People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves ... gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are.<ref>{{NC}}</ref>

{{Set off quote 1

|I believe that if the Lord were speaking to you directly tonight, the first thing He would make sure you understand is your true identity. My dear friends, you are literally spirit children of God. ...

This counsel can also apply to using the label "straight" or "gay" to refer to children of God.  In 1995, Elder Oaks taught:

 

 

 

The way we think about such things can determine whether we apply a theological lens to them, as Bishop Keith B. McMullin taught in 2010:

Church leaders have, therefore, consistently emphasized that such temptations and desires do not form a core or irreducible part of our nature. As Elder Boyd K. Packer said:

And so, now to the subject. To introduce it I must use a word. ... Please notice that I use it as an adjective, not as a noun; I reject it as a noun. I speak to those few, those very few, who may be subject to homosexual temptations. I repeat, I accept that word as an adjective to describe a temporary condition. I reject it as a noun naming a permanent one. <ref>{{Book:Packer:To The One}}</ref>

= This explains why Latter-day Saints often refer to homosexual/gay/lesbian issues with such terms as "same-sex attraction" =

Latter-day Saint doctrine emphasizes that people are not the sum of their desires, temptations, or sins.  Secular evidence suggests that those who self-identify with their desires in this way are more likely to engage in acts which the gospel of Christ teaches are sinful.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks pointed out a natural human tendency to use a single facet of our personality or experience as a large part of a self-definition:

I think it is an accurate statement to say that some people consider feelings of same-gender attraction to be the defining fact of their existence. There are also people who consider the defining fact of their existence that they are from Texas or that they were in the United States Marines. Or they are red-headed, or they are the best basketball player that ever played for such-and-such a high school. People can adopt a characteristic as the defining example of their existence and often those characteristics are physical.

 

We have the agency to choose which characteristics will define us; those choices are not thrust upon us.

 

The ultimate defining fact for all of us is that we are children of Heavenly Parents, born on this earth for a purpose, and born with a divine destiny. Whenever any of those other notions, whatever they may be, gets in the way of that ultimate defining fact, then it is destructive and it leads us down the wrong path. <ref>{{Periodical:Oaks Wickman:Same Gender Attraction:2006}}</ref>

When labels such as "homosexual," or "heterosexual", and labels such as "gay," "lesbian," or "straight" are used by members of the Church, this terminology should be understood to:

* reflect the self-understanding of those referred to; ''or''

* serve as an adjective (e.g., "gay activists" are those [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Non discrimination ordinances|working politically]] on behalf of those who self-identify as gay; or "heterosexual marriage" is a marriage between two people of the opposite sex regardless of sexual orientation).

= The language used to describe people or phenomena influences how we perceive or think about them. =

The American Psychological Association {APA) gives the following definition for sexual orientation:

 

Thus having same-sex attractions, participating in same-sex relationships, and identifying as gay or lesbian are three separate things.

 

 

 

 

<blockquote>

the First Presidency's letters condemning homosexuality are, by their explicit terms, directed at the practices of homosexuality.<ref>{{NC}}</ref>

How does this compare with the dictionary?  The ''American Heritage Dictionary'' defines ''homosexual'' as someone exhibiting ''homosexuality''.  It defines ''homosexuality'' as:

Both the dictionary and Elder Oaks illustrate that ''homosexual'' can refer to thoughts or behaviors. Latter-day Saints may wish to communicate one thing about their thoughts, but quite another by their behavior. They therefore often choose language that makes this distinction clear.

We should refrain from using these words as nouns to identify particular conditions or specific persons. Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual behavior.<ref>{{NC}}</ref>

The ''American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style'' gives a similar warning against using ''gay'' as a noun:

Gay is often considered objectionable when used as a noun to refer to particular individuals, as in "There were two gays on the panel"; here phrasing such as "Two members of the panel were gay" should be used instead. <ref>[[http://books.google.com/books?id=xb6ie6PqYhwC&pg=PA201&lpg=PA201&dq=%22Gay+is+often+considered+objectionable+when+used+as+a+noun+to+refer+to+particular+individuals,+as+in+%22There+were+two+gays+on+the+panel%22;+here+phrasing+such+as+%22Two+members+of+the+panel+were+gay%22+should+be+used+instead.%22&source=bl&ots=225hcickre&sig=RibPu7wKH1p58B8edHK1dB9e5bg&hl=en&ei=iWPxTIelBcSblgevg52kDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22Gay%20is%20often%20considered%20objectionable%20when%20used%20as%20a%20noun%20to%20refer%20to%20particular%20individuals%2C%20as%20in%20%22There%20were%20two%20gays%20on%20the%20panel%22%3B%20here%20phrasing%20such%20as%20%22Two%20members%20of%20the%20panel%20were%20gay%22%20should%20be%20used%20instead.%22&f=false ''American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style''] (Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005), 201.</ref>

''New York Times'':

''Washington Post'':

When it is necessary to mention it, gay may be used as an adjective but not as a noun, except as a plural: gay man, gay woman, gay people, gays. Not a gay ...

Those who claim that the Church has long condemned those who had homosexual feelings or inclinations regardless of whether they acted upon such feelings have not accurately reflected the long-standing teaching of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles.  Recent teaching of this doctrine is not a novelty, but merely an emphasis of that which has been long taught.

This principle applies to sexual thoughts and actions.  Church leaders have always taught that we need to learn to control our sexual actions.  Our sexual natures are sacred, and should only be shared between a husband and a wife.  But this law is not limited to sexual acts, but includes sexual feelings.  The church teaches members to "never do anything outside of marriage to arouse the powerful emotions that must be expressed only in marriage".  It is the intentional stimulation of sexual feelings that is prohibited, not merely having sexual feelings.  This standard applies equally to all.

The unholy transgression of homosexuality is either rapidly growing or tolerance is giving it wider publicity. If one has such '''desires and tendencies''', he overcomes them the same as if he had the urge toward petting or fornication or adultery. The Lord condemns and forbids this '''practice''' with a vigor equal to his condemnation of '''adultery and other such sex acts'''. And the Church will excommunicate as readily '''any unrepentant addict'''.<ref>{{NC}}, {{ea}}</ref>

We note that homosexuality is compared to ''acts'' such as petting, fornication, or adultery.  Those who are excommunicated are those who are unrepentant persist as "addicts": i.e., those who will not desist.

Again, contrary to the belief and statement of many people, this sin, '''like fornication''', is overcomable and forgivable, but again, only upon a deep and abiding repentance, which means '''total abandonment''' and complete transformation of thought and act. The fact that some governments and some churches and numerous corrupted individuals have tried to reduce such '''behavior''' from criminal offense to personal privilege does not change the nature nor the seriousness of the '''practice'''. Good men, wise men, God-fearing men everywhere still denounce the practice as being unworthy of sons and daughters of God; and Christ’s church denounces it and condemns it so long as men and women have bodies which can be defiled.<ref>{{NC}}, {{ea}}</ref>

James said: 'A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. … 'Blessed is the man that '''endureth temptation''': for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.

'Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:     

'But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

'Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.       

'Do not err, my beloved brethren' ({{b||James|1|8,12-16}}).

Again, one is tempted but it requires a sinful ''response'' to temptation from our own lust to "bring...forth sin."

'God made me that way,' some say, as they rationalize and excuse themselves for their perversions. 'I can’t help it,' they add. This is blasphemy. ... Man is '''responsible for his own sins'''. It is possible that he may rationalize and excuse himself until the groove is so deep he cannot get out without great difficulty, but this he can do. Temptations come to all people. '''The difference between the reprobate and the worthy person is generally that one yielded and the other resisted'''. It is true that one’s background may make the decision and accomplishment easier or more difficult, but if one is mentally alert, he can still control his future. That is the gospel message—personal responsibility. ...

President Kimball emphasizes that some may be more vulnerable or susceptible to this temptation (or any other temptation) but emphasizes that one is only unworthy (or sinful) if he yields to temptation.

President Kimball had high hopes that people could overcome the practice of homosexuality, but warned that the feelings could well remain and need to be controlled on an on-going basis.  He said:

In a few months, some have totally mastered themselves ... We realize that the cure is no more permanent than the individual makes it so and is like the cure for alcoholism subject to continued vigilance.

Prophets of God have repeatedly taught through the ages that practices of homosexual relations, fornication, and adultery are grievous sins. ... Mankind has been given agency to choose between right and wrong. ... Mental control must be stronger than physical appetites or desires of the flesh. As thoughts are brought into complete harmony with revealed truth, actions will then become appropriate.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Reverence and Morality|date=April 1987|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1987/04/reverence-and-morality?lang=eng}}</ref>

‘Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

‘Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong’ ({{b|2|Cor.|12|9-10}}).

Whatever our susceptibilities or tendencies [feelings], they cannot subject us to eternal consequences unless we exercise our free agency to do or think the things forbidden by the commandments of God. For example, a susceptibility to alcoholism impairs its victim’s freedom to partake without addiction, but his free agency allows him to abstain and thus escape the physical debilitation of alcohol and the spiritual deterioration of addiction. ...

Beware the argument that because a person has strong drives toward a particular act, he has no power of choice and therefore no responsibility for his actions. This contention runs counter to the most fundamental premises of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

There is much we do not know about the extent of freedom we have in view of the various thorns in the flesh that afflict us in mortality. But this much we do know; we all have our free agency and God holds us accountable for the way we use it in thought and deed. That is fundamental.<ref>Dallin H. Oaks, "Free Agency and Freedom," Brigham Young University 1987-88 Devotional and Fireside Speeches (Provo: BYU Publications, 1988), 46-47; an edited version is available in {{Book:Nyman Tate:Second Nephi|pages=13-15}}</ref>

There is a distinction between immoral thoughts and feelings and participating in either immoral heterosexual or any homosexual behavior.<ref>First Presidency, letter, 14 November 1991.</ref>

'''Some bad thoughts come by themselves'''. Others come because we invite them by what we look at and listen to. ... The mind can think of only one thing at a time. Use that fact to crowd out ugly thoughts. Above all, don’t feed thoughts by reading or watching things that are wrong. If you don’t control your thoughts, Satan will keep tempting you until you eventually act them out.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Richard G. Scott|article=Making the Right Choices|date=October 1994|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1994/10/making-the-right-choices?lang=eng}}, {{ea}}</ref>

Persons cannot continue to engage in serious sin and remain members of the Church. And discipline can be given for encouraging sin by others. There is no Church discipline for improper thoughts or feelings (though there is encouragement to improve them), but there are consequences for behavior. ...

[W]e should always distinguish between sinful acts and inappropriate feelings or potentially dangerous susceptibilities. We should reach out lovingly to those who are struggling to resist temptation. The First Presidency did this in their 14 November 1991 letter. After reaffirming the sinful nature of "fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior," the Presidency added: "Individuals and their families desiring help with these matters should seek counsel from their bishop, branch president, stake or district president. We encourage Church leaders and members to reach out with love and understanding to those struggling with these issues. Many will respond to Christlike love and inspired counsel as they receive an invitation to come back and apply the atoning and healing power of the Savior."<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 1995|pages=9}}</ref>

Our hearts reach out to those who struggle with feelings of affinity for the same gender. We remember you before the Lord, we sympathize with you, we regard you as our brothers and our sisters. However, we cannot condone immoral practices on your part any more than we can condone immoral practices on the part of others.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Stand Strong Against the Wiles of the World|date=Women's Meeting, Sept 1995|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/stand-strong-against-the-wiles-of-the-world?lang=eng}}</ref>

That may be a struggle from which '''you will not be free in this life. If you do not act on temptations, you need feel no guilt'''. They [the feelings or temptations] may be extremely difficult to resist. But that is better than to yield and bring disappointment and unhappiness to you and those who love you.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=Ye Are The Temple of God|date=November 2000|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/-ye-are-the-temple-of-god-?lang=eng}}</ref>

In the Church, one is not condemned for tendencies or temptations. One is held accountable for transgression. (See {{s||D&C|101|78}}; {{s||A+of+F|1|2}}). If you do not act on unworthy persuasions, you will neither be condemned nor be subject to Church discipline.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=The Standard of Truth Has Been Erected|date=October 2003|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2003/10/-the-standard-of-truth-has-been-erected-?lang=eng}}</ref>

The New Testament affirms that God has given us commandments that are difficult to keep. It is in {{s|1|Corinthians|16|16}}: "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it."<ref>{{Periodical:Oaks Wickman:Same Gender Attraction:2006|pages=xxx}}</ref>

He went on to emphasize: "[L]et me make it clear that attractions alone, troublesome as they may be, do not make one unworthy. ... If you do not act on temptations, you have not transgressed."

Many people with same-gender attraction respect the sacredness of their bodies and the standards God has set—that sexuality be expressed "only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife" ("The Family: A Proclamation to the World,"  Ensign, Nov. 1995, 102). ''The lives of these individuals are pleasing to our Father in Heaven''. Some, however, cross this boundary and indulge in immoral conduct. The desire for physical gratification does not authorize immorality by anyone. ...

An understanding of eternal truths is a powerful motivation for righteous behavior. You are best served by concentrating on the things you can presently understand and control, not wasting energy or enlarging frustration by worrying about that which God has not yet fully revealed. Focus on living the simple truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Same-gender inclinations may be very powerful, but through faith in the Atonement you can receive the power to ''resist all improper conduct'', keeping your life free from sin.<ref>{{Periodical:Church:God Loveth His Children:2007|pages={{NC}}, {{ia}}}}</ref>

You may not have consciously chosen to have same-gender attraction, but you are faithfully choosing to deal with it.  Sometimes that attraction may make you feel sinful, even though the attraction alone is not a sin if you do not act on it.  Sometimes you may feel frustration or anger or simply a deep sadness about yourself.  But as hard as same-gender attraction is, your feeling that attraction does not mean that your nature is flawed. Whenever the adversary tries to convince you that you are hopelessly "that way," so that acting out your feelings is inevitable, he is lying. He is the father of lies...

It’s true that the law of chastity forbids all sexual relations outside the bonds of a married heterosexual relationship. And while same-gender attraction is not a sin, you need to resist cultivating immoral, lustful thoughts toward those of either gender.  It’s no sin if a bird lands in your tree, just don’t let him build a nest there. ... if you feel an attraction you didn’t seek and haven’t acted on, you have nothing to repent of.<ref>{{Periodical:Hafen:Evergreen:2009}}</ref>

The Church recognizes that those of its members who are attracted to others of the same sex experience deep emotional, social and physical feelings. The Church distinguishes between feelings or inclinations on the one hand and behavior on the other. It’s not a sin to have feelings, only in yielding to temptation

If members feel same-gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders should support and encourage them in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control unrighteous thoughts. These members may receive Church callings. If they are worthy and qualified in every other way, they may also hold temple recommends and receive temple ordinance.<ref>{{Book:Church:CHI:2:2010|section=21|sub1=4|sub2=6}}</ref>

As discussed above,{{nc}} self-identity determines behavior more than sexual orientation. Not only are there significant differences between a person's sexual orientation and their chosen behavior, but such things can change over time.  The study indicated that of the 4.9% of men and 4.1% of women who have ever had a homosexual experience since the age of 18, only 2.7% of men and 1.3% of women had one in the last year.  Some people change their sexual behavior based on religious beliefs.  Others reported that they were no longer attracted to the same sex.  The American Psychiatric Association has stated "Some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime."<ref>American Psychiatric Association (May 2000). "[http://www.aglp.org/pages/cfactsheets.html#Anchor-Gay-14210 Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues]". Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists.</ref> The way this develops varies from person to person. A report from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health states that, "For some people, sexual orientation is continuous and fixed throughout their lives. For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time."<ref>{{NC}}</ref>

We are freed from some temptations over time, and must bear with others our whole lives.

{{center title|Scripture and homosexual behavior&mdash;Old Testament}}

= Why wasn't the prohibition against same-sex relationships rescinded when the rest of the law of Moses was rescinded? =

As Latter-day Saints, we are blessed to be guided by modern revelation.  We do not need to limit our understanding to what has been written in ancient texts.  However, some critics have asserted that our stance on same-sex relationships should have been recinded with the rest of the law of Moses.

Unlike some of the surrounding pagan cultures in the ancient near east,  

The Levitical laws, however, criminalized not only the behavior of all homosexual rapists but also the behavior of both partners in a consensual act of same-sex intercourse. Both have committed an abominable act. They also applied the same sanctions to Israelite and resident alien alike and made no concessions for homosexual intercourse with a person of unequal social status. ...

The level at which the Levitical laws stigmatize and criminalize all homosexual intercourse, while not discontinuous with some trends elsewhere, goes far beyond anything else currently known in the ancient near east. ...

The question of homosexual orientation was surely irrelevant to the denunciation of same-sex intercourse [in Israelite scripture], just as any debate about an orientation toward incest (or bestiality) would have been irrelevant. It was the act that mattered. ...

In our own cultural context we think that the banning of male cult prostitution does not take into account consensual, non-cultic, loving homosexual relationships. In the cultural context of the ancient Near East the reasoning has to be reversed: to ban homosexual cult prostitutes was to ban all homosexual intercourse. In any case, the authors of {{s||Lev|18|22}} could have formulated the law more precisely by making specific reference to the [cultic prostitutes] (as in {{s||Deut|23|17-18}}), if it had been their intent to limit the law's application. That they did not do so suggests that they had a broader application in mind. Moreover, the Levitical rejection of same— sex intercourse depends on Canaanite practices for its validity about as much as the rejection of incest, adultery, and bestiality.

<ref name="gagnon">Robert A. J. Gagnon, ''The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermaneutics'' (Abingdon Press, 2010).</ref>{{Rp|69, 80-81, 132}}

== Adultery, which includes all sexual relationships outside that of a husband and a wife, was forbidden under the 10 commandments ==

{{s||Exodus|20|14}} reads: "Thou shalt not commit adultery."

 

Leviticus expands on what types of relationships qualify as adultery.  As with much of the Old Testament, it was written for a male audience. Sexual relationships between females was not specifically condemned in Leviticus, but is covered in the 10 commandments. {{s||Leviticus|18|22}} reads:

<blockquote>

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

{{s||Leviticus|20|13}}:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

There are aspects of the Leviticus commands that involve ritual uncleanness (e.g., avoiding sexual intercourse during menstruation). However, the way Leviticus ''discusses and describes'' those commands&mdash;which were rescinded in the Christian era&mdash;and the commands about adultery, incest, beastiality, and homosexual behavior&mdash;which remained in force, are quite different.

The word ''toebah'' [= abomination] is restricted in Leviticus to forms of sexual immorality that can be characterized in three ways: (1) a sexual act regarded by Yahweh as utterly detestable and abhorrent; (2) a sexual act which rendered the individual participants liable to the death penalty or being "cut off from God's people"; (3) a sexual act which, if left unpunished by the nation, put the entire nation at risk of God's consuming wrath, God's departure from the midst of the people, and expulsion of the people from the land of Canaan (18:22, 26-30; 20:13). Homosexual intercourse is singled out among other abominable sexual acts in {{s||Leviticus|8|}} and 20 as a form of sexual misconduct particularly worthy of the designation ''toebah''. It is dificult to see how one can speak of this or other acts in {{s||Leviticus|1|}} 8 and 20 as "ceremonially unclean rather than inherently evil".<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|118-119}}

This author then quotes another expert, who writes<ref>David F. Greenberg, ''The Construction of Homosexuality'' (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), 195-196.</ref>:

Leviticus does recognize forms of ritual uncleanness that are not morally condemned, e.g., childbirth, seminal emission, heterosexual intercourse, and menstruation. Purification from these pollutions is accomplished quite simply through bathing and sacrifice. The word ''toevah'' is not used to refer to these conditions, nor are they punished. ... Idolatry was not simply unclean; it was a grave offense. ... That intercourse with a menstruating woman is also classified as an abomination along with homosexuality is an indication not, as Boswell suggests, that the latter offense [homosexuality] was considered trivial, but rather that the former was considered extremely grave.

So for an Israelite was there no difference between sex with a menstruating woman and homosexuality? No&mdash;the punishment for homosexual offenses was death, unlike the penalty for having sexual relations with a menstruating woman. In the latter case,

The menstrual period was the time that God had given women to cleanse their bodies from impurity as a prelude to renewing a cycle of fertility (a sabbath of sorts from sex). It was not the time for men to intrude with procreative designs. Deliberate intercourse during a menstrual period not only had the effect of "wasting seed" but also of putting one's own desires at cross-purposes with God's timing. Men were required to exercise self-restraint and wait for divinely created processes to run their course.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|138}}

By contrast, homosexual acts were part of a very small group of behaviors for which capital punishment could be imposed, as Gagnon points out:

in {{s||Leviticus|0|}}, the only other acts that are specifically connected with the death penalty are:

[c] adultery (20:10), <br>

[d] some forms of incest (20:11-12), marriage to a wife and her mother (20:14), and <br>

[e] bestiality (20:15-16).<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|195n182}}

most of {{s||Leviticus|8|20}} can be thought of as an expanded commentary on the ten commandments, with prohibitions against idolatry and witchcraft, stealing and lying, adultery and incest; and commands to honor one's parents, keep the sabbath, and to "love one's neighbor as oneself" ({{s||Lev|19|18}}). Ritual and moral, eternal and contingent, are combined in the profile of holiness developed in {{s||Leviticus|7|26}}. Christians do not have the option of simply dismissing an injunction because it belongs to the Holiness Code [of Leviticus].<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|123}}

Therefore, as one biblical scholar noted:

One might then counter, "Okay, these biblical authors were opposed to male, same-sex cult prostitution. But that only tells us what the author believed about consensual homosexual practice conducted in the context of idolatrous cults and prostitution, not the kind of loving expressions of homosexuality we witness today." Such a rationale would overlook the ancient Near Eastern context. The Mesopotamian evidence ... makes clear that the most acceptable form of same-sex intercourse—not the least acceptable was precisely same-sex intercourse conducted in a [pagan] religious context. Otherwise, for a man to want to be penetrated by another man was generally regarded as disgraceful. ...

 

When the biblical authors rejected homosexual cult prostitutes ... they were in effect rejecting the whole phenomenon of homosexual practice. They were repudiating a form of homosexual intercourse that was the most palatable in their cultural context. If they rejected that particular form of homosexual practice, how much more all other forms? Certainly the prohibition against cross-dressing in {{s||Deut|22|5}} [which cultic prostitutes engaged in] puts this beyond doubt (any obscuring of male-female sexual differences is "an abomination [toebah] to Yahweh your God, everyone who does these things"), as does the absolute form of the prohibition in {{s||Lev|18|22}} and {{s_short|Leviticus|20|13}}.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|112-113}}

{{center title|Scripture and homosexual behavior: New Testament<br><br>Jesus and the gospels}}

 

 

First, how did Jews in Jesus' day understand homosexual acts? Because of the Leviticus Holiness Code, they were completely opposed to them: "early Judaism was unanimous in its rejection of homosexual conduct. We are unaware of any dissenting voice."<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|215}} In fact, "given the severe stance against homosexual intercourse in the Levitical laws, it is inconceivable that any non-apostate Jew in antiquity would argue for the legitimacy of male-male sexual intercourse."<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|217-218}}

The Jewish world in which Jesus lived set a very strict moral standard, especially against the backdrop of the infamous promiscuity of the Greeks and Romans.  Sexual relationships were absolutely forbidden outside of marriage.  Christ validated these teachings, by teaching against adultery and fornication ({{s||Matthew|19|18}}, {{s||Matthew|15|19}})

Second, Jesus tended to ''intensify'' or ''strengthen'' commandments about sexual matters, not loosen them. Rather than not committing adultery, his followers were not to even lust after someone, for "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery already in his heart" ({{s||Matthew|5|28}}). The law of Moses made provision for divorce, but Jesus taught against it except in cases of sexual infidelity (){{s_short||Matthew|19|8-9}}.

All sexual relations outside of marriage were sinful in Judaism, and Jewish marriage presupposed a male/female marriage, as Jesus emphasized:

For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. ({{s||Matt|19|5-6}})

</blockquote>

Jesus did differ with the Judaism of his day on some points, but on these matters he was clear and direct about his opposition. Without him saying anything about same-sex behavior, none of his audience would have assumed anything except that such things were grave sins:

The univocal stance against homosexual conduct, both in ancient Israel and the Judaism of Jesus' day, makes it highly unlikely that Jesus' silence on the issue ought to be construed as acceptance of such conduct. Jesus was not shy about expressing his disapproval of the conventions of his day. Silence on the subject could only have been understood by his disciples as acceptance of the basic position embraced by all Jews. If Jesus had wanted to communicate afi‘irmation of same-sex unions he would have had to state such a view clearly since first—century Judaism, so far as we know, had no dissenting voices on the matter. Without a clear statement none of his disciples would have made such a logical leap.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|249-250}}

In short,  

the silence of Jesus on the subject, combined with other factors, makes Jesus' opposition to same-sex intercourse historically probable. Indeed, the word "silence" can only be used in a very constricted sense. Jesus made no ''direct'' or ''explicit'' comments on samesex intercourse, just as he made no direct comments about many other important subjects. In a larger sense, though, Jesus was not silent about same-sex intercourse inasmuch as the inferential data speaks loud and clear about Jesus' perspective. ... [T]he ways in which Jesus integrated demands for mercy and righteous conduct in his teaching and ministry do not lend support for the view that Jesus might have taken a positive or neutral approach to same-sex intercourse.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|249}}

Jesus also did not mention other sexual sins also listed in the Holiness Code (e.g., incest, bestiality). We would not, however, conclude from that that he thought such behavior was acceptable.

The portrayal of a Jesus as a first-century Palestinian Jew who was open to homosexual practice is simply ahistorical. All the evidence leads in the opposite direction. Why, then, did Jesus not make an explicit statement against homosexual conduct? The obvious answer is that Jesus did not encounter any openly homosexual people in his ministry and therefore had no need to call anyone to repentance for homosexual conduct. He also did not address other sexual issues such as incest and bestiality, but that hardly indicates a neutral or positive stance on such matters. What is clear from the evidence that the texts do offer is that the historical Jesus is no defender of homosexual behavior. To the contrary, Jesus, both in what he says and what he fails to say, remains squarely on the side of those who reject homosexual practice.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|286}}  

{{center title|Scripture and homosexual behavior: New Testament<br><br>The early Church and the apostles}}

== The law of Moses was fulfilled, but Christianity still required converts abstain from ''porneia'' ==

Christ fulfilled the law of Moses, but the early Christians were not sure what this meant.  At the beginning, the Christians continued to follow the law of Moses, including prohibitions against same-sex relationships.  Then Peter had a vision where he saw a sheet containing four-footed beasts, which were ritually unclean under the law of Moses.  He was commanded to eat, but he resisted, because of the ritual laws.  The Lord responded:

What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. ({{s||Acts|10|15}})

Later Peter was invited to eat with a Gentile names Cornelious, which was also against the law of Moses.  Peter understood the revelation meant that it was no longer necessary to follow the law of Moses in such matters.  (See {{s||Acts|0|}} for the whole story)  However, the question remained&mdash;what parts of the law were rescinded, and which needed to be followed by Gentiles who converted to Christianity?

== The Jerusalem council ==

Of particular concern was whether circumcision was necessary&mdash;this is partly because of the physical pain which adult males might fear, but also because Gentile culture tended to regard circumcision as a barbarous practice.  The apostles met in conference at Jerusalem, and concluded:

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you [Gentile Christian converts] no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.  ({{s||Acts|15|28-29}})

</blockquote>

The word translated "fornication" is ''porneia''&mdash;it had a broader sense even than "fornication". (The word "porno-graphy" comes from ''porenia''.) Jesus had taught against ''porneia'', and the apostles repeated it:

In {{s||Mark|7|21-23}}, Jesus interprets his saying about what defiles a person as follows: "for it is from . . . the human heart that evil intentions come: sexual immoralities (porneiai) . . . adulteries . . . licentiousness . . . . All these evil things come from within and defile a person." No first- century Jew could have spoken of porneiai (plural) without having in mind the list of forbidden sexual offenses in {{s||Leviticus|8|}} and {{s_short||Leviticus|20|}} (incest, adultery, same-sex intercourse, bestiality). The statement underscores that sexual behavior does matter. If Jesus made this remark, he undoubtedly would have understood homosexual behavior to be included among the list of offenses.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|251-252}}

There can be little doubt that the early Christians would have understood this&mdash;for example, Paul cited Christ's teachings on fornication to condemn and excommunicate a man who had sex with his father's wife ({{s|1|Corinthians|5|1-5}}). This was a form of incest condemned by the Holiness Code in Leviticus just as homosexual acts were.

This is further illustrated by the first to second century A.D. text ''Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs''. A historian of the radical differences between Jewish/Christian sexual ethics and the pagan ethics of the Romans wrote:

[In] the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs ... ''porneia'' has become the "mother of all evils." The Testament is invaluable because its unusual detail confirms that ''porneia'' could be used to describe a whole array of improper sexual configurations: incest, prostitution, exogamy, homosexuality, and unchastity.

The apostles therefore made it clear that most of the Mosaic laws were no longer operative&mdash;but the sexual restrictions of the Holiness Code remained a key part of Christian life.

{{center title|Scripture and homosexual behavior: New Testament<br><br>Paul}}

The New Testament's most detailed condemnation of same-sex acts comes from Paul, however, in {{s||Romans|1|}}. This too is a good example of how Jesus and other devout Jews would have understood matters.

Paul uses the example of same-sex behavior in an interesting way. He is attempting to demonstrate that pagans are sinners and require atonement to reconcile them to God. This is something that no first century Jew would have doubted.

But, we might ask, why would pagans/gentiles be condemned for not living the law of Moses, which they had not received? Paul agreed. He therefore chose two areas which knew he and his audience would agree that all people on earth were bound by.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|198n185}}

== The first command&mdash;no idolatry ==

Paul starts with the first such command&mdash;the command not to worship idols. Paul argues that even Gentiles have had this revealed to them:

[18] The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, [19] since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. [20] For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

[21] For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. [22] Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools [23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles ({{s||Romans|1|18-23}}, NIV).

== The second command&mdash;no homosexual sin ==

As a second bit of evidence of the gentiles' need to repent, Paul offers&mdash;homosexual acts. "Therefore," he writes, [because they became fools and made idols], "God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. ... Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts" ({{s||Romans|1|24,26}}, NIV):

[26] Even their women exchanged ''natural'' sexual relations for ''unnatural'' ones. [27] In the same way the men also abandoned ''natural'' relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error ({{s||Romans|1|26-27}}, NIV, {{ia}}.

Paul also argues that even a pagan should be able to tell that this is a sinful act, since it requires using the body in an "unnatural" way&mdash;in a way that God did not intend. That does not mean (and it would not have meant to Paul) that some people do not naturally have such desires.  

Instead, Paul is appealing to something that "even a gentile" can see. They might not have Torah, they might not have the Law of Moses, they might not be Christians&mdash;but even they should be able to see that male and female organs are intended to go together, to "fit." In the same way, Paul was arguing that it was obvious that males and males were not "designed" for sexual relations.

And, Paul uses this as both ''evidence'' for the gentiles' wilfull blindness, and as the ''punishment'' for their wilfull blindness about the nature of God as greater than their idols:

The power of Paul's argument lies precisely in its simplicity: if one disregards the book of Leviticus and asks oneself what clues existing in nature might aid in discerning the Creator's will for sexual expression, then human anatomy and procreative function comprise the most unambiguous indications of divine intent. One can debate the "naturalness" of homosexual urges. Many human emotions (for example, lust, anger, jealousy, covetousness) obviously run counter to God's intended design for nature and cannot be pronounced good simply because they are felt. Paul attributes such sinful impulses to the fall of Adam ({{s||Rom|5|12-21}}). However, anatomy is not quite as skillful a deceiver and for that reason is a more effective mediator of the truth.  All of this explains why Paul selects female and male homosexual conduct as "exhibit A" of culpable gentile depravity. First and foremost, along with idolatry, same-sex intercourse represents one of the clearest instances of conscious suppression of revelation in nature by gentiles, inasmuch as it involves denying clear anatomical gender differences and functions (leaving them "without excuse").§ Second, it stakes out the common ground between Paul and his imaginary Jewish [audience] since for Jews in antiquity homosexual conduct was a particularly repulsive example of gentile depravity.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|339}} </blockquote>

Paul thus chooses homosexual acts as a stand-in for ''all'' of the evils for which gentiles are known. It functions as something of a symbol, and he expands its application in the next verses:

[29] They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, [30] slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; [31] they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. [32] Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them ({{s||Romans|1|29-32}}).

== Springing the trap on his Jewish listeners ==

Up to this point, Paul's Jewish audience would be nodding along. These examples are intended to be "no brainers," sins so dramatic and obvious that no one doubts them&mdash;''of course'' the gentiles sin in these ways. We see it all around us!

 

But Paul's intent is not to simply "pile onto" idolaters or homosexuals. Instead, he starts from a place that he knows that his entire audience will agree. He then extends his condemnation out further, to all gentile sins. Even to here, a Jewish audience would be in agreement. But then, Paul springs his trap:

[1] You [Jewish listener], therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. [2] Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. [3] So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? [4] Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?

[5] But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. [6] God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” [7] To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. [8] But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. [9] There will be trouble and distress for every human being [Jews and Gentiles!] who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; [10] but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. [11] For God does not show favoritism.

[12] All who sin apart from the law [Gentiles] will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law [Jews] will be judged by the law ({{s||Romans|2|1-12}}, NIV).

Paul's trap is clever but clear&mdash;just as all Gentiles are under condemnation, so are all Jews! Everyone is a sinner, everyone needs repentance, and all need Christ.

These verses, then, are not intended&mdash;and we should not use them&mdash;as a reason to harshly condemn or ridicule or shun those who commit homosexual sin. After all, Paul points out, we are ''all'' in the same boat.

But if we are trying to decide if Jesus and the early Christians and the scriptures were opposed to all same-sex sexual acts, then we must acknowledge that Paul ''used such acts as an example and metaphor for all sin'' because he was so certain that his audience would understand how serious they are.

== ''Porneia'' again ==

Paul's condemnation applies to us all&mdash;but his symbolism shows how seriously homosexual sin was regarded. Like all ''porneia'' he saw it as a particularly serious problem:

"Flee ''porneia''! Every (other) sin, whatever a man does, is outside of the body; but the one who commits ''porneia'' (''ho porneudn'') sins into/against (''eigfi'') his own body" ({{s|1|Cor|6|18}}).<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|369}}

And, of anyone, Paul was the apostle most concerned about not imposing the Mosaic Law's ritual requirements on Christians&mdash;he even fought with Peter about it! {{Nc}} If Paul is concerned about ''porenia'', then we cannot decide that it simply a ritual matter. Instead, it is a vital part of the Christian life and sexual ethic.

 

 

As we have seen, the Holiness Code and Jesus' doctrine make that reading extraordinarily unlikely. But the claim that Paul and the early Christians had no "positive" models to draw on is simply false:

Even on the surface of it, the notion that mutually caring same-sex relationships first originated in modern times sounds absurd. Are we to believe that nobody with homosexual or lesbian urges in all of antiquity was able to provide a healthy example of same-sex love? In fact, moving statements [472] about the compassionate and beautiful character of same-sex love can be found in Greco-Roman literature. Among the examples are the speeches in Plato's Symposium. ...

 

Indeed, one might expect to see in the homosexual community a negative reaction against stereotyping all expressions of homoerotic behavior in antiquity as sordid, since such a stereotype would deprive the homosexual community of ancient precedents for healthy homoerotic relationships. ... [480]

 

There were certainly instances of exploitative homosexual relationships in antiquity and pederasty was the most common form of homoerotic expression. Yet that is a far cry from making the case that homosexuality in Greco-Roman society was inherently exploitative or that it was so prone to exploitation that Jews and Christians could not make the distinction between exploitative and non-exploitative forms. Victimization simply did not factor significantly in the arguments that Jews and Christians made in the ancient world. All forms of homosexual and lesbian conduct were wrong simply because of what it was not: natural sexual intercourse with the opposite sex.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|471}}

 

The early Christian church was a beleaguered minority. It was unpopular and persecuted. Their opposition to same-sex acts were not, then, an accidental or small thing. They were not simply "following their culture"&mdash;in fact, they were swimming and struggling against it.

The Roman emperor Hadrian (ruled AD 117&ndash;138) had a male lover who was mourned over the entire empire and granted divine status upon his death. As Kyle Harper, a student of the change in sexual ideals from Rome to Christianity wrote:

Nile under clouded circumstances. Hadrian’s sorrow was demonstrative, but what still defies

sky, and Antinous was worshipped as a god or hero; statues of Antinous proliferated until his

face was a universal image, known "across the inhabited world." Indeed, the haunting image

decades after Hadrian was in the grave. Provincial sycophancy and credulous paganism do not

suffice to explain such an uncontrolled efflux of grief. The image and story of Antinous

So once again, the Christians did not lack examples of loving or devoted homosexual couples. Despite this, they remained true to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles about ''porneia'', including same-sex acts.

Harper continues:

Regardless, in no sense should early Christian sexual morality be construed as

marked a discrete and categorical rupture. For the community of the faithful, the pleasures of

it came to mark the great divide between Christians and the world. Same-sex love, regardless

sexual behavior came to occupy the foreground in the landscape of human morality, in a way

that it simply never had in classical culture. "Above all else take thought for chastity; for fornication has been marked out as an exceedingly terrible thing in God’s eyes."<ref name="harper"></ref>{{Rp|1673}}

= Conclusion&mdash;Jesus, New Testament, and early Christians =

the odds of any major positive figure connected with earliest Christianity having either no opinion or a positive opinion about homosexual conduct in any form is extremely remote. To assert otherwise is to lose all touch with the historical personalities behind [554] the texts and to foster an arbitrary, gnostic exegesis. The burden of proof is decidedly on anyone who would want to argue that Jesus or any New Testament writer would have been open to same- sex intercourse. Textual silence cannot be equated with neutrality or openness, let alone support, without grossly distorting history. ...

 

In short, the universal silence in the Bible regarding an acceptable same-sex union, when combined with the explicit prohibitions, speaks volumes for a consensus disapproval of homosexual conduct. To say that there are only a few texts in the Bible that do not condone homosexual conduct is a monumental understatement of the facts. The reverse is a more accurate statement: there is not a single shred of evidence anywhere in the Bible that would even remotely suggest that same-sex unions are any more acceptable than extramarital or premarital intercourse, incest, or bestiality. <ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|553-556}}

That Paul or others did not mention these sins frequently is no surprise, and does not tell us that they were taken lightly. Their sinfulness was known by all. There is only a single reference to the sinfulness of incest in the entire New Testament in 1 Corinthians&mdash;and it is only there because Paul was condemning a member guilty of this sin. But we do not conclude thereby that incest does not matter, even if it is a loving relationship between equals.

{{center title|Latter-day Scripture}}

And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man. Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation; And that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made.  

In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; And if he does not, '''he cannot obtain it'''. (emphasis added)

{{center title|Early Latter-day Saint history}}

= Were Joseph Smith and other nineteenth century Latter-day Saints not strenuously opposed to same-sex acts or intimacy? =

== The evidence does not indicate that nineteenth-century Church members regarded homosexual acts with anything but abhorrence ==

 

It is claimed that Joseph Smith and other nineteenth century Latter-day Saints were not strenuously opposed to same-sex acts or intimacy, and that the modern Church's opposition to homosexual conduct is a later aberration. <ref>{{CriticalWork:Quinn:Same Sex Dynamics|pages=1&ndash;}}</ref>

 

D. Michael Quinn's book, ''Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example'' is responsible for this claim, though some later, agenda-driven works cite him as evidence without addressing the numerous problems with his work.  Quinn's methodology and conclusions are shoddy, he distorts and ignores evidence, and has been severely criticized by LDS and non-LDS historians.

 

The FAIR Wiki contains an analysis of this book's claims, with links to further reviews and resources: [[Specific_works/Same-Sex_Dynamics_Among_Nineteenth-Century_Americans:_A_Mormon_Example|here]].

= What are some of the unique challenges or difficulties faced by Latter-day Saints with same-sex attraction? =

== A theology that, without question, favors heterosexual relationships over homosexual relationships ==

Latter-day Saints have always believed that men and women were designed to be together in marriage. The Lord told Joseph Smith in 1831 ({{s||D&C|49|15-17}}) that

And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man. Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation; And that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made.

Thus, for Latter-day Saints, men and women are a sexual binary, and were intended to be together sexually and maritally. This design and plan began before earth life, and will continue after it.

== Church leaders have encouraged members to be particularly kind and compassionate to those struggling with homosexual feelings or inclinations ==

 

Elder Bruce C. Hafen in 2009:

During a recent stake conference in Europe, I asked the stake president if Sister Hafen and I might visit one or two of his stake members who could use a little encouragement. As we visited one young man, a single returned missionary, we found that he cared deeply about the Church but was also very troubled.  When we asked how he was doing, he began to cry and, with a look of real anguish he said, "I suffer from same-gender attraction."  My heart went out to him. The longer we talked, the more compassion I felt, as I learned that the operative word for him really was "suffer."<ref>{{Periodical:Hafen:Evergreen:2009}}</ref>

= Are Latter-day Saints with same-sex attraction encouraged to be closeted or lie about their attractions? =

== Honesty, inclusion, and fellowship are core values to the Church ==

It is claimed that:

*Members are encouraged to lie about their sexual orientation

*This isolates them from other members

Scripture repeatedly commands that we are to be one. {{s||D&C|38|27}} reads:

I say unto you, be one; and if you are not one ye are not mine.

Isolating yourself interfers with the process of being one.

It is important that we eliminate the weakness of one standing alone and substitute for it the strength of people working together. <ref>As quoted by Adam Olson in [http://lds.org/ensign/2008/04/maintaining-the-course?lang=eng Maintaining the Course]</ref>

Why is it that some of us fail to learn the very critical point that we did not come to this life to live it alone?  You can’t hide your actions from self and others. Polonius’ advice to his son, Laertes:

This above all: to thine own self be true,

And it must follow, as the night the day,

Thou canst not then be false to any man.

Hamlet, I, iii, 78-80

is valid, but must be qualified and expanded to include the concern for how to be true to yourself and your fellowman. The "isolated self" shut off from the Light of Christ makes us become fallible—open to delusion. The balance and perspective which come from caring about others and allowing others to care for us form the essence of life itself. <ref>{{nc}}</ref>

Not only are members counseled to care for others, but to allow others to care for them.  Part of being one is mourning with those that mourn, and comforting those that stand in need of comfort.({{s||Mosiah|18|8}})  This applies equally to those who have struggled with their sexual desires that cannot now be satisfied, regardless of the orientation. Elder Oaks teaches:

All should understand that persons (and their family members) struggling with the burden of same-sex attraction are in special need of the love and encouragement that is a clear responsibility of Church members, who have signified by covenant their willingness "to bear one another’s burdens"<ref>{{NC||</ref>

Isolating yourself from others and carrying your burdens by yourself intefers with these other commandments. Not only are members allowed to disclose their sexual feelings to others, they are encouraged to share their feelings with their bishop if needed.

== Are members encouraged to lie about their sexual feelings? ==

The counsel not to give sexual feelings undue attention is very different than lying about them or completely ignoring them. There is a difference between being prudent in disclosing sensitive topics and being dishonest. It would also be inappropriate to divert attention from the worship of the Savior (such as in a sacrament meeting) with talk of sexual struggles or desires. This is true whatever one's orientation. Not every subject is appropriate at every time&mdash;but that is not an encouragement to lie.

Honesty with others and with oneself has always been taught and encouraged in the church. In {{s||D&C|97|8}}, the Lord says the only ones that are acceptable before Him are those who are honest in heart.  The 13th Article of Faith teaches that we believe in being honest and true. President Monson taught:

The oft-repeated adage is ever true: "Honesty [is] the best policy." A Latter-day Saint young man lives as he teaches and as he believes. He is honest with others. He is honest with himself. He is honest with God. He is honest by habit and as a matter of course. <ref>{{nc}}</ref>

In the same way, the Church teaches against the consumption of alcohol. Alcoholics or those tempted by alcohol are not forbidden from disclosing that they struggle with alcohol. But, they should not define themselves solely by their addiction. Nor should they talk of nothing but their addiction, or distract meetings focused on other purposes by instigating a discussion about their addiction.

= Do Church leaders teach that people with same-sex attraction should not associate with each other? =

No. As with any temptation, it may be wise not to associate too closely with those who have tempted us in the past, or with whom we have made serious mistakes.  

With any behavioral change, sometimes people need to give themselves distance from old associates and friends, and find a new social circle that will support, rather than hinder, their ability to keep the commandments.

In the same way, the Church teaches against the consumption of alcohol. Alcoholics or those tempted by alcohol are not forbidden from associating with other alcoholics&mdash;but if they find that such associations lead to a preoccupation with alcohol that increases the temptation they experience, it may be wise to withdraw somewhat. An alcoholic seeking to remain sober might well go to Alcoholics Anonymous&mdash;he would be unwise, however, to go to a bar.

== Many members with same-sex attraction associate with each other through Evergreen ==

In addition to filling your garden with positive influences, you must also avoid any influence that can harm your spirituality. One of these adverse influences is obsession with or concentration on same-gender thoughts and feelings. It is not helpful to flaunt homosexual tendencies or make them the subject of unnecessary observation or discussion. It is better to choose as friends those who do not publicly display their homosexual feelings. The careful selection of friends and mentors who lead constructive, righteous lives is one of the most important steps to being productive and virtuous. Association with those of the same gender is natural and desirable, so long as you set wise boundaries to avoid improper and unhealthy emotional dependency, which may eventually result in physical and sexual intimacy. There is moral risk in having so close a relationship with one friend of the same gender that it may lead to vices the Lord has condemned. Our most important relationships are with our own families because our ties to them can be eternal.

 

Just because it is better to have close friends with similar standards does not mean that we cannot ever associate with people who have different standards than we do.  We are commanded to be "in the world, but not of the world" ({{nc}}). Even if we have a family member, friend, or coworker who is inappropriate in their sexual display, that does not mean that we cannot ever associate with that person.  There is a way to maintain our own integrity while interacting with people who have different standards. We simply need judgment and self-awareness to know which influences will be unhelpful for us at certain times of our lives.

 

= What have past and present Church leaders taught about why some people are attracted to the same sex? =

== The Church does not have an official position on the causes for same-sex attraction ==

Many Church leaders have indicated that we do not know the cause(s), and that this is a question for science.  This is not to be confused with teachings on the ''practice'' of homosexuality, which is a behavior.

Many leaders have also indicated that discerning a ''cause'' for this (or any other) temptation is, in a sense, immaterial&mdash;given that one has such a temptation, what ought one to do about it?  Below are collected a variety of quotes; most deal with same-sex attraction specifically, while a few speak in more general terms about weakness, frailties, or other mortal afflictions. All of these principles apply to a wide variety of sins, weaknesses, and temptations.

== 1980 ==

=== President Spencer W. Kimball ===

The unholy transgression of homosexuality is either rapidly growing or tolerance is giving it wider publicity. If one has such desires and tendencies, he overcomes them the same as if he had the urge toward petting or fornication or adultery. The Lord condemns and forbids this practice with a vigor equal to his condemnation of adultery and other such sex acts. And the Church will excommunicate as readily any unrepentant addict....

Temptations come to all people. The difference between the reprobate and the worthy person is generally that one yielded and the other resisted. It is true that one’s background may make the decision and accomplishment easier or more difficult, but if one is mentally alert, he can still control his future. That is the gospel message—personal responsibility. <ref>{{NewEra1|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[http://new.lds.org/new-era/1980/11/president-kimball-speaks-out-on-morality?lang=eng President Kimball Speaks Out on Morality]|date=October 1980|pages=39}}</ref>

=== Boyd K. Packer ===

Obedience is powerful spiritual medicine. It comes close to being a cure-all. ... Some frustrations we must endure without really solving the problem. Some things that ought to be put in order are not put in order because we cannot control them. Things we cannot solve, we must survive. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=Balm of Gilead|date=October 1987|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1987/10/balm-of-gilead?lang=eng}}</ref>

== 1988 ==

=== Dallin H. Oaks ===

Most of us are born with [or develop] thorns in the flesh, some more visible, some more serious than others. We all seem to have susceptibilities to one disorder or another, but whatever our susceptibilities, we have the will and the power to control our thoughts and our actions. This must be so. God has said that he holds us accountable for what we do and what we think, so our thoughts and actions must be controllable by our agency. Once we have reached the age or condition of accountability, the claim ‘I was born that way’ does not excuse actions or thoughts that fail to conform to the commandments of God. We need to learn how to live so that a weakness that is mortal will not prevent us from achieving the goal that is eternal.  

God has promised that he will consecrate our afflictions for our gain (see {{s|2|Nephi|2|2}}). The efforts we expend in overcoming any inherited [or developed] weakness build a spiritual strength that will serve us throughout eternity. Thus, when Paul prayed thrice that his ‘thorn in the flesh’ would depart from him, the Lord replied, ‘My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.’ Obedient, Paul concluded:

‘Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.  

‘Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong’ ({{b|2|Corinthians|12|9-10}}).  

Whatever our susceptibilities or tendencies [feelings], they cannot subject us to eternal consequences unless we exercise our free agency to do or think the things forbidden by the commandments of God. For example, a susceptibility to alcoholism impairs its victim’s freedom to partake without addiction, but his free agency allows him to abstain and thus escape the physical debilitation of alcohol and the spiritual deterioration of addiction. ...

Beware the argument that because a person has strong drives toward a particular act, he has no power of choice and therefore no responsibility for his actions. This contention runs counter to the most fundamental premises of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  

Satan would like us to believe that we are not responsible in this life. That is the result he tried to achieve by his contest in the pre-existence. A person who insists that he is not responsible for the exercise of his free agency because he was ‘born that way’ is trying to ignore the outcome of the War in Heaven. We are responsible, and if we argue otherwise, our efforts become part of the propaganda effort of the Adversary.  

Individual responsibility is a law of life. It applies in the law of man and the law of God. Society holds people responsible to control their impulses so we can live in a civilized society. God holds his children responsible to control their impulses in order that they can keep his commandments and realize their eternal destiny. The law does not excuse the short-tempered man who surrenders to his impulse to pull a trigger on his tormentor, or the greedy man who surrenders to his impulse to steal, or the pedophile who surrenders to his impulse to satisfy his sexual urges with children. …

There is much we do not know about the extent of freedom we have in view of the various thorns in the flesh that afflict us in mortality. But this much we do know; we all have our free agency and God holds us accountable for the way we use it in thought and deed. That is fundamental. <ref>"Free Agency and Freedom," ''Brigham Young University 1987-88 Devotional and Fireside Speeches'' (Provo: BYU Publications, 1988), 46-47; the edited version printed here is found in {{Book:Nyman Tate:Second Nephi|pages=13-15}}; cited in {{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=[https://new.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng9 Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 2005|pages=9}}</ref>

== 1990 ==

 

=== Boyd K. Packer ===

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. ...

We receive letters pleading for help, asking why should some be tormented by desires which lead toward addiction or perversion. They seek desperately for some logical explanation as to why they should have a compelling attraction, even a predisposition, toward things that are destructive and forbidden.

Why, they ask, does this happen to me? It is not fair! They suppose that it is not fair that others are not afflicted with the same temptations. They write that their bishop could not answer the "why," nor could he nullify their addiction or erase the tendency.

We are sometimes told that leaders in the Church do not really understand these problems. Perhaps we don’t. There are many "whys" for which we just do not have simple answers. But we do understand temptation, each of us, from personal experience. Nobody is free from temptations of one kind or another. That is the test of life. That is part of our mortal probation. Temptation of some kind goes with the territory. ...

 

It is not likely that a bishop can tell you what causes these conditions or why you are afflicted, nor can he erase the temptation. But he can tell you what is right and what is wrong. If you know right from wrong, you have a place to begin. That is the point at which individual choice becomes operative. That is the point at which repentance and forgiveness can exert great spiritual power…. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=Covenants|date=October 1990|url=http://new.lds.org/general-conference/1990/10/covenants?lang=eng}}</ref>

== 1993 ==

 

=== Boyd K. Packer ===

Doctrines teach us how to respond to the compelling natural impulses which too often dominate how we behave…. After the Fall, natural law had far-reaching sovereignty over mortal birth. There are what President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., called "pranks" of nature, which cause a variety of abnormalities, deficiencies, and deformities. However unfair they seem to man’s way of reasoning, they somehow suit the purposes of the Lord in the proving of mankind. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=For Time and All Eternity|date=October 1993|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/for-time-and-all-eternity?lang=eng}}</ref>

== 1994 ==

=== Richard G. Scott ===

It is important to understand that His healing can mean being cured, or having your burdens eased, or even coming to realize that it is worth it to endure to the end patiently, for God needs brave sons and daughters who are willing to be polished when in His wisdom that is His will.

Recognize that some challenges in life will not be resolved here on earth. Paul pled thrice that "a thorn in the flesh" be removed. The Lord simply answered, "My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness." He gave Paul strength to compensate so he could live a most meaningful life. He wants you to learn how to be cured when that is His will and how to obtain strength to live with your challenge when He intends it to be an instrument for growth. In either case the Redeemer will support you.  

That is why He said, "Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; … For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."

Don’t say, "No one understands me; I can’t sort it out, or get the help I need." Those comments are self-defeating. No one can help you without faith and effort on your part. Your personal growth requires that. Don’t look for a life virtually free from discomfort, pain, pressure, challenge, or grief, for those are the tools a loving Father uses to stimulate our personal growth and understanding. As the scriptures repeatedly affirm, you will be helped as you exercise ''faith in Jesus Christ''. That faith is demonstrated by a willingness to trust His promises given through His prophets11 and in His scriptures, which contain His own words. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Richard G. Scott|article=To Be Healed|date=April 1994|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1994/04/to-be-healed?lang=eng}} {{io}}</ref>

== 1995 ==

Feelings are another matter. Some kinds of feelings seem to be inborn. Others are traceable to mortal experiences. Still other feelings seem to be acquired from a complex interaction of "nature and nurture." All of us have some feelings we did not choose, but the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us that we still have the power to resist and reform our feelings (as needed) and to assure that they do not lead us to entertain inappropriate thoughts or to engage in sinful behavior.

Different persons have different physical characteristics and different susceptibilities to the various physical and emotional pressures we may encounter in our childhood and adult environments. We did not choose these personal susceptibilities either, but we do choose and will be accountable for the attitudes, priorities, behavior, and "lifestyle" we engraft upon them.

Essential to our doctrinal position on these matters is the difference between our freedom and our agency. Our freedom can be limited by various conditions of mortality, but God’s gift of agency cannot be limited by outside forces, because it is the basis for our accountability to him. The contrast between freedom and agency can be illustrated in the context of a hypothetical progression from feelings to thoughts to behavior to addiction. This progression can be seen on a variety of matters, such as gambling and the use of tobacco and alcohol.

 

Just as some people have different feelings than others, some people seem to be unusually susceptible to particular actions, reactions, or addictions. Perhaps such susceptibilities are inborn or acquired without personal choice or fault, like the unnamed ailment the Apostle Paul called "a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure" ({{b|2|Corinthians|12|7}}). One person may have feelings that draw him toward gambling, but unlike those who only dabble, he becomes a compulsive gambler. Another person may have a taste for tobacco and a susceptibility to its addiction. Still another may have an unusual attraction to alcohol and the vulnerability to be readily propelled into alcoholism. Other examples may include a hot temper, a contentious manner, a covetous attitude, and so on.

In each case (and in other examples that could be given) the feelings or other characteristics that increase susceptibility to certain behavior may have some relationship to inheritance. But the relationship is probably very complex. The inherited element may be nothing more than an increased likelihood that an individual will acquire certain feelings if he or she encounters particular influences during the developmental years. But regardless of our different susceptibilities or vulnerabilities, which represent only variations on our mortal freedom (in mortality we are only "free according to the flesh" [{{s|2|Nephi|2|27}}]), we remain responsible for the exercise of our agency in the thoughts we entertain and the behavior we choose. <ref>{{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=[https://new.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng9 Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 1995|pages=9}}</ref>

=== Richard G. Scott ===

It is so hard when sincere prayer about something we desire very much is not answered the way we want. It is especially difficult when the Lord answers no to that which is worthy and would give us great joy and happiness. Whether it be overcoming illness or loneliness, recovery of a wayward child, coping with a handicap, or seeking continuing life for a dear one who is slipping away, it seems so reasonable and so consistent with our happiness to have a favorable answer. It is hard to understand why our exercise of deep and sincere faith from an obedient life does not bring the desired result. ...

When you face adversity, you can be led to ask many questions. Some serve a useful purpose; others do not. To ask, Why does this have to happen to me? Why do I have to suffer this, now? What have I done to cause this? will lead you into blind alleys. It really does no good to ask questions that reflect opposition to the will of God. Rather ask, What am I to do? What am I to learn from this experience? What am I to change? Whom am I to help? How can I remember my many blessings in times of trial? Willing sacrifice of deeply held personal desires in favor of the will of God is very hard to do. Yet, when you pray with real conviction, "Please let me know Thy will" and "May Thy will be done," you are in the strongest position to receive the maximum help from your loving Father.

This life is an experience in profound trust—trust in Jesus Christ, trust in His teachings, trust in our capacity as led by the Holy Spirit to obey those teachings for happiness now and for a purposeful, supremely happy eternal existence. To trust means to obey willingly without knowing the end from the beginning (see {{b||Proverbs|3|5-7}}). To produce fruit, your trust in the Lord must be more powerful and enduring than your confidence in your own personal feelings and experience. ...

How grateful I am personally that our Savior taught we should conclude our most urgent, deeply felt prayers, when we ask for that which is of utmost importance to us, with "Thy will be done" ({{b||Matthew|26|42}}). Your willingness to accept the will of the Father will not change what in His wisdom He has chosen to do. However, it will certainly change the effect of those decisions on you personally. That evidence of the proper exercise of agency allows His decisions to produce far greater blessings in your life. I have found that because of our Father’s desire for us to grow, He may give us gentle, almost imperceptible promptings that, if we are willing to accept without complaint, He will enlarge to become a very clear indication of His will. This enlightenment comes because of our faith and our willingness to do what He asks even though we would desire something else….

Please learn that as you wrestle with a challenge and feel sadness because of it, you can simultaneously have peace and rejoicing. Yes, pain, disappointment, frustration, and anguish can be temporary scenes played out on the stage of life. Behind them there can be a background of peace and the positive assurance that a loving Father will keep His promises. You can qualify for those promises by a determination to accept His will, by understanding the plan of happiness, by receiving all of the ordinances, and by keeping the covenants made to assure their fulfillment. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Richard G. Scott|article=Trust in the Lord|date=October 1995|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/trust-in-the-lord?lang=eng}}</ref>