Should Those With Homosexual Preferences Serve Missions?

[Bernard Gui]

I had a gay roommate in college. I didn't know it at first, but after several unusual things happened, including him getting physically close and touching me, I figured out what was happening. After that, I was very uncomfortable when we were alone in our dorm room. Eventually, I was able to switch roommates with a guy down the hall who was experiencing similar behavior from his roommate. This would have been much worse if we had been missionaries or soldiers sharing bunk space.

Bernard

[Pahoran]

I had a gay roommate in college. I didn't know it at first, but after several unusual things happened, including him getting physically close and touching me, I figured out what was happening. After that, I was very uncomfortable when we were alone in our dorm room. Eventually, I was able to switch roommates with a guy down the hall who was experiencing similar behavior from his roommate. This would have been much worse if we had been missionaries or soldiers sharing bunk space.

Bernard

This reminds me of the talk by Elder Packer, who once famously said that it is acceptable for missionaries to reject unwelcome sexual advances from companions forcefully enough to deter a repeat offence. "Gay" agitators work themselves into a frenzy over this simple and wise counsel, yet they clearly cannot see the obvious: no missionary should EVER have to put up with such behaviour.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Senator]

My point is simple: why buy trouble?

If we take the Lord's teaching on this subject seriously, we don't unnecessarily place anyone in the way of temptation.

The integrity of the missionary force as a whole and of the missionary program itself, IM(V)HO outweighs any of the sensitive-new-age stuff about sparing the feelings of individuals who might feel hurt if they were excluded.

Regards,

Pahoran

Evidence to my position that if an individual with SSA wants to have place in the church, including participation in the broad range of gospel activities, one simply needs to keep his nose clean and never come out!

Edited September 28, 2011 by Senator

[Pahoran]

Evidence to my position that if an individual with SSA wants to have place in the church, including participation in the broad range of gospel activities, one simply needs to keep his nose clean and never come out!

Of course, if he wants to actually enjoy the blessings of the Gospel, which entails being a person of integrity, he will need to make certain disclosures in confidence to his Priesthood leaders.

But then, perhaps integrity isn't that important to you, umm, Senator. Please avoid this kind of personal insult. -Ares

Regards,

Pahoran

[Senator]

Of course, if he wants to actually enjoy the blessings of the Gospel, which entails being a person of integrity, he will need to make certain disclosures in confidence to his Priesthood leaders.

But then, perhaps integrity isn't that important to you, umm, Senator.

Regards,

Pahoran

Since when do we need to disclose personal temptations that we have not nor ever intend to indulge??

Perhaps we need to adjust the temple recommend interview: Do you ever think about or intend on breaking the law of chastity?

Your personal insult was not ignored either.

Your a piece of work.

[sethpayne]

My point is simple: why buy trouble?

If we take the Lord's teaching on this subject seriously, we don't unnecessarily place anyone in the way of temptation.

The integrity of the missionary force as a whole and of the missionary program itself, IM(V)HO outweighs any of the sensitive-new-age stuff about sparing the feelings of individuals who might feel hurt if they were excluded.

Regards,

Pahoran

Thank you for the frank and honest response. I believe I understand your viewpoint but I respectfully disagree.

I suppose my experience how shown me that member of the Church who happen to be gay or lesbian are just as capable of sharing the message of the Gospel as a heterosexual.

If the Church is going to teach that SSA (homosexuality) is not a sin in itself, I don't see why it should be treated differently than any other temptation.

I served my mission in Tempe AZ. If we were to take your logic to the extreme, NO missionaries would be allowed to proselyte in Tempe because of the sheer number of scantily dressed women at ASU and elsewhere. IMO, we ALL face temptation and just as a heterosexual missionary must be vigilant in avoiding the temptations of Tempe AZ, a homosexual missionary would need to be just as vigilant.

And for you fellas out there.... let's be honest: Not a lot of gay men are going to find us attractive ... just like most women don't find us attractive. I think it is a little silly to assume that placing a homosexual male in a companionship with a heterosexual male is going to necessarily lead to temptation. If temptation arises, couldn't the homosexual missionary simply confide in his Mission President and asked to be companions with the ugliest, most sexually unappealing guy in the Mission?

I know some of my companions asked to be transferred away from ASU because they had a very difficult time keeping their heads straight with all of the very beautiful girls in Tempe.

My $.02

Seth

Edited September 29, 2011 by sethpayne

[sethpayne]

This reminds me of the talk by Elder Packer, who once famously said that it is acceptable for missionaries to reject unwelcome sexual advances from companions forcefully enough to deter a repeat offence. "Gay" agitators work themselves into a frenzy over this simple and wise counsel, yet they clearly cannot see the obvious: no missionary should EVER have to put up with such behaviour.

Regards,

Pahoran

Come on, Pahoran. The problem most people have with that talk by Elder Packer is the implication that physical violence is an appropriate response to a romantic/sexual advance. I mean the Church has removed that talk from its website, after all.

What if women applied the same principle? Most of us men would be beaten to a pulp.

I lived in San Francisco for a while back in the early 2000's. A small handful of gay men "came on" to me. A simple "no thanks, I'm straight as an arrow" was sufficient to let them know where I stood. I never felt the need to throw a punch and IMO, it is a myth that gay men are "aggressive" in their flirtation any more than straight men are in flirting with women.

Seth

ETA: Sexual assault -- of the hetero of homosexual variety -- , of course is an entirely different matter and in that case I think a violent defense is certainly justified.

Edited September 29, 2011 by sethpayne

[Hamba Tuhan]

I had a gay roommate in college.

There is a world of difference between a 'gay' university student and a faithful, committed missionary who may feel subject to SSA. A missionary who would make sexual advances toward anyone is not worthy to be serving a mission. Beyond that, it's absolutely none of my business what 'demons' someone else may struggle with. Heaven (quite literally!) knows I have plenty of my own. That the power of Christ daily helps me overcome them makes me a fit witness of the Saviour.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Hamba Tuhan

[Pahoran]

Since when do we need to disclose personal temptations that we have not nor ever intend to indulge??

Perhaps we need to adjust the temple recommend interview: Do you ever think about or intend on breaking the law of chastity?

As far as missionary service is concerned, it's not about worthiness, it's about fitness.

The Church excuses people from missionary service for various health-related reasons, too.

And we don't let single elders and single sisters serve as companions, either.

Your personal insult was not ignored either.

You were insulted because I called you by your screen name?

Your a piece of work.

Thank you. I can think of much worse things to be a piece of.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Come on, Pahoran. The problem most people have with that talk by Elder Packer is the implication that physical violence is an appropriate response to a romantic/sexual advance.

There was no such "implication." Unless by "implication" you mean something like "false inference that some choose to draw for polemical purposes."

There's nothing remotely "romantic" about a missionary coming on to his companion. Just IMHO, of course.

What if women applied the same principle? Most of us men would be beaten to a pulp.

If any man makes a pass at a missionary sister, knowing her to be a serving missionary and knowing what the missionary standards are, she would be fully justified in applying the same principle.

I lived in San Francisco for a while back in the early 2000's. A small handful of gay men "came on" to me. A simple "no thanks, I'm straight as an arrow" was sufficient to let them know where I stood.

For how many of them were you a "captive audience," more or less required to spend every night alone in the same apartment with them?

How many of them knew what the standards of the Church were, and had entered into a solemn obligation to uphold those same standards?

I never felt the need to throw a punch and IMO, it is a myth that gay men are "aggressive" in their flirtation any more than straight men are in flirting with women.

Seth

ETA: Sexual assault -- of the hetero of homosexual variety -- , of course is an entirely different matter and in that case I think a violent defense is certainly justified.

For various reasons, mostly outlined above, I regard any "overture" by a missionary towards his companion as largely indistinguishable from an attempted sexual assault.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Flyonthewall]

A line does not apparently have to be drawn on this issue because the Brethren have not done so. You are insisting on a line being drawn that they haven't so maybe you should take it up with them.

I am not insisting on a line to be drawn. I am merely pointig out that the line has already been drawn, but only applies to hetero-missionaries. If the reason for the line applies to both groups, why isn't it applied uniformly? It seems you are saying that it should not.

Again, I just can't relate to your thinking on this. The Church is never excited at the prospect of having to govern people in all matters of their life. I'm not excited about that prospect. Some people like the idea of that prospect (those people creep me out).

I am not promoting governing people in all matters, simply if rules are already in place, perhaps it should applied uniformly.

Mission Presidents aren't blind, I'm sure many are able to pick up on elders who probably have same sex attractions. Bishops aren't blind either. So it's pretty obvious that there are leaders who know this is an element in missionary service and are fine with it. I've never heard an Elder or a Sister come home and say, "Mom and dad, I'm so scared because my mission didn't protect me from the gays; please do something!"

I am not coming fom the position that hetero missionaries need protection, rather, why would gay missionaries be placed in a position to have to deal with that temptation? Would you lobby for mixed gender companionships? Your same line of reasoning could be used there too.

If an elder and a sister were placed together, would the concern be that of protection? or inappropriateness?

So if you are coming up with this "problem" that requires a line in the sand, and ignoring all these practical outcomes in experience, don't you feel like you may be a little "out there" on this?

I did not come up with this "problem" , it is inherent in the attraction.

[Bernard Gui]

There is a world of difference between a 'gay' university student and a faithful, committed missionary who may feel subject to SSA. A missionary who would make sexual advances toward anyone is not worthy to be serving a mission.

Be that as it may, missionaries are not perfect. Having something like I described happen between a missionary companionship would wreak havoc in the mission.

Beyond that, it's absolutely none of my business what 'demons' someone else may struggle with.

As I said above, I did not even suspect my roommate was gay until he started touching me and rubbing

against me while we were alone in our dorm room. Rather than punch him, or whatever, I simply got another roommate and he was with someone who might have enjoyed his overtures. It was not a pleasant experience. In my profession, that kind of behavior is called sexual harassment and it will most definitely end in the termination of employment. I don't know how this kind of situation could be

avoided when mixing heterosexual and SSA companions in our missions.

Bernard

[Hamba Tuhan]

Be that as it may, missionaries are not perfect. Having something like I described happen between a missionary companionship would wreak havoc in the mission.

As would having one companion sneak out at night to make sexual advances to a sister in the ward. The solution is commitment to chastity in both cases.

[BCSpace]

Just wondering what your thoughts are about those who know they have homosexual preferences, serving missions.

After giving it a lot of thought, I would have to say that if the person self-indentifies as homosexual, he or she should not serve a mission because self-identification means one is resigned to the "fact".

How would you feel if you were a missionary with a companion with homosexual preferences?

Unattractive.

How would investigators feel? Maybe they would never know, or would they?

Could send the wrong message if they knew.

Can you sense or discern whether someone has hetero or homo sexual preferences?

Many do exhibit stereotypical behaviors, but not all.

[why me]

In this context, I think it's called projecting.

I am not projecting but I am using my imagination. It is not difficult to imagine a situation where a gay missionary may be attracted to his companion. And when that happens the missionary's thought process becomes focused on what they are attracted to. The other aspects of missionary life can take a back seat to the attraction.

If I were rooming with a woman friend who I became attracted to, my thoughts would wander in a certain direction. And my mind would be occupied with that attraction. And if I were not able to act on that attraction because she considered me a friend, I would find it very frustrating. Why would it be any different for a gay missionary attracted to his companion. Or for a lesbian sister missionary attracted to her companion?

[why me]

The sin is not in the temptation, but in the giving into the temptation. Until there is some giving into temptation it is none of anyone's business, other than God, what those temptations are.

However, if you were living with someone who you were attracted to and were not able to act on it, what would occupy your thoughts when you were together with that person?

[Calm]

I wrote a significantly long response on my ipad typing with one finger and then lost it....

So I think for now at least I will just make two observations....

I hear a lot more about young men being sent home from missions for running into trouble with young ladies than I do about young men getting into trouble with young men.

Second, assuming that the information I read was correct that the average age where someone becomes aware they are attracted to the same sex is about 13, let me point out that if a young man in such circumstances has been chaste since the time he first experienced these feelings that he has had 6 years of practice at self control and self discipline while a young man with heterosexual inclinations has not only not had to control his attraction, but he has been encouraged to express them in multiple ways even if he has limited them to a certain degree if he's chosen to be chaste.....and it is usually easier to maintain control than to regain control.

add-on: one more thought.....with many of these individuals who have experienced strong attraction to those of their own sex, they have already figured out that life is going to be different for them, that they may end up having to live a celibate life if they remain devoted to the gospel and the church. So what is the good of teaching them that the church doesn't trust that they will be able to exercise self-control or stay committed to the chaste life....which is what not allowing them to go on mission just in case they might experience temptation implies? They are going to be in the same sort of situations the rest of their lives unless they choose to live alone or at home with Mom and Dad (since having female roommates is considered inappropriate) and have no real contact or connection with any of their fellow priesthood holders (if the same exact standard is used for them as is used for men and women). Why not let them begin to demonstrate their lifelong commitment by filling a mission with honour?

Edited September 29, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

However, if you were living with someone who you were attracted to and were not able to act on it, what would occupy your thoughts when you were together with that person?

This is easily dealt with by asking for a transfer.

I am curious, if an elder informs his leader that he has inappropriate feelings for a young lady he is teaching, what is the usual policy?

Edited September 29, 2011 by calmoriah

[sethpayne]

There was no such "implication." Unless by "implication" you mean something like "false inference that some choose to draw for polemical purposes."

Hi Pahoran. I have to admit I really enjoy your writing style -- and I mean that sincerely. You have a sharp wit; something I appreciate very much.

Let's look at the relevant quote:

There are some men who entice young men to join them in these immoral acts. If you are ever approached to participate in anything like that, it is time to vigorously resist.

While I was in a mission on one occasion, a missionary said he had something to confess. I was very worried because he just could not get himself to tell me what he had done.

After patient encouragement he finally blurted out, "I hit my companion."

"Oh, is that all," I said in great relief.

"But I floored him," he said.

After learning a little more, my response was "Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it, and it wouldn't be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way"

A couple of points:

Notice that Elder Packer used the word "approached." He did not use the word assaulted and, from the little information we have here it sounds like one mission companion invited another companion to engage in homosexual behavior.

Elder Packer then expresses relief that the "flooring" of this missionary because "somebody had to do it" -- all because he approached a companion to engage in homosexual acts.

Pahoran, if you want to think that I'm pulling this out for polemical reasons that is your choice but I believe an objective reader can clearly see what Elder Packer is saying here. Now, I should make it very clear that I do not believe Elder Packer would use the same language today. This talk was delivered during a period where it was culturally acceptable to "have a laugh" at the thought of violence against homosexuals. Also, let's remember that the Church has removed this talk from the official website. I suppose there are many possible reasons but certainly one possibility is that the Church leadership views these words as inflammatory and as words which do not properly represent Elder Packer's views today. Who knows, that's just my guess.

In any case, this little snippet has been discussed extensively. I'd rather not continue a pointless debate with you on this quote. Rather, let's agree to disagree.

There's nothing remotely "romantic" about a missionary coming on to his companion. Just IMHO, of course.

I've met several returned missionaries who are gay who said at one point they found themselves "falling in love" with their companions. None of them acted on these feelings. On this point we disagree. Again, homosexual does not equal sexual predator.

If any man makes a pass at a missionary sister, knowing her to be a serving missionary and knowing what the missionary standards are, she would be fully justified in applying the same principle.

Elders and Sisters in my mission flirted with each other ALL THE TIME but never let things get past that point. Were they right in flirting? Probably not due to the nature of their callings but again, if in my mission Elders and Sisters hit everyone that was flirtatious, there would have been a lot of black eyes.

For how many of them were you a "captive audience," more or less required to spend every night alone in the same apartment with them?

This is a fair point but see one of my above posts: HOMOSEXUAL MEN ARE NOT ATTRACTED TO EVERY HETEROSEXUAL MAN THEY MEET. As I mentioned above, one of the returned missionaries who started developing feelings for his companion asked to be transfered by his mission president. No problems.

How many of them knew what the standards of the Church were, and had entered into a solemn obligation to uphold those same standards?

So violence is OK if the person who comes on to you "should know better?"

For various reasons, mostly outlined above, I regard any "overture" by a missionary towards his companion as largely indistinguishable from an attempted sexual assault.

Frankly, this line of thinking is absurd. You are equating homosexual flirtation to sexual assault. Really???

Anyway, it is clear that we won't agree on this subject so if you are so inclined, I'll let you have the last word.

Seth

Edited September 29, 2011 by sethpayne

[Storm Rider]

This is easily dealt with by asking for a transfer.

I am curious, if an elder informs his leader that he has inappropriate feelings for a young lady he is teaching, what is the usual policy?

In brief, he is outta there. This also happens when an individual is overly enthusaistic toward an elder. We don't enjoy leaving things to chance when things get heated; we just remove the elder immeidately and everything goes back to a focus on the work.

[Flyonthewall]

It sounds like the majority of people who support homosexual missionaries believe it to be just fine as long as one member of the companion set is not attracted to the other.

Would the same attitude be shown if Elders and Sisters were to be put together as companions? As long as the Elder is not attracted to the Sister or the Sister is not attracted to the Elder, they can live together for whatever length of time. If this is not okay with you, then why?

Many an Elder or Sister has exercised self control with the opposite sex before their mission, why can't we assume they will continue if we move them in together? Many an Elder to Sister has grown up with siblings of the opposite sex, or has had friends of the opposite sex that they have not made advances towards...so they are used to exercising self control

Now I am not trying to say "put an end to missionary work" because we cannot house Elders and Sisters together. Niether am I trying to say that Elders or Sisters should not serve.

[Senator]

As far as missionary service is concerned, it's not about worthiness, it's about fitness.

Actually, the words used are "every worthy, and able". So yes, it is about worthiness as well.

Since a person with homosexual inclinations can be worthy to serve a mission, it is left to determine if they are able to serve. You seem to hold the position that such individuals are unable to serve (before they are actually given opportunity) because of their obvious mental/psychological handicap.

To that I would simply say you have some prejudices that need addressing.

[Senator]

It sounds like the majority of people who support homosexual missionaries believe it to be just fine as long as one member of the companion set is not attracted to the other.

No.

It is just fine as long as both members of the companionship keeps themselves mentally and behaviorally in check.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I am not projecting but I am using my imagination.

However, if you were living with someone who you were attracted to and were not able to act on it, what would occupy your thoughts when you were together with that person?

And that's the projection. You seem to think that everyone is oversexed and therefore can't help being attracted to someone and can't control his/her thoughts thereafter. Nonsense. You've been drinking too much Kinsey. I spent two years as a missionary and never once even thought about being attracted to someone else. My thoughts were elsewhere.

It is just fine as long as both members of the companionship keeps themselves mentally and behaviorally in check.

Precisely.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Hamba Tuhan

[thesometimesaint]

why me:

Every one of us has had an inappropriate sexual feeling. Nearly all of us refrain from giving into that feeling. The Church, and Jesus, have repeatedly said that the sin is not in the temptation. Do you really want to claim that temptation is a sin?