, suffering, to tragedy."

>The point? Very simple. The controls you are using to determine whether 
>or not homosexuality is latent, or inborn, are not valid. From what you 
>have indicated in notes .33 and .36, you are assuming that a man who 
>professes homosexual feelings now is correct in stating that he did so 
>as a child. This is not a control, it is a circular reference!

Well, Ken, we have to keep in mind that we're talking about human feelings
not a scientific experiment in a lab.  I've listened to men say they
believe they had homosexual feelings as a child.  Are they right?  I don't
know.  Are they wrong?  I don't know that either.  One thing which I
do accept, however, is that those men did have unusual (from our viewpoint)
feelings as young children.  Do they understand what those feelings mean? 
I don't know?  Do I understand what those feelings mean?  No.  Do you
understand what those feelings mean?  I doubt it since you don't know the
background of the men.

I agree that I can not say authoritatively that those men had homosexual
feelings as children, and I also believe that you can not authoritatively
say that they did not have those feelings.  Hence, neither of us have a basis
for being dogmatic about it.

Thanks for posting the article by Boyd Packer; it presents the position of
the Church in a clear way about homosexual practices.  However, I'm confused,
Ken, why you posted it since we're talking about feelings not practices.  I've
tried to make my view clear in previous replies that homosexual practices are
a grievous sin, and I'm talking about feelings not practices.  Elder Packer
did not even address the question of people having homosexual feelings but
not practices, so the article contributed nothing to our discussion.

By way of clarification, I'm *not* saying that people who have homosexual
feelings are not guilty of sin.  I am just saying that I don't think any of us
understand why people have homosexual feelings and that I think there is no
basis for saying that *every* person who has homosexual feelings received them
from Satan.  I do think that *many* people who have such feelings have
received them from Satan.  Obviously, I'm speaking in a general way and can
not say one way or the other about particular cases.

Regardless, and I think this is very important, regardless of why people have
homosexual feelings, it is important that they do all within their power to
overcome those feelings and then allow the Atonement of Christ to cleanse them
of the things they can't remove themselves.  A letter to the editors of the
Ensign spoke of this in the context of child abuse.  The woman had been abused
as a child, and after years of torment, she finally realized that she was not
responsible for the abuse but she was responsible for how she handled it in
her life--she finally let go of the bitterness in her heart and replaced it
with unconditional forgiveness.  Similarly, if there are people who have
homosexual feelings due to reasons beyond their control, they are not
responsible for their having those feelings, but they are responsible for
how they react to those feelings, and I believe that God expects them to (a)
avoid homosexual relations of any kind, and (b) to eliminate those feelings
if it is possible.

I think I've said about all I have to say, Ken, and I'm repeating things I've
said in previous replies, so I think I will withdraw from this discussion.

Allen

In reply to .-1:

>I think I've said about all I have to say, Ken, and I'm repeating things I've
>said in previous replies, so I think I will withdraw from this discussion.

Allen is bowing out of this discussion. I regret any bad feelings on his 
part that may have prompted this, but I feel that the issue here is not 
one for mere academic discussion. Therefore, I will add some closing 
remarks of my own.

>Well, Ken, we have to keep in mind that we're talking about human feelings
>not a scientific experiment in a lab.

I am not an unfeeling person, and no, we are not talking about human 
feelings. We are talking about whether or not people are born homo- 
sexuals, and I will assert that the answer is, "No." I may not have 
stated it clearly enough, but the premise behind my "controls" argu- 
ment was that these feelings you mentioned earlier conditioned, and not
inborn.

And as for scientific analysis, I think most people would agree that
putting a few men, certainly the exception to the rule of appropriate
sexual preference, up as a benchmark for determining the validity of
homosexuality as a practice, hardly constitutes a correct or reliable
method.

>I agree that I can not say authoritatively that those men had homosexual
>feelings as children, and I also believe that you can not authoritatively
>say that they did not have those feelings.

I really find it hard to believe that we're even talking like this. "I 
can't, so you can't." I never said that these men didn't have feelings 
of attraction for other men. That is, after all, the basis for this 
entire discussion in the first place. However, you are appealing to an 
argument that only has for its authority the words of these men.

One can be sincere, and still be wrong. And that is what I am saying is 
happening here. Realistically, how much does anyone remember about 
their pre-accountability childhood, as far as feelings of preference for 
one gender over another? And if the feeling of attachment for men were 
stronger in a boy than that were his feelings for women, do you really 
believe that this indicates homosexual tendency? If so, then I fear that 
this erroneous belief can lead a larger number of people astray than any 
hard words of mine.

>Thanks for posting the article by Boyd Packer; it presents the position of
>the Church in a clear way about homosexual practices.  However, I'm confused,
>Ken, why you posted it since we're talking about feelings not practices.  I've
>tried to make my view clear in previous replies that homosexual practices are
>a grievous sin, and I'm talking about feelings not practices.  Elder Packer
>did not even address the question of people having homosexual feelings but
>not practices, so the article contributed nothing to our discussion.

I would have hoped that you would have read the excerpt a little more 
carefully. Elder Packer clearly addresses the subject of feelings twice:

"They wrest the scriptures attempting to prove that these IMPULSES are 
inborn;" and,

"All of us are subject to FEELINGS and IMPULSES. Some are worthy and
some of them are not; some of them are natural and some of them are 
not."

And these two passages are the primary reason I added the text to my 
last note. In the first case, Elder Packer associates the idea of impul- 
ses, or feelings, with inborn characteristics in the process of renoun- 
cing publications promoting a gay and/or lesbian lifestyles.

For the second passsage, there can be no mistake: Some "feelings are 
natural, and some of them are not." Can there be any margin for error in 
interpreting this? If read in context, it's quite clear that homosexual 
feelings are not natural.

>By way of clarification, I'm *not* saying that people who have homosexual
>feelings are not guilty of sin.  I am just saying that I don't think any of us
>understand why people have homosexual feelings and that I think there is no
>basis for saying that *every* person who has homosexual feelings received them
>from Satan.  I do think that *many* people who have such feelings have
>received them from Satan.  Obviously, I'm speaking in a general way and can
>not say one way or the other about particular cases.

All this because you asked me what I would do as a bishop, if a man had 
told me that he had had the feelings, and was still a virgin. I will say 
right now that I think this point is a contrived technicality, and that 
a attempt to use this kind of ploy belongs in a courtroom drama, and not 
in a discussion about moral law.

I think I made it quite clear, if you read my response in its entirety, 
that only through inspiration would a bishop be able to make a correct 
determination about his next step when confronted with this scenario, or 
any other, for that matter. It therefore grieves me to think that someone 
would try to completely lift part of what I said out context, and make it 
look as though I were right away damning the poor soul without benefit 
of a at least a fair hearing, especially where I am such a firm believer 
in case law, and not law by precedent.

Unfortunately there are precedents having to do either directly or
indirectly have a bearing here: Sodom and Gomorrah; the near-extirpation
of the Canaanites by the Host of Israel; the Nephites. Each one of these 
peoples was destroyed, as a whole. Do you think, for a moment, that any 
rational being can think about these incidences, and not be reminded 
that there were children destroyed here? I have four children myself, 
all of them under nine years of age, and it is very frightening to think 
of these young ones being destroyed "out of hand."

But that's just it: They weren't destroyed "out of hand." They died 
because the older generations had become so corrupt, that these little 
ones would grow up into a like fashion, with little or no hope for 
redemption. And I think that's exactly what's happening today. So any- 
thing that even remotely resembles an attempt to place these little ones 
beyond the purview of the Saviour's Atonement makes me angry.

>Regardless, and I think this is very important, regardless of why people have
>homosexual feelings, it is important that they do all within their power to
>overcome those feelings and then allow the Atonement of Christ to cleanse them
>of the things they can't remove themselves.

I agree. The Atonement is the only way back for all of us. That is an 
implicit part of my comments. But I also feel that we need to apply the 
Lord's gift of the "more sure word of prophecy," and not be "blown to 
and fro by every wind of doctrine."

>Allen

Ken

>>I think I've said about all I have to say, Ken, and I'm repeating things I've
>>said in previous replies, so I think I will withdraw from this discussion.
>
>Allen is bowing out of this discussion. I regret any bad feelings on his 
>part that may have prompted this,

No bad feelings at all, Ken.  My practice in noting is to explain my views
and to try and understand the views of the others.  When I feel this has been
accomplished then I withdraw from the discussion before it degenerates into
a rat hole.  I'm not implying, Ken, that you are contentious.  It is just that
any discussion of controversial topics will eventually degenerate into a rat
hole, regardless of who the persons are, because the people begin to repeat
themselves, to nit pick at details that weren't meant to be that specific,
and to get contentious rather than trying to understand.  Again, let me
emphasis that it isn't you or me, Ken, but anyone who engages in an extended
discussion.

>I would have hoped that you would have read the excerpt a little more 
>carefully. Elder Packer clearly addresses the subject of feelings twice:

It's true that he spoke of feelings, but he did so in the context of conduct.
As I read his statement, Elder Packer is talking about feelings of
homosexuality that lead to conduct.  It seems clear to me that his condemnation
is directed towards feelings that aren't controlled and the resulting conduct.
As far as I could tell, he didn't address the question we were discussing,
feelings that don't lead to conduct.

>For the second passage, there can be no mistake: Some "feelings are 
>natural, and some of them are not." Can there be any margin for error in 
>interpreting this? If read in context, it's quite clear that homosexual 
>feelings are not natural.

Elder Packers second statement about feelings was that we all have feelings
and impulses, that some are worthy and some are not, some are natural and
some are not, and that we are to control them according to moral law.  I
agree.  I'm not saying that any feelings of homosexuality that children might
have had (if such feelings do exist) are worthy; homosexual feelings at any
age are not worthy.  All I'm saying is that I think there is a non-zero
probability that *some* children have had such feelings.  If any children
have had such feelings, the feelings are not worthy and must be controlled if
the persons are to find happiness in life.  Also, I am not saying that
homosexual feelings are "natural" (which I interpret to mean that that is
the way God intends).  *If* some children do have homosexual feelings due to
genetics or glandular problems, those feelings are not "natural" even though
they have a physical and not Satanic cause.

Whether Elder Packer believes that children are born with feelings of
homosexuality or not is not important, because he is not the Prophet and does
not introduce new doctrine to the Church.  I am not aware of any Church
doctrine that *no* children under the age of eight have homosexual feelings.
(keep in mind that comments by individual GA do not
constitute Church doctrine--only official statements intended to be received
as Church doctrine are such, but this is a topic for note 211, not for this
note).

>All this because you asked me what I would do as a bishop, if a man had 
>told me that he had had the feelings, and was still a virgin.

Maybe you and I have had different reasons for continuing this discussion.
My reason was concern about your statement that the man's feelings of
homosexuality came from the devil, and I felt you were implying that *all*
feelings of homosexuality of *all* people came from the devil.

My reason for asking you to pretend you were a Bishop was because
you had asked me to do the same; I felt that what's fair with me was fair 
with you, and I wanted to understand how you felt about persons who have
homosexual feelings but not homosexual conduct.  I've indicated in a previous
reply that I was concerned that some persons were equating homosexual feelings
with homosexual practices, and I felt that was not necessarily a true
relationship.  By asking you to be a Bishop in a situation of homosexual
feelings but not homosexual practices, it would give us a chance to understand
how you equate feelings and practices.  Except for your absolute statement
that the feelings came from the devil, I felt you took a fair and reasonable
approach to the problem.  If you had said the feelings had "likely" come
from the devil or something similar, then I wouldn't have objected; it was
what seemed to be an absolute statement that concerned me since I think that
*some* persons *may* have homosexual feelings due to glandular or genetic
problems, causes which I think are not Satanic.

>I think I made it quite clear, if you read my response in its entirety, 
>that only through inspiration would a bishop be able to make a correct 
>determination about his next step when confronted with this scenario, or 
>any other, for that matter. It therefore grieves me to think that someone 
>would try to completely lift part of what I said out context, and make it 
>look as though I were right away damning the poor soul without benefit 
>of a at least a fair hearing, especially where I am such a firm believer 
>in case law, and not law by precedent.

I felt, Ken, that your response to my question about you being a Bishop was
very fair and appropriate.  I'm sorry if I have given you the impression that
I thought you were damning the man without benefit of a fair hearing.  Again,
it was your statement that the devil was the source of the man's feelings
of homosexuality and my concern that we can't say that in an *absolute* way to
apply to *all* persons.

Allen

I think that the purpose of our discussing topics like the one we're doing
is to understand the viewpoints of the other person, not to convince the other 
person.  I think I understand your views, Ken, and I assume you understand mine.
So, I think we've accomplished our purposes, and as I mentioned before, I'm
withdrawing from the discussion so I can concentrate on my work.

Before I finish, I thought I'd summarize my understanding of our views.  If
I've distorted your views, Ken, please feel free to correct me.

I think we agree on the following:

1.  Homosexual practices are a grievous sin.  At a minimum, they are adultery,
    and they might be something worse, although I don't remember the GA
    characterizing homosexuality in this way.  The Lord's plan is for
    sexual relationships to be only between married men and women.

2.  Homosexual feelings are also a sin.  They usually lead to sinful conduct,
    and they should be controlled and changed.  They aren't normal in the
    sense that "normality" is the way the Lord would have things be.

3.  People who have homosexual practices and/or feelings, regardless of the
    cause, are expected by the Lord to control those things and eliminate 
    them from their lives if at all possible.

I think we disagree on the following:

1.  You believe that persons can not have homosexual feelings until they are
    of the age of accountability or older, and such feelings come from Satan
    in some way.

2.  I believe that it might be possible for small children to have homosexual
    feelings due to genetic or glandular problems.  I say it *might* be
    possible because I don't know if it is or not.  I've heard homosexual men
    claim that they had such feelings as young children; I don't know if they
    are correct or not, but I have no authoritative basis for saying they are
    wrong, so I leave a question mark on this.  I don't know.  Perhaps yes,
    perhaps no.

3.  Above, I said homosexual feelings were a sin.  If I'm right that some
people have homosexual feelings due to genetic or glandular reasons, then
those feeling would not be a sin in the sense that we usually think of sin
as resulting from our free agency.  In this case, those feelings would be
removed through the effect of the Atonement, the same as with other mistakes
that young children make.  However, once those children reach the age of
accountability, then the Lord expects them to be accountable for how they
handle those feelings, i.e. the effects of those feelings in their lives.

I think that for all other cases of persons having homosexual feelings, those
feelings would be a sin because the people have chosen to have them.

In conclusion, as long as we understand the viewpoint of the other, and
we've done so without contention and bad feelings, then we've had a successful
discussion.  I feel it has been that way, Ken.  Thanks for sharing your views!

Allen

    This particular subject is of great intrest to me because of the
    problems that I was faced with 20 years ago.
    Being a member of the church all my life, born and raised in the
    church.  I was subjected to all sorts of ridacule because of a
    "Character flaw".  I HAD to have alcholic beverages.  It was not 
    until several years later that they discovered that I had a chemical
    imbalance.  This is a physical problem that I must live with.
    
    Now.
    1.  I still have the feelings deep within me that say what does it
        hurt.  No one will know.  These feelings go on even tho I have
        not had any alcholic beverages since 1972.
    2.  I do not let these feelings turn into actions.  I supress them.
        My personal beliefe is that I will not be punished for the 
        feelings, only the actions.
    3.  I do not know if Homosexauality has the same kind of genetic
        defect as alcholism.  Therefore, I will not say that
        homosexauality is a "Character flaw".  I will say that the
        actions are a serious sin in the eyes of the Lord.
    
    This has been my point in on this subject all along.  Part of me
    agrees with Ken and his comments and part of me agrees with Allen
    and his comments.  This has been a good discussion.  Lets not loose
    site of the discussion itself and turn it into a debate of ideas.
    
    Lee

Hi Lee,

>    2.  I do not let these feelings turn into actions.  I supress them.
>        My personal beliefe is that I will not be punished for the 
>        feelings, only the actions.

Mormon, in his epistle to Moroni (Moroni 8) explained that we will not be
punished for conditions or situations over which we had no choice; our
punishment will be for things we made choices about.  The Atonement of Christ
will cover the things that were beyond our control and choice.

I would agree with you that since your desire for alcohol is due to the
chemistry of your body, you will not be punished for having that desire, but
you will be judged on what you do about the desire.  From what you've said,
Lee, it looks like your making right choices about this.  Keep it up!!

Allen

>No bad feelings at all, Ken.

That's a relief. I truly do not want to offend any. I was pretty well 
shaken up by your withdrawing, so I'm glad to see that your statement 
was not literal.

I stated earlier that I'm not all that good at putting my thoughts down 
on paper: I do much better when in direct conversation. That coupled 
with the fact that I'm new "noter," does leave feeling a little rough 
around the edges when expressing my ideas.

>Also, I am not saying that homosexual feelings are "natural" (which I
>interpret to mean that that is the way God intends). 

Well, here's where we hit common ground, in terms of semantics. This is 
the point I've pretty much been trying to make all along, since the word 
"natural" is so heavily abused by the world to justify its actions.

>Whether Elder Packer believes that children are born with feelings of
>homosexuality or not is not important, because he is not the Prophet and does
>not introduce new doctrine to the Church.

I agree that he's not introducing doctrine. But I do believe that Elder 
Packer's remarks give a solid benchmark for the saints, and other truth- 
seekers, insofar as this issue is concerned.

>>All this because you asked me what I would do as a bishop, if a man had 
>>told me that he had had the feelings, and was still a virgin.
>
>Maybe you and I have had different reasons for continuing this discussion.
>My reason was concern about your statement that the man's feelings of
>homosexuality came from the devil, and I felt you were implying that *all*
>feelings of homosexuality of *all* people came from the devil.
>
>My reason for asking you to pretend you were a Bishop was because
>you had asked me to do the same; I felt that what's fair with me was 
>fair...

I agree that your asking me to respond was fair. In fact, it was a
rather good growing experience for me. As for the statement about all
feelings of homosexuality coming from the adversary, I am basing my
stance on the rule, and not the exception. If actually faced with a
situation of this kind, and as I pointed out, it would be very difficult
to determine what my next step would be: I would certainly seek my
answers from higher authority, starting with Heavenly Father.

>Allen

Ken

I was thinking last night, Ken, that you and I have spent a lot of time and
energy discussing the origins of homosexual feelings, and the interesting
thing about it is that the origins don't really matter.  Whether a person is
born with some physical problem that causes those feelings, or whether he/she
has picked the feelings up due to social reasons or from influences from Satan,
its all the same: what really counts is what those persons do as a result of
those feelings.  They will be blessed or will lose blessings based on the
choices they make relative to those feelings, and the origins of the feelings
don't matter at all. 

Many Gay people claim they were born that way, maybe they were and maybe not,
and I think they may be trying to justify their conduct.  They may be thinking
that if they were born that way then they are not responsible for their conduct
as homosexuals, and since they were born that way it is "natural" (i.e. the
way their body works) and hence ok.  To us as LDS, however, "natural" means
the way God would have it be and not necessarily the way any particular physical
body happens to work since particular bodies may have disorders.

The bottom line in life is not where the problems we have came from, but what
we do about those problems. 

Allen

Several replies that are discussing how we handle problems in life were
moved to note 399.

    When I replied to note 395 I should have been more specific about what
    I meant by "Gay wards".  I did not mean to say that the church had
    organized wards especially for "gay" members, as they do for students
    or singles,  but rather that there are wards in San Francisco and New 
    York City that have a large number of "gay" members active in their 
    congregation.  
    
    Also, I take offense to the statement regarding whether or not
    reading Dialogue constitutes following gospel principles.  "Judge not
    that ye be not judged" buckooo........ the articles in Sunstone,
    Dialogue and Exponent II are full of thought provoking, mind bending 
    topics like the one that has been discussed here.  
    
    You got my dander up.....
                                             
    Barbara   
    

>    Also, I take offense to the statement regarding whether or not
>    reading Dialogue constitutes following gospel principles.  "Judge not
>    that ye be not judged" buckooo........ the articles in Sunstone,
>    Dialogue and Exponent II are full of thought provoking, mind bending 
>    topics like the one that has been discussed here.  

I didn't say that reading Dialogue, or any other LDS-oriented publication
did not constitute following Gospel principles. What I did was ask a
question: "but is the fact that a LDS-oriented readership is reading these
articles really a statement of gospel principles?" 

I think the question a fair one. Can it really be assumed that because a
publication is LDS-oriented that all statements made in it represent Church
doctrine? No. If the magazine, or whatever, is typical, they will hace a
disclaimer somehwere stating that "the views represented herein are the
opinions of the publishers," etc. Also, your own remarks in .1 do not make 
the context of the "gayness" of these men clear: are they now members of 
the Church in good standing, or are they still living an "alternative" 
lifestyle?

Do I sound too conservative? Maybe like a stuffed shirt? Sorry. I'm just
very cautious about my conclusions whatever material I read, whether its a
newspaper, magazine, or even some of the Church materials. And my caution
level is very high on this particular issue, since Elder Packer, in the
talk I've referred to earlier, makes this remark: 

"Several publications are now being circulated about the Church which
defend and promote gay or lesbian conduct. They wrest the scriptures
attempting to prove that these impulses are inborn, cannot be overcome,
and should not be resisted; and therefore, such conduct has a morality of
its own. They quote scriptures to justify perverted acts between
consenting adults. That same logic would justify incest or the molesting
of little children of either gender. Neither the letter nor the spirit
of moral law condones any such conduct."

I wonder what publications he's alluding to? Any ideas?

>    You got my dander up.....

Sorry. I seem to be pretty good at that. But I wasn't taking a pot shot at 
anyone by asking the question, just trying to establish some grounds for my 
own remarks. 

>    Barbara   
    
Ken

    Ken, 
    
    >	I think the question a fair one.  Can it really be assumed that 
    	because a publication is LDS-orinted that all statements made in 
    	it represent Church doctrine?
    >
    
    I agree fully with you.  In fact, I have yet to see any magazine or
    book published that claims to carry church doctrine.  With maybe the
    exception of the Ensign when it publishes the conference talks.  Maybe
    not even then.  I haven't checked to see if they run the disclaimer for
    that issue.  
    
    I also don't know what publications Boyd Packer was referring to.  I
    only read Exponent II, Dialogue and Sunstone.  None of the articles
    that I have read in any of these publications condoned or encouraged
    alternate lifestyles.  However, I have to admit, they were much more
    loving and Christlike in their treatment of the subject than Brother
    Packer if the brief quote you mentioned is any indication of his entire
    statement!  I do know that there are some pretty militant gay and
    lesbian groups in the Utah and California areas that may be circulating
    some information.  Possibly he was referring to something published by
    them.    
    
     

	I came across an interesting concept on sinners in "Especially for 
	Mormons", Vol. 1, that I thought might apply to the discussion here.

	"No man is perfect, but one who strives earnestly to conquer
	 weakness and grows unto perfection does not sin (even though
	 he does do things wrong).  That is to say he is not a sinner.
	 A sinner is one who indulges in sin habitually and takes
	 pleasure in it." (page 281)

	Charles

    My feeling is that sin involves knowledge that the action is wrong and
    a conscious choice to do it anyway.  Habit isn't necessary (but will
    soon follow).  King Benjamin spoke of this kind of behavior as "open
    rebellion against God."  The foregoing is for sins of commission.
    
    For sins of omission, I still think knowledge is involved, but lack of
    a conscicous choice to do right may be all that's needed here.  The
    reasoning is that failure to decide to do is, by default, a decision
    not to do.
    
    Bill