I’ve had at least one bishop and one professor at BYU say, a bit more frankly than I’d have put it, “If you don’t want to have sex with the person you’re thinking of marrying, don’t marry them!” How can one possibly know this if one hasn’t had some thoughts and feelings on the subject? I think it’s quite possible (and probably even healthy) for a person to think about sex without sinning (though obviously you have to be careful).

I also agree that sexual attraction (a) must be kept appropriately in check and (b) must stem from one’s love of the other person and not primarily from physical desires (that part that Ben mentioned about not objectifying the other person comes into play here), otherwise it does become lust, which is not okay under any circumstances. But, from what I hear, and judging from my own rather limited experience, sexual attraction is kind of important in romantic relationships.

Well, as long as I’m on the subject, I might as well add a link to this super interesting article my mom sent me recently: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucmg/20070403/cm_ucmg/themormonadvantage

I do agree that we need to be sensitive, charitable, and Christlike to those struggling with SSA. My whole point has been solely that it’s the people we need to accept, not their SSA. And from the last few paragraphs of your comment, it looks like you feel the same way. I guess I just get worked up when it sounds like people are trying to rationalize evil. :) So, if it appeared like I was condemning the sinner and not the sin, my bad.

J: We need to be careful here to distinguish between the temptation and acting on the temptation. (And by “acting on” I mean thoughts as well.) We can’t be held accountable for something beyond our control. In my experience, attraction is initially out of our control. Once the initial spark flies, however, we are free to either ignore it or feed it. If we do feed it — by savoring it or by imagined intimacy or by actually acting out on our lustful thoughts — then we’re clearly accountable, for that is sin. But if we shun the temptation as it buzzes around our head, we’re not sinning.

Those who openly wear the SSA label are, I think, out of line, but I don’t think that those who are struggling with it are often “open” about it. It’s more of a secret, ashamed, desperate whisper to a friend, I’d imagine.

Katherine (again): Exactly.

Anna: By my own definition of normal, we are not normal. :P But I realize that I was somewhat sloppy in my terms, using several different meanings of “normal” when I should have split it out. I first intended “normal” to mean widespread, common, or ubiquitous among men. In the second paragraph, I meant “normal” to represent God’s standard of righteousness and goodness. Marriage between a man and a woman, as is God’s standard, is normal in that sense, and marriage of any other sort is abnormal, deviant, and wrong. And finally, in the paragraph about pornography I again returned to using “normal” as widespread or common.

So yes, there is certainly a chasm between us and God, and that chasm is not bridged until long after we’re dead. What I meant to say was not that we need to be perfect here and now, but rather that the institution of marriage (as a principle or a philosophy) does follow God’s pattern and therefore is compliant with that standard. (Yes, marriages aren’t perfect, I know. All I’m saying is that man woman = marriage.)

Yes, one can be attracted to another without lusting, and I agree that self-control and responsibility form the line between the two. (Or at least they’re the bouncers.) I don’t know whether it’s moral to lust within the bonds of matrimony, but my gut feeling tells me that it’s not. As I see it, when someone lusts, the thing they lust after becomes just that in their eyes: a thing. It objectifies the person, and it’s selfish, and both are rather bad. So even though matrimony does give its blessing to sexual interactions, I imagine that it still doesn’t condone lust, since I can’t see how objectifying one’s spouse could possibly be a good thing. But then again, I’m not married, so I could be wrong.

Is it moral to lust within the bonds of matrimony? Or does that state suddenly render any level of sexual attraction moral?

I find that I prefer Augustine’s approach to lust, which is that it is a form of misguided love which ultimately is entirely selfish. I don’t believe that simple sexual attraction necessarily has to be taken to the level of lust; this is the point where self control and responsibility comes into play.

By your own definition of normal, God is not normal. God is perfect.

There is a wide chasm between those two points, which is the entire purpose of mortality.

I do find it interesting and pertinent that in Mormon doctrine, we continue to progress even after this life is over, which I believe is a salient point.

Obviously people who are tempted with sexual sin should not entertain sinful thoughts, but it’s my understanding that there is a difference between sinning (which includes sinful thoughts) and being tempted to sin:

“…we 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.”
-Elder Oaks

I’m trying to think of something to add to Elder Oaks’s comment, but it pretty much sums up what I was so awkwardly trying to communicate in my previous comments.

“O, my beloved brethren, remember the awfulness in transgressing against that Holy God, and also the awfulness of yielding to the enticings of that cunning one. Remember, to be carnally-minded is death, and to be spiritually-minded is life eternal.” 2 Nephi 9: 39.

“For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.” 2 Nephi 26: 23.

“Therefore, cheer up your hearts, and remember that ye are free to act for yourselves – to choose the way of everlasting death or the way of eternal life. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, reconcile yourselves to the will of God, and not to the will of the devil and the flesh; and remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved.” 2 Nephi 10: 23-24.

It is not enough for an alcoholic to stand at the door of a bar and congratulate himself because he hasn’t gone in for a drink. It is not enough for a man to flip through the pages of a magazine in an adult book store and rejoice that he didn’t buy the book. Thinking is also an action!

I know that the devil would have us think otherwise, but the Lord told us that he created two types of human beings – male and female and he even told us why. When a child is born and the doctor slaps the child on the butt and says, “It’s a boy, or it’s a girl!” for me that settles any questions and then it is up to the individual to decide what kind of man or woman they choose to be.

In the parable of the olive tree, the Lord of the vineyard pruned and grafted the branches of the precious trees of his vineyard to preserve the roots and the branches of the trees that brought forth good fruit. He didn’t want that which was evil to cumber the ground of his vineyard or to overtake the good fruit. In the fight against sin and evil, we must do the same in the vineyards of our minds. We must cut down the evil branches of sinful thoughts and ugly temptations and burn them in the fire. We must eradicate the roots of our evil thoughts and destroy them before they destroy our minds, our hearts and our souls for all eternity.

“Yea, why should I give way to temptations, that the evil one have place in my heart to destroy my peace and afflict my soul?” 2 Nephi 4: 27.

The Lord has warned us, as a man thinketh, so is he…we become our thoughts. We are to guard our thoughts. “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman [or man] to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of they members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell,” St. Matthew 5: 27-30. Shouldn’t we be even more diligent in protecting our minds and hearts? It is an interesting string of concepts to ponder.

It doesn’t matter if a person of either gender is tempted with SSA, OSA, or CSA, the fact is that the person is tempted with SA and needs to repent. Sexual Attraction outside the bonds of holy matrimony is lust and lust is a sin. It seems to me that those who openly wear the SA label are advertising…hmm I wonder why?

We know that God will not allow us to be tempted beyond our ability to overcome. Eradicating sin takes work even for a prophet…Consider the prayer of a prophet - “O wretched man that I am! Yea, my heart sorroweth because of my flesh; my soul grieveth because of mine iniquities…I am encompassed about, because of the temptations and the sins which do so easily beset me…O Lord, wilt thou redeem my soul?…Wilt thou make me that I may shake at the appearance of sin?…Yea, I know that God will give liberally to him that asketh. Yea, my God will give me if I ask not amiss…” 2 Nephi 4: 17, 18, 31, 35.

The Lord has counseled us, “Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart I have written my law, fear ye not the reproach of men, neither be ye afraid of their revilings… I know that the words of truth are hard against all uncleanness; but the righteous fear them not, for they love the truth and are not shaken,” 2 Nephi 9: 7-40. The Lord has counseled us to treat his children with compassion and to have charity towards all men. However, he didn’t join in with Thumper’s advice to Bambi, “if you can’t say nothin nice, don’t say nothin at all.” Politically correct speach is Satan’s “silent” weapon in gaining the hearts and the minds of God’s children.

Even if it were as prevalent as you make it out to be, I would still hesitate to call it “normal,” at least from a religious perspective. God is the standard for normal, as far as possible. That’s our goal. Yes, we’re fallen humans, and so we obviously fall short of that standard, but the standard is there nonetheless. The danger in labeling temptations “normal,” as I see it, is that they cease to be as abhorrent to us, but rather become run-of-the-mill. Extramarital sex has become normal, and look at how society views it — as something as ordinary as brushing your teeth or eating breakfast. The other danger is that it’s all to easy to let the “normal” label spread to other temptations which you might find less tolerable — say, pedophilia or wife abuse. Before long the line between good and evil will have been rubbed over so many times that it’s as good as gone.

Again, I’m not saying that we should give a cold shoulder to those who struggle with SSA. But it seems to me that you’re trying to paint lipstick on the pig that is SSA. Being attracted to members of one’s own gender is against the order of things. It is an aberration. It is wrong. (And by that I mean that it is something not good, not that it is a sin for someone to feel that way.) Let it be wrong, for crying out loud. Yes, we need compassion and understanding, but if we keep telling our SSA-laden friends that SSA is okay, then in my opinion we’re doing more damage than good. Someone struggling with pornography does not need to be told that looking at porn is normal. (And I hope it’s obvious that the case for pornography being normal is far stronger than the case for SSA.) They need to know that the temptation to view explicit material is something they need to fight against, but if we keep telling them that it’s normal, how on earth will they be able to muster up the strength they need to fight it?

One last word. I’m not denigrating the people themselves for their trials. I feel for them. I can only imagine what it would be like to be in their shoes. But if I were in their shoes, then I would want strength to come from an increase of light from heaven, not from a relabeling of my condition to make me feel like it’s not as bad a thing as I thought it was. Calling SSA normal is dishonest and destructive.

Katherine: I’ll reply to your comment shortly. :)

It wasn’t you saying you’re straight that concerns me (and honestly Ben, who who knows anything about you would think you were anything but “straight as an arrow”?), it’s you saying it defensively and emphatically—in your own words, feeling that you have to “justify” yourself so as not to be suspected of being anything other than straight. The tone of your posted implied that you want nothing whatsoever to do with gays. That’s why I was concerned that you didn’t make much of a distinction between those living a homosexual lifestyle (i.e. breaking God’s commandments) and those with SSA (i.e. those struggling to live God’s commandments and who could use some support in doing so).

As I’ve mentioned, I have many friends who struggle with SSA. Recently I’ve see one of my friends starting to seek acceptance outside of the LDS community because he hasn’t found tons of it inside the LDS community. That sort of thing is dangerous and, if continued, inevitably leads to paths of sin. I certainly don’t condone it. No matter how much compassion I feel for those who struggle and how much I understand their need for acceptance, I firmly believe that ultimately the responsibility is with them if they choose to leave the Church. I mean, after all, if someone were justified in leaving the church because they didn’t feel accepted, then pretty much all of us would have ample justification to do so. However, I also feel like members have a responsibility to cultivate an environment where people who struggle with SSA feel safe and accepted.

I guess to me it’s a similar to the issue of giving and taking offense. If someone leaves the Church because I offended them, ultimately they are responsible for their actions. On the other hand, if a little sensitivity from me can be part of the reason someone doesn’t leave, or even part of the reason they stay, then being a little sensitive seems like a jolly important thing for me to do.

I don’t believe in compassion trumping righteousness. It actually really bothers me (as in it makes me want to throw things) when people support same-sex marriage in the name of compassion. I don’t understand it. If I really love my SSA brothers and sisters, wouldn’t I get terribly upset by the idea that anyone would dare encourage them to give up the best God has to offer them (i.e. celestial glory) simply because living a lesser law is easier? Sometimes people need to be told hard things because that’s simply the way it is. I think anyone who struggles with a temptation or weakness can stand be told at some point (by someone who loves them) that they need to get over themselves. It’s not healthy to constantly dwell on and feel victimized by one’s temptations.

However, I still maintain that our culture can stand to be better informed about this particular struggle and to develop a better sense of compassion if we really are interested in keeping our SSA brothers and sisters among us. I hope that by loving them and being a bit more sensitive, we can at the very least give them fewer excuses to leave.

Okay, this is me climbing down from my soapbox now…