|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Acceptance of a Gay LDS son
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Found "Like sunshine in the darkest abyss I’ve ever experienced" fascinating, both for the extra information about Mormons and families (at least, new to me) and for the totally-accepting view of the boy's mother.
There is clearly good communication in the family. He came out at 13 to his parents.
quote:
But the more I read from LDS Church materials, the more disheartened and sad I got. None of them acknowledged that there was such a thing as a gay teenager—they only talk in terms of homosexual acts and behaviors. My son is only 14; he hasn’t even held another boy’s hand, but he knows he is gay. And he’s doing nothing wrong. There were no helps in those materials for me.
But a group called the Family Acceptance Project became involved
quote:
It seemed like there were only two paths: that my son chooses a lonely, celibate life, or that he chooses love and we lose him. Both are terrible. The crux of the message in Family Acceptance Project materials is that parents—whether Mormon or any other faith—can love and support a child while holding onto deeply held beliefs.
The closing lines are a direct response to the people who claim that they "love the sinner" by "hating the sin":
quote:
I don’t want him to choose between a God he loves and a man he loves. None of us have to make that choice we expect of gay LDS people. If I had to, I’d choose a family and love.
Should be engraved across the door of most churches to explain why many people leave those churches.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
quote:
I don’t want him to choose between a God he loves and a man he loves. None of us have to make that choice we expect of gay LDS people. If I had to, I’d choose a family and love.
Should be engraved across the door of most churches to explain why many people leave those churches.
Possibly a tangent, but this last point made me think. Surely if anyone loves someone or something else more than God, then that is their decision.
I am reminded of Ezra 10. In great distress, the people of Israel made the heartrending decision to send their foreign wives away. They considered that it was more important to love God and obey His commands, than to love their wives and obey whatever promises of love they had made to them. I am sure most people nowadays would consider their decision an abominable act, anathema to our way of thinking that places human sexual love high upon a pedestal as the ultimate goal, almost as though it is divine in itself. But the Israelites' decision was an act of great faith and obedience.
I'd hate to have to make that choice for myself, but if presented with a stark choice between loving God or loving another person, I think there is only one right answer.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
My thought was, you can still love your children even if they don't share the same religious beliefs that you do. It doesn't have to be a case of loving one and not the other. Some religious groups do demand that you cut off all contact with children who leave the fellowship for whatever reason, but I don't think that's a routine response. After all, some will hope that eventually these 'prodigal' children can be encouraged to re-enter the fold, and that must be hard to achieve if there's no contact and no love. Whether they have any justification for entertaining such hopes is another matter.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
quote:
I don’t want him to choose between a God he loves and a man he loves. None of us have to make that choice we expect of gay LDS people. If I had to, I’d choose a family and love.
Should be engraved across the door of most churches to explain why many people leave those churches.
Possibly a tangent, but this last point made me think. Surely if anyone loves someone or something else more than God, then that is their decision.
I am reminded of Ezra 10. In great distress, the people of Israel made the heartrending decision to send their foreign wives away. They considered that it was more important to love God and obey His commands, than to love their wives and obey whatever promises of love they had made to them. I am sure most people nowadays would consider their decision an abominable act, anathema to our way of thinking that places human sexual love high upon a pedestal as the ultimate goal, almost as though it is divine in itself. But the Israelites' decision was an act of great faith and obedience.
I'd hate to have to make that choice for myself, but if presented with a stark choice between loving God or loving another person, I think there is only one right answer.
I find this a very troubling idea. The love between husband and wife is not only sexual, is it? And a wife who has been "put away" in an early society is going to find herself and her children in a very parlous state.
Isn't there a quote somewhere which suggests that someone who is not able to love a person who they have seen cannot properly be able to love God, whom they have not seen?
I heard a rabbi the other day, on a BBC World Service programme about silence in religion - a practice he found tricky to understand. One of his points was about God making us as companions for Him. My mind went on to think that is what He was suggesting when he made Eve, in the second creation story. "It is not good for the man to be alone". It was about companionship, not just sex, (I was considering this in connection with other aspects of this particular dead gee-gee.)
I find it hard to believe that God would demand that men should abandon their wives to penury and distress because He needed their love more. So hard, that the idea has hit my "this is not-God" touchstone, and failed the assay.
Human love is about caring for people, not just warm bodies in bed. "Don't care for them, they're foreign, care for me" - does that sound particularly divine?
[ 28. May 2013, 13:55: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
The point could be taken that the church (in this case, the LDS crowd) are demanding that the male in question, at age 13, should decide between sticking with church teaching or being open to the possibility of a loving relationship with another person.
The lady of the OP had imbibed the church's teaching about the paramount importance of the family, which would stretch on into the afterlife. So her love for her son was mandated by God, and she would not lose him from her love, despite the teachings of the church about the sinful nature of her son.
If you were told, at age 13, that you would never have a chance for a sexual+loving relationship, how impressed would you be with the teachings of (your) church? If your family loved you without condition (as does God, BTW) where does that leave you and them? You can experience the love of God without the church being involved at all.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I find this a very troubling idea. The love between husband and wife is not only sexual, is it?
No it’s not.
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
And a wife who has been "put away" in an early society is going to find herself and her children in a very parlous state.
Yes they would.
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Isn't there a quote somewhere which suggests that someone who is not able to love a person who they have seen cannot properly be able to love God, whom they have not seen?
I don’t think so. Sounds a bit like you’re misremembering John 20:26.” Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I heard a rabbi the other day, on a BBC World Service programme about silence in religion - a practice he found tricky to understand. One of his points was about God making us as companions for Him. …I find it hard to believe that God would demand that men should abandon their wives to penury and distress because He needed their love more. So hard, that the idea has hit my "this is not-God" touchstone, and failed the assay.
A bit of a heretical notion from the Rabbi IMO. God did not make us for Himself, as though He would be lonely or lacking without us. It is quite arrogant and human-centric of mankind to assume this, I think. We have nothing God needs. He has everything we need.
So of course this hits the ‘not-God’ touchstone. Since it’s not God. He does not demand that we love Him because He somehow needs our love, but because it is best for us. It is better for us to love God, than for us to love any human partner. So if we are ever faced with a choice between the two, we should choose the better option.
Mostly we do not face such a stark choice, fortunately. And we can both love our partner and love God. Which I think is the ideal.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Quinine
Shipmate
# 1668
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Isn't there a quote somewhere which suggests that someone who is not able to love a person who they have seen cannot properly be able to love God, whom they have not seen?
I don’t think so. Sounds a bit like you’re misremembering John 20:26.” Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
[/QB]
No, Penny S is correct.
1 John 4:20
'Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.'
Posts: 252 | From: In a fen | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
I'd hate to have to make that choice for myself, but if presented with a stark choice between loving God or loving another person, I think there is only one right answer.
I think one would have to explain how such a situation arises. Love is, in itself, a Good Thing. As such it is of God, and something has gone wrong if it is in opposition to God. Most of John's first epistle, as Quinine says, is all about this.
Of course you can propose circumstances where some extra factor comes into play that does turn love into a Bad Thing. e.g. If you're born into one of those gangland families where you either have to disavow your relatives or join in the family cocaine-pushing. In the case of homosexuality, the problem is that conservatives have generally been unable to show what that extra factor would be.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Love is, in itself, a Good Thing. As such it is of God, and something has gone wrong if it is in opposition to God.
Such as the fall perhaps?
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Thanks, Quinine. I wasn't even sure if what I recalled was Biblical.
As for the Rabbi, the piece set by Thomas Tallis was echoing in my head, so I wasn't entirely sure of it, but I wouldn't want to challenge another's religion on heresy. Does Judaism even have the concept? I'm pretty sure he was Reform, though.
Then again, with the Trinity, there is a companionship built in, which Judaism wouldn't recognise.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I've just been nosing around with various search terms, and it seems the idea of God creating man as a companion is out there, but I couldn't find an authoritative source that was accessible - references to books that looked useful. It looks as though the word companion doesn't mean quite what we think it means in the original.
It looks as though the way He chose to make us in His image is the key to the idea. This differs from the way everything else was made, including the making of the angels. There are pages about debates in the court of heaven about creating us!
It's jolly difficult trying to weed out Christian and Islamic references, even with terms including only Judaism and Jewish.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Love is, in itself, a Good Thing. As such it is of God, and something has gone wrong if it is in opposition to God.
Such as the fall perhaps?
Well yes, but simply saying 'the Fall' isn't an explanation unless one can show how it is manifest in a particular situation*. So in the mafioso example one can say the Fall is made manifest in the Family's drug-running. It's less obvious how the Fall is manifest in a homosexual relationship unless you list all those areas in which heterosexual couples fall short too, e.g. jealousy, quarrels, etc.
* Unless one takes the slightly odd line that is implied in certain Calvinist circles, whereby it is apparently possible for the regenerate and the unregenerate to behave in an exactly identical way but only the regenerate's Good Deeds are 'counted'.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
True Ricardus. But then we're shifting the focus to details, which wasn't the purpose of my post (and not really possible to generalise about). I was only responding to your comment that love is, in itself, a good thing. I was saying that I disagree. It's important to understand, I think, that like all things intended by God for our good, it can be, and often is, corrupted by our sinful state.
Love is not holy by itself. It is only holy when it brings us closer to God.
I am not trying to argue that homosexual love is not holy and hetro love is. That is not the purpose of my posts. I am arguing that all love needs to be measured against whether it brings us closer to love for God or not. If our love, for whoever, leads us to choose (as per the mother in the OP) to abandon love of God for human love, then that human love is sinful.
The 'fall' can, among it's effects, present us with that choice on occasion. And we, in our fallen state, can be tempted by human love to choose such immediate pleasures as our first priority - our idol.
That is the measure of whether our love is holy or sinful, not whether a relationship manifests jealousy, quarrel's etc. Measuring the manifestations of the fall in a relationship is a poor measure of the holiness of that love, since all couples are unique. A couple whose love is sinful may yet present an almost perfect picture of marital harmony, whereas a Christian couple may struggle with serious issues throughout their lives. The true measure is faithfulness and love towards God.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I've just been nosing around with various search terms, and it seems the idea of God creating man as a companion is out there, but I couldn't find an authoritative source that was accessible - references to books that looked useful. It looks as though the word companion doesn't mean quite what we think it means in the original.
It looks as though the way He chose to make us in His image is the key to the idea. This differs from the way everything else was made, including the making of the angels. There are pages about debates in the court of heaven about creating us!
It's jolly difficult trying to weed out Christian and Islamic references, even with terms including only Judaism and Jewish.
I think I remember David Pawson saying that true love loves something outside itself. Therefore God created humanity, and the rest of the universe, in order to fulfil his nature as Perfect Love. That come close to the idea of humanity being a companion for God, without any sense that God is incomplete as God. Certainly it's an idea that I've heard form several sources, but Pawson is the only one I can bring to mind at the moment.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I think I remember David Pawson saying that true love loves something outside itself. Therefore God created humanity, and the rest of the universe, in order to fulfil his nature as Perfect Love. That come close to the idea of humanity being a companion for God, without any sense that God is incomplete as God. Certainly it's an idea that I've heard form several sources, but Pawson is the only one I can bring to mind at the moment.
I think that's Bulgakov's position as well.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Was Bulgakov one of the background characters in Cheers?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Was Bulgakov one of the background characters in Cheers?
The Russian hieromonk. You couldn't miss him.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Thought so. Sat in the corner drinking vodka until the producers got him to do a Cossack dance for a quick laugh.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
