Should Those With Homosexual Preferences Serve Missions?

[why me]

Just curious, would you have a difficult time sharing a room with a woman that was a lesbian? Because that is actually what the similar senerio would be. You would be sharing a room with a woman that not only was attracted to you, but not the least bit attracted to men. A gay missionary shares a room with a straight missionary that is not the least bit attracted to the same sex.

So does that make the situation a little more deifned??

Except for the fact that the gay missionary may have several companions during his mission. But if my roommate were a lesbian and had no attraction for me because she is a lesbian and if I were attracted to her, I would still try to catch a peek. But that is just me talking...I am just a guy.

[why me]

Has anyone heard of a Morman man sharing a house with a lesbian and having sex with her? Do you get that there might not be any problem here at all?

I am sure that it has happened. Some people are bisexual and a lesbian may find a man attractive and act on it. It is not impossible.

[Calm]

I would still try to catch a peek. But that is just me talking...I am just a guy.

. And hopefully it is just talk and if the situation ever forced you to share quarters with a woman besides your wife, you would show more respect knowing the consequences (there are no consequences in hypotheticals).

I assume that you have limits on peeking though, you don't peek at porn, you wouldn't video your roommate, etc

Other guys have different limits, some stricter, some more lenient. My husband for example solved the problem of having a woman nurse in front of him by removing his glasses. Some guys don't peek.

[cinepro]

Back in the late 70's and early 80's, I heard about some platonic roommates living in Santa Monica where it was one guy with two girls. Oddly, their landlord was intolerant of fornication, so they had to convince him that the guy was gay. Even more oddly, this lasted for almost 8 years. Even when one of the women moved out, her cousin moved in, so the arrangement continued.

They weren't LDS, but strange things like that can happen to anyone.

[LeSellers]

Back in the late 70's and early 80's, I heard about some platonic roommates living in Santa Monica where it was one guy with two girls. Oddly, their landlord was intolerant of fornication, so they had to convince him that the guy was gay. Even more oddly, this lasted for almost 8 years. Even when one of the women moved out, her cousin moved in, so the arrangement continued.

Well, you know what they say, "Three's company".

Lehi

[Ahab]

. And hopefully it is just talk and if the situation ever forced you to share quarters with a woman besides your wife, you would show more respect knowing the consequences (there are no consequences in hypotheticals).

I assume that you have limits on peeking though, you don't peek at porn, you wouldn't video your roommate, etc

Other guys have different limits, some stricter, some more lenient. My husband for example solved the problem of having a woman nurse in front of him by removing his glasses. Some guys don't peek.

And some guys will try to feed the naked and clothe the hungry, or something like that.

[Bernard Gui]

Just curious. Has anyone ever heard of a gay missionary having sex with a straight missionary and them being sent home?

The reason a missionary is sent home is not

publicized.

Beenard

[Hamba Tuhan]

Homosexual and ssa are the same thing.

Nonsense. Homosexuality, by very definition, is sexual behaviour with a person of one's own gender. Same-sex attraction merely means that one finds him-/herself attracted at some point or another to a same-gendered person. By your definition, I'm a thief because I've desperately wanted on occasion to take something that doesn't belong to me. That I never actually have is supposedly irrelevant. Maybe I should be banned from entering shops because I pose a risk for shoplifting?

[frankenstein]

Nonsense. Homosexuality, by very definition, is sexual behaviour with a person of one's own gender. Same-sex attraction merely means that one finds him-/herself attracted at some point or another to a same-gendered person. By your definition, I'm a thief because I've desperately wanted on occasion to take something that doesn't belong to me.

Read my post again.

ho·mo·sex·u·al /ˌhoʊməˈsɛkʃəwəl/ adjective

somewhat formal 1 : sexually attracted to people of the same sex

-----------

ssa: attraction to ones own gender.

its the same thing, different terminology.

Also you move the goal post by using homosexuality.

[Pahoran]

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:

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.

Yes.

Such behaviour is inconscionable and reprehensible. A missionary who imagined that even the mildest possible forms of such behaviour might be permissible in the least degree in the context of a missionary companionship would be completely out of line, and would desperately need a completely unambiguous demonstration of that fact.

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.

Another possibility is all the dirty jokes that the low-minded have been trading, in which "little factory" has formed part of the punchline. (That's my guess.)

I like every talk of Elder Packer's that I have ever read; and the more they attract the jeers from the Great and Spacious Building, the better I like them.

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.

Okay.

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.

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.

Then maybe in your mission there should have been a few black eyes. In mine, Elders and Sisters flirting was a major no-no. But apart from that, at the end of each working day, did the elders pair up with sisters when they went back to their apartments?

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.

I'll take your word for it, and simply point out that HETEROSEXUAL MEN ARE NOT ATTRACTED TO EVERY WOMAN THEY MEET either.

Now, that being the case, do we allow Elders and Sisters to share apartments?

Or perhaps not?

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

"Violence," as you are pleased to call it, is in my view infinitely less offensive than a missionary receiving objectionable overtures from someone whom he thought he could trust.

A missionary companionship can only function if there is trust. If someone takes advantage of that trust for immoral purposes, the betrayed party has every right to feel aggrieved; while the betraying party may benefit from a lesson in manners.

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

At very least, it is insulting enough to constitute an intolerable provocation that confers upon its victim the right to use force to ensure it does not happen again.

Regards,

Pahoran

[california boy]

SSA is a made up term Mormons came up with. If you look it up in the dictionary only abbreviation

• Social Security Act.

• Social Security Administration.

come up. Most people in the world have no idea what you were talking about if you said someone has SSA.

Somehow calling a gay person someone who has SSA makes Mormons feel better. It is a term even the churches publicity department seems to be dropping lately.

[california boy]

"Violence," as you are pleased to call it, is in my view infinitely less offensive than a missionary receiving objectionable overtures from someone whom he thought he could trust. A missionary companionship can only function if there is trust. If someone takes advantage of that trust for immoral purposes, the betrayed party has every right to feel aggrieved; while the betraying party may benefit from a lesson in manners. At very least, it is insulting enough to constitute an intolerable provocation that confers upon its victim the right to use force to ensure it does not happen again. Regards, Pahoran

I can see you have studied and embraced the words of Christ.

[HeatherAnn]

Thanks for the comments. I'm amazed to see such different perspectives on this.

There are several I wish I could respond to, but I'm short on time at the moment.

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.

Excellent points.

"The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."

I do know this woman very well - all of her life. Her brother, who knows her even better, told me she's gay & explained how he felt bad because he believed he was partly responsible because he had his own issues that affected her. They are good people - as we all are - some are just dealt tough hands. I have not shared my concern with anyone, except my husband & on here - anonymously. I dislike gossip very much, yet I realize there are times to get other perspectives on concerns, as I have done here. Choose to take offence if you must.

When I attended a church college, I lived in approved housing & one of my roommates ("B") acted very strange & made gestures to my other roomate ("S"). "S" didn't want much to do with her because of her weird behavior. But one time, I went into S's room (which B did not share with) to put something away & turned on the lights to see B & S laying together, cuddling. My impression was that "B" was pushing herself on "S" very inappropriately. As one lds friend said, sometimes people develop gay preferences because it's more acceptable to be intimate with the same sex.

[Pahoran]

I can see you have studied and embraced the words of Christ.

Thank you, yes. I try.

Jesus never taught anything equivalent to "Don't ever say or do anything to make anyone feel rejected or not accepted." Nor did he ever teach anything approaching, "If you love someone you must enable their wrong choices." He taught, "If thy right hand offend thee, cut it off." He taught, "No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God." He taught, "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me."

And He taught, "Go thy way and sin no more."

Regards,

Pahoran

[california boy]

Thank you, yes. I try.

Jesus never taught anything equivalent to "Don't ever say or do anything to make anyone feel rejected or not accepted." Nor did he ever teach anything approaching, "If you love someone you must enable their wrong choices." He taught, "If thy right hand offend thee, cut it off." He taught, "No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God." He taught, "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me."

And He taught, "Go thy way and sin no more."

Regards,

Pahoran

And out of those teachings, you got violence as the best way to solve objectional overtures.

OK

Edited September 30, 2011 by california boy

[MorningStar]

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

It's not very clear what happened in that scenario. Were words involved or was there unwanted physical contact? If I were a sister missionary and an elder decided to grab me places he shouldn't, I certainly would smack him one. Simply being on a mission implies that one isn't looking for a physical relationship with anyone, but especially not from someone of the same sex. Any person with an attraction to the same sex has a screw loose if they think they can make unwanted advances. When my friend was in the Navy, some guy got on top of him and started kissing him. That was equally inappropriate because of the policies the military had.

That said, if a person struggles with SSA and they are committed to living the Gospel, I think they should be able to go. We all have weaknesses. Acting on the behavior would be totally different.

[Ares]

This has run its course and has wandered far from the OP.

Remember this is not a political blog or a place to discuss unwanted sexual encounters. It is a LDS discussion forum.