Cui Bono?

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Levin

There is something to be said for the peace that comes when choosing obedience, even when that obedience causes immense suffering and pain.

Would you counsel a person to refrain from being baptized if that would result in him being shunned by his family, his friends, and his culture? (I tihnk my answer may vary depending on the situation. There is no dobut that such a choice would cause immense pain, even though such a choice would bring the peace that follows obediently following the Savior. I'm sincerely interested to hear your answer here.)

What of the load that Christ promises to carry for those with extra heavy crosses? And carrying the load does not mean eliminating the loneliness or the anguish, I'm sure. But I think it means, at least it has in my experience with my crosses, that Christ assures us that there is purpose in carrying the load; that is, he gives hope.

While I agree with your general premise, there is absolutely no comparison for the trial of homosexuality. Your baptism example would be tough, but only with homosexuality is the individual doomed to a life of emotional and sexual isolation, with no hope for intimacy on any level.....in the Church, even a fat ugly single person can openly talk about wishing to be married, hoping to get a date, they can hold hands, date, etc....Gays are afforded no such privilege.

In comparison, having your mom and dad pissed at you is a walk in the park. That person can always just find and marry a nice Mormon after baptism.

Again, there is absolutely no comparison. trying to make one seems trite, although I know that was not your intent.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Again, there is absolutely no comparison. trying to make one seems trite, although I know that was not your intent.

Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt -- I wasn't trying to make a comparison, but just find an illustration where pain and anguish follows obedience.

I agree with you; I cannot think of a heavier personal spiritual cross than the one gay members of the church are asked to carry.

[Levin]

This raises a question: where do we draw the line regarding Adam's principle of "Heavenly Father would not want His children to suffer so"?

If we accept that a common side effect of obedience is pain and suffering, where does Adam draw the line for what becomes excusable conduct?

Must it be that the First Presidency just has it wrong on the law of chastity?

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Levin

Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt -- I wasn't trying to make a comparison, but just find an illustration where pain and anguish follows obedience.

I agree with you; I cannot think of a heavier personal spiritual cross than the one gay members of the church are asked to carry.

You are welcome. I think you are nice. But I don't understand the phallic symbol in your avatar.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Adam

Wickedness was never happiness. I really believe that. And men truly are that they might have joy.

At the same time, it is only through going through a portion of what Christ went through, can we develop the empathy that Christ developed. We have to suffer to become broken and contrite. Some suffering can be vicarious, through an appreciation of the suffering of our ancestors or our Savior. But we have to go through a measure of it ourselves. Elder Maxwell called this the "wintery doctrine".

So I am not opposed to suffering, but when one suffers in rightousness, one will find joy. The peace of conscience that Elder Scott contrasts with peace of mind--which might never come and is affected by external factors.

But I just guess in the end it seems to me that he human sex drive is too strong and too powerful to allow one to have peace of any kind while denying all hope of satisfying it completely---and this pain on top of the lifetime of loneliness and isolation that one would be doomed to endure without hope of relief.

I guess this is why the Church always told the homosexual Mormons to pray that God would change them--so they could cling to some sliver of hope that their hell would one day end.

But in fact, the orientation doesn't end for the vast majority--as the Church's new homo pamphlet even admits.

Maybe it is because my sex drive is so powerful that I can't believe that a lone homosexual, without hope or companionship, could master his sex drive for life AND (and this is the key) find peace of conscience and the joy that God created him for in the process.

Maybe I am projecting and saying that because I don't think I could do it, I don't they they could do it either. Maybe I am selling them short.

But even if I am wrong and a homosexual could, certainly most could not. And it seems cruel to sentence all to the cross when we know only a few will be able to find redeeming value in the crucifixion. My heart really goes out to these my brothers and sisters and I suffer in my own small way with them.

That is the rub.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by Adam

But even if I am wrong and a homosexual could, certainly most could not. And it seems cruel to sentence all to the cross when we know only a few will be able to find redeeming value in the crucifixion. My heart really goes out to these my brothers and sisters and I suffer in my own small way with them.

It appears the driving force in your worldview is your vast and sincere empathy. I share your empathy, though not to the degree you've attained; still working on it.

Once I reach where you are, I doubt I'll share your conclusion, though.

Wishing that the law of chastity encompassed no premarital sex, gay or straight, but permitted post-marital sex, gay or straight, does not change the reality of what has been handed to us by the First Presidency.

Until the First Presidency changes the law of chastity along the lines above, all I'm left with are the scriptures on carrying the cross, and Christ's promise to help with the load (to give hope that the burden has a purpose).

For most gay mormons, who will have gay sex (I agree with you; sexual desire is like thirst or hunger; tell a man not to drink or eat his entire life . . . ), that means a life of sexual fulfillment, but spiritual torment (if they still believe). I have to believe that part of Christ's promise to help carry the load includes carrying some of this spiritual anguish in sin for those who are asked to carry the heaviest of crosses.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Levin

Wishing that the law of chastity encompassed no premarital sex, gay or straight, but permitted post-marital sex, gay or straight, does not change the reality of what has been handed to us by the First Presidency.

Until the First Presidency changes the law of chastity along the lines above, all I'm left with are the scriptures on carrying the cross, and Christ's promise to help with the load (to give hope that the burden has a purpose).

For most gay mormons, who will have gay sex (I agree with you; sexual desire is like thirst or hunger; tell a man not to drink or eat his entire life . . . ), that means a life of sexual fulfillment, but spiritual torment (if they still believe). I have to believe that part of Christ's promise to help carry the load includes carrying some of this spiritual anguish in sin for those who are asked to carry the heaviest of crosses.

Well at the end of the day, we end up going with with what we perceive as truth, eh? I understand and respect what you are saying, but at a fundamental/gut level, I just can't buy this argument. It doesn't seem right to me and it never has.