thesometimesaint Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 (edited) Do you know of any un married heterosexual couple sleeping together but with no sex and in "full fellowship" as you described? I do. They don't sleep in the same bed, but yes they are a unmarried heterosexual couple in full fellowship with no sexual relationship living in the same house. Edited October 30, 2013 by thesometimesaint
Darren10 Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 Unless you speak for God Himself, you cannot say "it always will be." What source would you cite to show otherwise?
Darren10 Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 I do. They don't sleep in the same room, but yes they are a unmarried heterosexual couple in full fellowship with no sexual relationship living in the same house. Then they do not sleep *together*. I know of a couple in the situation I described. They are not in full fellowship at church but they attend regularly and I really enjoy seeing them on Sunday.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 Assuming one KNOWS and doesn't just have FAITH, I would agree with you.I don't get what you're saying here. The principle is true whether or not one knows it or merely has faith in it. To put it another way, one's level of faith in the principle does not alter its truthfulness.
Darren10 Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 OK, you're right. I can't say it with any greater degree of certainty than I can say that the sun will rise tomorrow. How dare you speak for the sun like that!!!
jkwilliams Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 Again, this is a bad comparison. If my wife or I had some debilitating disease or injury that made sexual intimacy impossible, we could still touch each other, hold hands, give even a small peck on the cheek, or any number of other demonstrations of affection that are unavailable to gay members. That's the problem: the church is asking from them what it does not ask of anyone else. And I have a hard time telling people that it's a good thing to live a life without affection because you'll be rewarded it for it in the next life. 1
jkwilliams Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 What source would you cite to show otherwise? Continuing revelation, which I thought Mormons believed in. 1
DBMormon Posted October 30, 2013 Author Posted October 30, 2013 Please answer the question: Are you telling us it would be impossible for you ever to delay sexual gratification, even temporarily? I'm really trying to understand your position.temporarlly, yes. For my entire life. No way
Scott Lloyd Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 (edited) I am saying that if commanded to live a celibate life, I could not. Will I break the law of chastity to gratify myself, nope. This appears to be somewhat of a contradiction. You would obey God's law of chastity but you would disobey a commandment, presumably from God through His prophet? That does not compute. But I also could not choose to avoid that kind of love and intimacy out of the hope it would all be resolved in the next life if a chance to marry was an option. If you had the option to marry in accordance with the will of God, it would be wrong to avoid it. Edited October 30, 2013 by Scott Lloyd
DBMormon Posted October 30, 2013 Author Posted October 30, 2013 (edited) I don't get what you're saying here. The principle is true whether or not one knows it or merely has faith in it. To put it another way, one's level of faith in the principle does not alter its truthfulness.But it does alter one's willingness or commitment to forgo such crucial things like love in hope that it will be made right. Edited October 30, 2013 by DBMormon
Scott Lloyd Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 (edited) temporarlly, yes. For my entire life. No wayMany sexually healthy, heterosexual people have no assurance they will ever find someone in mortality who will have them or with whom they would be compatible. They maintain their chastity with the hope that God will bring them the promised blessings at some point. Would you put a time limit on your obedience to the law of chastity? Edited October 30, 2013 by Scott Lloyd 1
Darren10 Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 No it isn't. A heterosexual person can engage in kissing, hugging, hand-holding with no consequence. Gay members can't. First off, there's stanrards for even heterosexual couples regarding physical intimacy but assuming all is done in a chaste, pure manner, your statement is correct. But, it is the same standard for all. Any homosexual may kiss and snuggle and hug a member of the opposite gender with no consequences. Also, there's a reason why the standards are set the way they are. Heterosexual couples kissing and hugging leads towards eternal families, homosexual couples doing the same does not. In fact, the latter leads to the loss of the presthood in the eternities and guarantees no exaltation no matter how good the two homosexual people are or how much they believe in Jesus. What you're describing here is how similar a homosexual and heterosexual couples are on the outset of things. They do look "the same" but the end results of their respective paths are very different. I think Satan is a master at this tactic: making things looks so similar to God's designs that it seems fine to do all the while knowing full well the eternal ramifications of their choices.
halconero Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 Again, this is a bad comparison. If my wife or I had some debilitating disease or injury that made sexual intimacy impossible, we could still touch each other, hold hands, give even a small peck on the cheek, or any number of other demonstrations of affection that are unavailable to gay members. That's the problem: the church is asking from them what it does not ask of anyone else. And I have a hard time telling people that it's a good thing to live a life without affection because you'll be rewarded it for it in the next life. Not necessarily true. My roommate is a gay member, active, and part of his keeping the law of chastity is forming a deep relationship with another gay YSA member in the area. They embrace, hold each other at times, and sometimes even link arms and hold hands. They aren't sexual partners, and they claim that such a relationship helps them keep the standards required of them by the Church. The Bishop, stake president and several other members are aware of this and approve.
Darren10 Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 Piggy backing on my own #87 post, I'll say that homosexuals are welcome into the LDS Church and I've yet to find any active member on this forum or in real life which will not welcome a homosexual into church. What we need to take caution with is not making homosexual behavior as something "the same as" heterosexual behavior. The end results are so dramatically different that I think any faithful LDS member would shun. Faithful LDS members should, as for themselves, also dread others from receiving the wrong end in the eternities.
jkwilliams Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 First off, there's stanrards for even heterosexual couples regarding physical intimacy but assuming all is done in a chaste, pure manner, your statement is correct. But, it is the same standard for all. Any homosexual may kiss and snuggle and hug a member of the opposite gender with no consequences. Also, there's a reason why the standards are set the way they are. Heterosexual couples kissing and hugging leads towards eternal families, homosexual couples doing the same does not. In fact, the latter leads to the loss of the presthood in the eternities and guarantees no exaltation no matter how good the two homosexual people are or how much they believe in Jesus. What you're describing here is how similar a homosexual and heterosexual couples are on the outset of things. They do look "the same" but the end results of their respective paths are very different. I think Satan is a master at this tactic: making things looks so similar to God's designs that it seems fine to do all the while knowing full well the eternal ramifications of their choices. My point is that the standards are different for homosexuals and heterosexuals. Sounds like you agree with me.
Darren10 Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 Not necessarily true. My roommate is a gay member, active, and part of his keeping the law of chastity is forming a deep relationship with another gay YSA member in the area. They embrace, hold each other at times, and sometimes even link arms and hold hands. They aren't sexual partners, and they claim that such a relationship helps them keep the standards required of them by the Church. The Bishop, stake president and several other members are aware of this and approve. Very interesting.
jkwilliams Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 Not necessarily true. My roommate is a gay member, active, and part of his keeping the law of chastity is forming a deep relationship with another gay YSA member in the area. They embrace, hold each other at times, and sometimes even link arms and hold hands. They aren't sexual partners, and they claim that such a relationship helps them keep the standards required of them by the Church. The Bishop, stake president and several other members are aware of this and approve. I hope this catches on, then. I doubt it, but one can hope.
Rob Osborn Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 Sorry, I did not mean to be abrasive with my "skip participation" comment. I just didn't want you and I to get into another debate that took the thread away from the OP's question. Something I realize I was doing as well because, as you know, this is a subject that is important to me. So, you're saying it can't be done unless the person commits to avoiding all homosexual behavior. Fair enough. But where would you draw the line if you were a bishop. Here's a hypothetical... Say you, as a bishop, have a brother in your ward who is gay and worthily holds a temple recommend. He has accepted a call to serve as a counselor in the EQ presidency and has been serving faithfully in that position for some time. You now learn that he spends most of his social time hanging out with several gay (but platonic) friends. Do you request his release? If not, a few months pass and in an interview with him he lets you know that he went on a dinner date with a guy but there was no physical intimacy. Do you request his release at this point? If not, a couple of months pass and a trusted ward member tells you that they saw him leave the movies hand in hand with another guy. You ask him about this and he says that he has been dating this man and kissed him but nothing beyond that. And he assures you that he will not go any further than this current activity. Do you request a release now? Would you, at any point in this hypothetical, have requested a disciplinary council if the Elder in question said that he did not plan to stop dating but that he would not ever let his relationship go past the point of hand holding and kissing as he believes in chastity before marriage and marriage only between a man and a woman? Just curious where you would draw the line with respect to "full fellowship in the church".I draw the line when a gay person has any acts of intamacy with a member of the sane sex. This can include a dinner date or any date for that matter if it is exclusively because of attraction or intimacy between the two. Thats the hard line right there. I have hung out with gay people before who were both extended family members and aquantainces. There hast to be a fast hard line at that point of "acting" upon ones homosexuality which very much does include "dating" or holding hands, huggibg, etc that is or can be considered intimate. 1
thesometimesaint Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 But it does alter one's willingness or commitment to forgo such crucial things like love in hope that it will be made right. Ask Sister Sheri Dew. 2
Darren10 Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 My point is that the standards are different for homosexuals and heterosexuals. Sounds like you agree with me. They are not different. All people, homosexual or heterosexual are fully welcome to marry someone of the opposite gender in the temple. Period. If you're talking about accepting homosexual behavior as something "just like" heterosexual behavior, as something pure and divinely accepted, than that is where the differences are; not in the standards.
Darren10 Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 My point is that the standards are different for homosexuals and heterosexuals. Sounds like you agree with me. where would it not "catch on"?
Darren10 Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 I hope this catches on, then. I doubt it, but one can hope. Where would it not cath on? This is the standard of the Church, if what Halconero says is accurate.
Darren10 Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 Continuing revelation, which I thought Mormons believed in. By definition and your own admission, that source does not exist for any revelation not condemning homosexual behavior has never been given.
Darren10 Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 If I give my wife a kiss in the chapel after sacrament meeting when she goes to Primary (which I do every Sunday), no one thinks twice about it. You cannot tell me the same would be true if two men kissed in the same setting. What will homosexual kissing lead to in the eternities as opposed to you, a male, kissing your wife? I know you "dont believe" but you know the doctrines all too well so you're quite capable in answering the question.
jkwilliams Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 By definition and your own admission, that source does not exist for any revelation not condemning homosexual behavior has never been given. I thought we were talking about the future, not the past.
Recommended Posts