Clarify The Sin

[rockpond]

Until they agree with you?

Nope. Just until sufficient revelation is received.

[Tacenda]

My son has met someone and they are moving in together very soon. He has told me they aren't going to have sex. How wrong is this co habitation? Is it wrong purely on that it looks bad? What would the church say? Is my son in danger of being disfellowshipped? I'm super worried. Since I never thought this could happen, it's like I've been blindsided by the whole deal.

[CV75]

Where do I read about the eternal reasons for marriage to be only between a man and a woman?

Perheaps more of a "when" than a "where," but when and where you read about the LDS marriage covenants. And as I said, no handbook (and even scriptural text) can teach you everything, or certain things.

[rockpond]

My son has met someone and they are moving in together very soon. He has told me they aren't going to have sex. How wrong is this co habitation? Is it wrong purely on that it looks bad? What would the church say? Is my son in danger of being disfellowshipped? I'm super worried. Since I never thought this could happen, it's like I've been blindsided by the whole deal.

It will depend on his local priesthood leaders and the actions that they choose to take. I'll have to check CHI1 but I think that cohabitation is likely cause for being disfellowshipped. But, if he were to just indicate that he has a roommate, it could be overlooked.

[Kenngo1969]

rockpond,

Where do I read about the eternal reasons for marriage to be only between a man and a woman?

Taylor Petrey, is that you?

[Kenngo1969]

Tacenda,

My son has met someone and they are moving in together very soon. He has told me they aren't going to have sex. How wrong is this co habitation? Is it wrong purely on that it looks bad? What would the church say? Is my son in danger of being disfellowshipped? I'm super worried. Since I never thought this could happen, it's like I've been blindsided by the whole deal.

Hmmm ... I guess, theoretically, I could do that. I used to have (or to respond to) hormones, but then I hit 40, and suddenly it's no longer a problem! (That, and I figured out that whatever it is that attracts the sustained (lifetime/eternal ?) attention of (at least one member of) the female of the species, I ain't got it!)

As for your son, I sympathize with his plight. If this is the first time in his life he has attracted female attention which has lasted longer than a date or two, it can be very tempting to want to do whatever one thinks one has to do to sustain that. I was surprised at how very (very) intense the feelings were the first time I attracted such attention. It ended up being quite a long-term relationship (albeit "on-again-off-again"). In hindsight, perhaps I should have proposed and done whatever I needed to do in order to make the relationship work (assuming she would have said yes). But, attraction notwithstanding, we were on the same wavelength about "where we would not go," if you know what I mean. If each member of the couple isn't on that same wavelength, it is, of course, much more difficult.

I suppose all you can do is remind your son that whatever inclinations he has as a mortal, he is actually an Ageless Eternal Being. He is here to satisfy the measure of his creation, not just as a mere mortal, but as a Child of God with limitless eternal potential. Whatever temporary payoff one might get from the satisfaction of quelling physical appetites outside the bounds the Lord has set, the Eternal consequences aren't worth it.

I wish you both well.

[BCSpace]

I think this is a really interesting perspective on questions that the church will need to face as marriage equality for gay people becomes more widespread. CHI1 only uses the term "homosexual behavior"... a term that will likely need to be more clearly defined in upcoming editions.

The repentance process includes denial of self identification as a homosexual. Therefore, to be homosexual is sin. To remain worthy in the process, one has to admit one is struggling with homosexuality rather than that one is homosexual (implying there is nothing you can do about it).

[Bikeemikey]

The repentance process includes denial of self identification as a homosexual. Therefore, to be homosexual is sin. To remain worthy in the process, one has to admit one is struggling with homosexuality rather than that one is homosexual (implying there is nothing you can do about it).

In addition to being utterly incorrect this statement is full of such irrelevant semantic jibber jabber as to be meaningless.

Are you saying a person with SSA can not say they are homosexual, or only that they can't not say they are homosexual if they think that means that they can't do anything about it?

And by doing something about it are you meaning changing the underlying sexual attraction to those of the same gender, or simply meaning that they resist the urges such attraction generates?

Nothing about your statement fits either the church's current statements and positions on the matter or the real world realities of those going through such struggles.

Does repentance also involve the denial of identifying on self as an alcoholic it they are addicted to alcohol? If so you had better tell the churches addiction recovery program.

Edited July 17, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[rockpond]

rockpond,

Taylor Petrey, is that you?

No, but I just googled the name. Maybe I should read some of his stuff.

[rockpond]

The repentance process includes denial of self identification as a homosexual. Therefore, to be homosexual is sin. To remain worthy in the process, one has to admit one is struggling with homosexuality rather than that one is homosexual (implying there is nothing you can do about it).

CFR. I am not aware of this being a current church teaching nor policy.

[rockpond]

Perheaps more of a "when" than a "where," but when and where you read about the LDS marriage covenants. And as I said, no handbook (and even scriptural text) can teach you everything, or certain things.

I'm aware of the "when" that you refer to. I see nothing in those covenants that precludes to possibility of similar covenants someday being extended to gay couples.

[Questing Beast]

So a young man dating, holding hands, and kissing his boyfriend is okay as long as they don't have sex?

Nope, not to me. But there isn't anything I or the Church can do about it. Nothing happens sexually from kissing and holding hands on dates. Society has plenty of policy on public behavior and comeupance. It often isn't nice or fair, but it will be what it will be. When the majority of heteros finally wake up one morning and see the world that they live in, that has been taken over, then we'll see something....

[BCSpace]

The repentance process includes denial of self identification as a homosexual. Therefore, to be homosexual is sin. To remain worthy in the process, one has to admit one is struggling with homosexuality rather than that one is homosexual (implying there is nothing you can do about it).

CFR. I am not aware of this being a current church teaching nor policy.

You can begin with the starter article Bishops and Stake Presidentws use to deal with the issue. For example:

In your quest for self-mastery, remember the importance of living righteously in private as well as in public. President Gordon B. Hinckley urged: “Our behavior in public must be above reproach. Our behavior in private is even more important. It must clear the standard set by the Lord. We cannot indulge in sin, let alone try to cover our sins” (“Personal Worthiness to Exercise the Priesthood,” Ensign, May 2002, 52).

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.

http://www.lds.org/m...ildren?lang=eng

In other words, being openly gay is not going to be good for one in terms of worthiness. This is how the Church counsels us to judge whether or not someone suffering from same gender attraction can hold a calling, receive a temple recommend, etc.

[rockpond]

In other words, being openly gay is not going to be good for one in terms of worthiness. This is how the Church counsels us to judge whether or not someone suffering from same gender attraction can hold a calling, receive a temple recommend, etc.

But none of that says that they must deny their sexual orientation as part of the repentance process. Not flaunting and denial are quite different.

[rockpond]

Nope, not to me. But there isn't anything I or the Church can do about it. Nothing happens sexually from kissing and holding hands on dates.

My question was in reference to worthiness as viewed by the church. Some here stated that the only sin was in sexual relations. But I don't think that's actually true. A 16 year old young man in the church could date a girl, hold hands with her, and kiss without consequence. But a 16 year old young man doing those same things with another 16 year old young man would likely face from discipline within the church. This implies that the CHI1 term "homosexual behavior" refers to more than just sexual relations.

Society has plenty of policy on public behavior and comeupance. It often isn't nice or fair, but it will be what it will be. When the majority of heteros finally wake up one morning and see the world that they live in, that has been taken over, then we'll see something....

What are you implying might happen?

[Questing Beast]

I'm aware of the "when" that you refer to. I see nothing in those covenants that precludes to possibility of similar covenants someday being extended to gay couples.

Look again. "Those covenants" are irrefutably heterosexual. Nothing in them considers anything less than procreation behind marriage, period, full stop. What are you not seeing? The world you dream of is in a different universe from mine, we split here on this.

I've tried to inculcate "the script" for years: SSA is normal for those who have it. They ought to hold themselves to the same standards as heteros, i.e. wait for sex until married, or any possible permutation of "marriage" that allows for genuine commitment that is intended to last a lifetime. Etc.

I've failed to inculcate "the script". The more I think about it the less capable I feel of living in a world gone mad after sex, making it the core issue of "marriage", making it out to be a "civil right", making it out to be "the same", "natural", good and wholesome and lovely, etc. ad nauseam. Like any other social ill, the practitioners/victims want validation rather than have to face the fact that they require healing instead. That's the world we live temporarily in: an imperfect, messed up one. Nothing about accepting SSA and all its appendages is going to promote better society, but only deepen the social ills we already face: broken homes/families, confused children, addictions mounting to cope with the mounting burdens of social stress, society unraveling as even more deviant pov advocacy groups demand their own protection and acceptance. It won't stop here....

[Questing Beast]

My question was in reference to worthiness as viewed by the church. Some here stated that the only sin was in sexual relations. But I don't think that's actually true. A 16 year old young man in the church could date a girl, hold hands with her, and kiss without consequence. But a 16 year old young man doing those same things with another 16 year old young man would likely face from discipline within the church. This implies that the CHI1 term "homosexual behavior" refers to more than just sexual relations.

What are you implying might happen?

Get enough people angry long enough and it will boil over. Then every social ill will be laid at "their" doorsteps. It is all about knowing who to blame, and a majority running angry and scared will know exactly who to blame for all of our problems. Irrationality is always in full swing during such "witch hunts". How long until it happens? I have no idea. But I see it becoming inevitable. GLBTQs will never remotely achieve numerical parity with heteros. Mix in a moderate amount of religious bigotry and self-righteousness, and the brew will be horribly strong, too strong to control. "Wait for iiit". I am sorry to say....

[rockpond]

Look again. "Those covenants" are irrefutably heterosexual. Nothing in them considers anything less than procreation behind marriage, period, full stop. What are you not seeing? The world you dream of is in a different universe from mine, we split here on this.

I've tried to inculcate "the script" for years: SSA is normal for those who have it. They ought to hold themselves to the same standards as heteros, i.e. wait for sex until married, or any possible permutation of "marriage" that allows for genuine commitment that is intended to last a lifetime. Etc.

I've failed to inculcate "the script". The more I think about it the less capable I feel of living in a world gone mad after sex, making it the core issue of "marriage", making it out to be a "civil right", making it out to be "the same", "natural", good and wholesome and lovely, etc. ad nauseam. Like any other social ill, the practitioners/victims want validation rather than have to face the fact that they require healing instead. That's the world we live temporarily in: an imperfect, messed up one. Nothing about accepting SSA and all its appendages is going to promote better society, but only deepen the social ills we already face: broken homes/families, confused children, addictions mounting to cope with the mounting burdens of social stress, society unraveling as even more deviant pov advocacy groups demand their own protection and acceptance. It won't stop here....

I'm confused by this... in one paragraph you suggest that marriage is just about procreation. And in the next paragraph you lament that the world has gone mad about sex (the act of procreation). I think a little more emphasis on love and commitment (even with same gender couples) would be a good thing.

[rockpond]

Get enough people angry long enough and it will boil over. Then every social ill will be laid at "their" doorsteps. It is all about knowing who to blame, and a majority running angry and scared will know exactly who to blame for all of our problems. Irrationality is always in full swing during such "witch hunts". How long until it happens? I have no idea. But I see it becoming inevitable. GLBTQs will never remotely achieve numerical parity with heteros. Mix in a moderate amount of religious bigotry and self-righteousness, and the brew will be horribly strong, too strong to control. "Wait for iiit". I am sorry to say....

Except that we are trending in the opposite direction... with more and more people & churches moving towards fuller acceptance of homosexuals.

[Questing Beast]

I'm confused by this... in one paragraph you suggest that marriage is just about procreation. And in the next paragraph you lament that the world has gone mad about sex (the act of procreation). I think a little more emphasis on love and commitment (even with same gender couples) would be a good thing.

Marriage in the history of the world has always been about procreation, there was never an accepted form of homosexual marriage. Homosexuality has been an accepted part of many civilizations, but never part of marriage. Marriage is all about inheritance and family/national advancement, heirs and securing power, etc. Common people engage in marriages to better themselves in the same ways at a more humble level. Now we live in a world that sees sex as some kind of civil right and statement of solidarity. That's just twisted logic, since there is zero historical precedent for it. Sex has always been implied in marriage. Sex is blatant in homosexual relationships. Sex in infertile marriages is likely just as prevalent as in fertile unions. Sex in homosexual relationships is neutered, useless for the purposes of "marriage" as society concerns itself with the institution. So we see our advanced technology equally seized and twisted to make homosexuals "fertile". Look at Sir Elton as a famous example of this kind of thinking and campaigning for "family". The only position of strength that homosexuals can argue from is change: "The world is different now, so the laws should change to suit the differences, to suit us". It is hard to argue against that, since the world's powers over nature in the area of procreation are increasing exponentially, until men and women won't even be required in order to impregnate a "machine" and bring babies to term. Messed, up, thinking. And as I said, inevitable. The pressure is building, religious people are running scared and angry. And they have the strength of history/tradition behind them, and shared anger with their shared "God"....

[rockpond]

Marriage in the history of the world has always been about procreation, there was never an accepted form of homosexual marriage. Homosexuality has been an accepted part of many civilizations, but never part of marriage. Marriage is all about inheritance and family/national advancement, heirs and securing power, etc. Common people engage in marriages to better themselves in the same ways at a more humble level. Now we live in a world that sees sex as some kind of civil right and statement of solidarity. That's just twisted logic, since there is zero historical precedent for it. Sex has always been implied in marriage. Sex is blatant in homosexual relationships. Sex in infertile marriages is likely just as prevalent as in fertile unions. Sex in homosexual relationships is neutered, useless for the purposes of "marriage" as society concerns itself with the institution. So we see our advanced technology equally seized and twisted to make homosexuals "fertile". Look at Sir Elton as a famous example of this kind of thinking and campaigning for "family". The only position of strength that homosexuals can argue from is change: "The world is different now, so the laws should change to suit the differences, to suit us". It is hard to argue against that, since the world's powers over nature in the area of procreation are increasing exponentially, until men and women won't even be required in order to impregnate a "machine" and bring babies to term. Messed, up, thinking. And as I said, inevitable. The pressure is building, religious people are running scared and angry. And they have the strength of history/tradition behind them, and shared anger with their shared "God"....

We learn, we grow, we progress. Isn't that why we are here? There doesn't have to be a historical precedence. And marriage has certainly evolved over the millenia... women are no longer viewed as chattel and concubines aren't an accepted practice. I don't see the clinging to history/tradition has having some inherent value.

Spiritually, we are in the midst of a restoration. As that restoration progresses, we can also expect things to change.

As for pressure building and religious people running scared and angry... I don't see it. The world I see around me is one of increasing love and acceptance.

[CV75]

I'm aware of the "when" that you refer to. I see nothing in those covenants that precludes to possibility of similar covenants someday being extended to gay couples.

That is fine; even simpler: the sin then, is in acting on presumptions on what God could possibly reveal, in contradiction to the way things have been revealed so far, to the detriment of oneself and others who have been given knowledge of and promised certain blessings for acting on the way things have been revealed so far.

[canard78]

I think this is a really interesting perspective on questions that the church will need to face as marriage equality for gay people becomes more widespread. CHI1 only uses the term "homosexual behavior"... a term that will likely need to be more clearly defined in upcoming editions.

http://www.nomorestr...larify-the-sin/

Thanks for sharing the article rockpond. It's an outstanding set of questions.

The only commandment being broken in a same-sex marriage is the Church definition of Chastity.

God has given us commandments that support family and individual happiness. One of these is the Law of Chastity — individuals should have no sexual relations except in marriage, which Latter-day Saints define as between a man and a woman. Sexual intimacy is a powerful and beautiful thing. For this very reason it should be treated with care, within the boundaries of commitment and responsibility.

So therefore everything else on the list is not breaking the law of chastity. It's not the relationship, the companionship nor even sodomy. It's the 'sexual relations' (of any form) outside of LDS recognised marriage.

As such, a gay couple kissing is not breaking the LoC because an unmarried straight couple kissing is not.

A gay couple holding hands is not breaking the LoC because an unmarried straight couple doing is not.

A gay couple supporting each other and their extended family is not breaking any law because it is not when an unmarried couple do it.

If two single men share an apartment, go to sporting events togher, get to know each other's families, share bills, share resources but are both straight there is no issue at all.

If two gay men do the same there is no additional law broken.

Sex outside of a church approved marriage is still a sin. None of the rest is.

We don't give a different Word of Wisdom definition to an LGBT person. We don't give a different law of tithing to an LGBT person. There's no reason to give a different law of Chastity definition to an LGBT person. And kissing/holding hands doesn't break it. Even living together doesn't break it.

[LordUther]

The repentance process includes denial of self identification as a homosexual. Therefore, to be homosexual is sin. To remain worthy in the process, one has to admit one is struggling with homosexuality rather than that one is homosexual (implying there is nothing you can do about it).

Time for me to come out on this issue. I have already told of my experiences of leaving the church & that I am in the process of making my way back. The issue that I left the church over is that I am gay, so I am intimately aware of the repentance process involved in this issue, and to be perfectly frank this is nonsense. In fact there is an openly gay man that has recently been call as a Bishops exec sec in San Francisco. My Bishop has no problem with me being gay, only that I keep the LoC. I have actually been really lucky that one of the missionaries who's reactivating me is the grandson of one of the apostles and was kind enough to take my questions to his grandfather when he was talking at a mission conference recently & there is no problem with the way I am returning to church. And this isn't a new practice, doctrine or whatever. When Patriarch Joseph Fielding Smith In the 1940's was discovered to be having homosexuality problems he was not excommunicated, nor did he face church discipline, but was released from office, and he moved to Hawaii to concentrate on dealing with the issue. There is also another quote somewhere (if anyone wants I will try to find it but I have been through so many websites studying this issue I may not be able to remember where it was) that one of the apostles under George Albert Smith(?) when asked about this issue and what was the church's stand responded "up until now we have only removed them from office...nothing more"

In fact the church's stand on the issue only seemed to become harsh under Spencer W Kimball in the 60's after he was asked by the 1st Pres to look into the issue, a stand that seems to have lasted through the latter half of the 20thC but it seems is now being reversed, at no time was there a policy change, but just the way the issues were dealt with.

[canard78]

The repentance process includes denial of self identification as a homosexual. Therefore, to be homosexual is sin. To remain worthy in the process, one has to admit one is struggling with homosexuality rather than that one is homosexual (implying there is nothing you can do about it).

(Holds head in hands)

To save myself the bother of a long post, CFR.

And please bear in mind that there is a recent statement from the church found here:

www.mormonsandgays.org

The emphasis of this website is a call for members to change their attitudes.