Brian 2.0 Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 Does anyone know what the church's stance is on what is and what is not acceptable in terms of same-sex behavior? To make it easier, I guess what would violate the law of chastity and not allow the same-sex person to obtain a temple recommend? I know the "line" is murky with opposite-sex couple that are trying to stay worthy, so is the "line" also murky with same-sex couples, with that line being a lot lower on the scale of intimate contact? Can two members of the same sex who have same-sex attraction do any the following with violating the law of chastity? - Hug- Hold Hands- Cuddle on the couch- Light kissing- Heavy kissing- Making out while lying down- Being roommates- Being bedmates Does anyone know if there is any instruction on this in the handbook or given to bishops? Obviously the bishop might not recommend any of these actions as it could easily lead to more, but there's a big difference between recommendations to avoid breaking the law of chastity and actions that actually break the law of chastity. Sometimes you hear the argument that gays in the church need to be celibate and equate it with single members who also have to remain celibate. But those single members can date, have relationships that include making out, etc, all without any impact on their temple recommend. I'm assuming the same is not the case for same-sex members.
Rob Osborn Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 "If members feel same-gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders should support and encourage them in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control unrighteous thoughts. These members may receive Church callings. If they are worthy and qualified in every other way, they may also hold temple recommends and receive temple ordinances." http://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies/21.4 Pretty much every thing you listed would be in violation of the church policy regarding "do not engage in any homosexual behavior". 1
cinepro Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 Obviously, the logical analysis would suggest that if heterosexual couples can engage in those behaviors and still be considered "worthy", then homosexual couples should also be able to. Sadly, we are not logical creatures, and I suspect our reaction and judgement would be more largely dictated by our culture and personal feelings towards such things. 3
Duncan Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 (edited) "If members feel same-gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders should support and encourage them in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control unrighteous thoughts. These members may receive Church callings. If they are worthy and qualified in every other way, they may also hold temple recommends and receive temple ordinances." http://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies/21.4Pretty much every thing you listed would be in violation of the church policy regarding "do not engage in any homosexual behavior". that's the thing, they aren't encouraged to marry someone of the opposite sex either so basically they can't be physical with anyone ever until they die and some speculate God will, no pun intended, straighten them out (Elders Bruce C. Hafen and Lance B. Wickman have made comments to that effect) Edited January 12, 2014 by Duncan
The Nehor Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 Does anyone know what the church's stance is on what is and what is not acceptable in terms of same-sex behavior? To make it easier, I guess what would violate the law of chastity and not allow the same-sex person to obtain a temple recommend? I know the "line" is murky with opposite-sex couple that are trying to stay worthy, so is the "line" also murky with same-sex couples, with that line being a lot lower on the scale of intimate contact? Can two members of the same sex who have same-sex attraction do any the following with violating the law of chastity? - Hug- Hold Hands- Cuddle on the couch- Light kissing- Heavy kissing- Making out while lying down- Being roommates- Being bedmates Does anyone know if there is any instruction on this in the handbook or given to bishops? Obviously the bishop might not recommend any of these actions as it could easily lead to more, but there's a big difference between recommendations to avoid breaking the law of chastity and actions that actually break the law of chastity. Sometimes you hear the argument that gays in the church need to be celibate and equate it with single members who also have to remain celibate. But those single members can date, have relationships that include making out, etc, all without any impact on their temple recommend. I'm assuming the same is not the case for same-sex members. Other then hugging I would say they are all bad. I have hugged gay friends before and unless they were secretly lusting after me (and who wouldn't?) I am sure it is fine. The rest all have romantic connotations making them out of bounds. If you wouldn't do it with a platonic friend I would label it a no-no. 2
Duncan Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 I had a gay mission companion, he wasn't one of my favourites but not because of his sexuality and I feel for the guy, I think now he is on his 3rd of 4th marriage, being gay in society and being a member of the Church isn't easy I lived with him and 2 others before we found out he was gay. Long story short his companion read his journal...and mistreated him after that, which was awful.
mormonnewb Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 Other then hugging I would say they are all bad. I have hugged gay friends before and unless they were secretly lusting after me (and who wouldn't?) I am sure it is fine. The rest all have romantic connotations making them out of bounds. If you wouldn't do it with a platonic friend I would label it a no-no.This is what makes our church's stance towards gays and lesbians cruel. We banish them to a life without affection of ANY kind. Sure, the Catholics impose this limitation on clergy and nuns but this is a burden borne by those who are MOST devout. We impose our heaviest burden upon just average members. Given that our Savoir paid the highest burden and all but one of His early disciples did the same, I expect more from my leaders than the membership. So until the leaders are willing to "pick up their crosses," I think gays and lesbians should work out their salvation elsewhere. 2
The Nehor Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 This is what makes our church's stance towards gays and lesbians cruel. We banish them to a life without affection of ANY kind. Sure, the Catholics impose this limitation on clergy and nuns but this is a burden borne by those who are MOST devout. We impose our heaviest burden upon just average members. Given that our Savoir paid the highest burden and all but one of His early disciples did the same, I expect more from my leaders than the membership. So until the leaders are willing to "pick up their crosses," I think gays and lesbians should work out their salvation elsewhere. In the LDS faith everyone is part of the clergy so yeah, we expect everyone to be devout.
Traela Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 that's the thing, they aren't encouraged to marry someone of the opposite sex either so basically they can't be physical with anyone ever until they die and sme speculate God will, no pun intended, straighten them out (Elders Bruce C. Hafen and Lance B. Wickman have made comments to that effect)Or, considering that sexuality is considered to be on a spectrum with very, very few being totally homosexual or totally heterosexual, they could wait patiently for a person that is appropriate for them to marry.
3DOP Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 This is what makes our church's stance towards gays and lesbians cruel. We banish them to a life without affection of ANY kind. Sure, the Catholics impose this limitation on clergy and nuns but this is a burden borne by those who are MOST devout. We impose our heaviest burden upon just average members. Given that our Savoir paid the highest burden and all but one of His early disciples did the same, I expect more from my leaders than the membership. So until the leaders are willing to "pick up their crosses," I think gays and lesbians should work out their salvation elsewhere. For the record, no one in the Catholic Church has religious or priestly life (consecrated celibacy) imposed upon them. Any sacrifice (consecrated celibacy) that is imposed loses its meaning. For any merit to be gained by giving up the great good of a spouse and children, the sacrifice must be freely sought. No one can sacrifice something that is sinful. This is one reason why the Catholic priesthood is a very poor fit for the self-identified homosexual. Unlike the heterosexual priest, he is not sacrificing something that he can legitimately have. The essence of all Catholic priestly activity is sacrifice, beginning with offering up the blessings of family life and culminating with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. "Be you also as living stones built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." (I Pet. 2:5) 4
Brian 2.0 Posted January 12, 2014 Author Posted January 12, 2014 For the record, no one in the Catholic Church has religious or priestly life (consecrated celibacy) imposed upon them. Any sacrifice (consecrated celibacy) that is imposed loses its meaning. For any merit to be gained by giving up the great good of a spouse and children, the sacrifice must be freely sought. No one can sacrifice something that is sinful. This is one reason why the Catholic priesthood is a very poor fit for the self-identified homosexual. Unlike the heterosexual priest, he is not sacrificing something that he can legitimately have. The essence of all Catholic priestly activity is sacrifice, beginning with offering up the blessings of family life and culminating with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. "Be you also as living stones built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." (I Pet. 2:5) I don't know why, but I've never thought of it this way. Makes more sense to me now that I see where they are coming from on it.
Brian 2.0 Posted January 12, 2014 Author Posted January 12, 2014 (edited) This is what makes our church's stance towards gays and lesbians cruel. We banish them to a life without affection of ANY kind.... This is why I really dislike it when some in the church try to say gay and single-heterosexual members are treated the same in terms of the law of chastity. It's apple and oranges. Heterosexual members are commanded to abstain from sexual relations outside of marriage.Homosexual members are commanded to abstain from "any homosexual behavior." Those are very different commandments, requiring very different sacrifices. Could you imagine if the law of chastity required single members to abstain from "any heterosexual behavior" before marriage? And under that umbrella we put cuddling and kissing? How could any single lds-member keep the law of chastity for long? Edited January 12, 2014 by Brian 2.0 2
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 Does anyone know what the church's stance is on what is and what is not acceptable in terms of same-sex behavior? To make it easier, I guess what would violate the law of chastity and not allow the same-sex person to obtain a temple recommend? I know the "line" is murky with opposite-sex couple that are trying to stay worthy, so is the "line" also murky with same-sex couples, with that line being a lot lower on the scale of intimate contact? Can two members of the same sex who have same-sex attraction do any the following with violating the law of chastity? - Hug- Hold Hands- Cuddle on the couch- Light kissing- Heavy kissing- Making out while lying down- Being roommates- Being bedmates Does anyone know if there is any instruction on this in the handbook or given to bishops? Obviously the bishop might not recommend any of these actions as it could easily lead to more, but there's a big difference between recommendations to avoid breaking the law of chastity and actions that actually break the law of chastity. Sometimes you hear the argument that gays in the church need to be celibate and equate it with single members who also have to remain celibate. But those single members can date, have relationships that include making out, etc, all without any impact on their temple recommend. I'm assuming the same is not the case for same-sex members.I think that this issue belongs with Bishops and members. What I hate most about Prop 8. Is that Mormon Discussion boards are now used as clearing houses for those who cannot get over a morbid fixation with this topic.
WmLaw Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 Does anyone know what the church's stance is on what is and what is not acceptable in terms of same-sex behavior? To make it easier, I guess what would violate the law of chastity and not allow the same-sex person to obtain a temple recommend? I know the "line" is murky with opposite-sex couple that are trying to stay worthy, so is the "line" also murky with same-sex couples, with that line being a lot lower on the scale of intimate contact? Can two members of the same sex who have same-sex attraction do any the following with violating the law of chastity? - Hug- Hold Hands- Cuddle on the couch- Light kissing- Heavy kissing- Making out while lying down- Being roommates- Being bedmates Does anyone know if there is any instruction on this in the handbook or given to bishops? Obviously the bishop might not recommend any of these actions as it could easily lead to more, but there's a big difference between recommendations to avoid breaking the law of chastity and actions that actually break the law of chastity. Sometimes you hear the argument that gays in the church need to be celibate and equate it with single members who also have to remain celibate. But those single members can date, have relationships that include making out, etc, all without any impact on their temple recommend. I'm assuming the same is not the case for same-sex members.for members of the LDS church with SSA, that wish to fully participate - i would suggest a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. the items listed are none of anyone's business - in the context of worthiness interviews... 1
Brian 2.0 Posted January 12, 2014 Author Posted January 12, 2014 I think that this issue belongs with Bishops and members. What I hate most about Prop 8. Is that Mormon Discussion boards are now used as clearing houses for those who cannot get over a morbid fixation with this topic. I asked if there is any instruction given to bishops on this topic or any instructions in the handbook (since I can't see all the handbook). Is my question a "morbid fixation"? It seems fair for me to ask if there is a church wide policy on this or if it falls under bishops and members discretion. And also fair to discuss the implications of a policy or lack of policy on these things.
The Nehor Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 (edited) Could you imagine if the law of chastity required single members to abstain from "any heterosexual behavior" before marriage? And under that umbrella we put cuddling and kissing? How could any single lds-member keep the law of chastity for long? I could have for most of last year. My last couple of dates have been.....subpar. Edited January 12, 2014 by The Nehor
The Nehor Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 for members of the LDS church with SSA, that wish to fully participate - i would suggest a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. the items listed are none of anyone's business - in the context of worthiness interviews... As a counterpoint I would suggest not doing this. 1
Duncan Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 (edited) As a counterpoint I would suggest not doing this. that works unless you have voyeuristic Bishops or counselours who give the recommend interview Edited January 12, 2014 by Duncan
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 I asked if there is any instruction given to bishops on this topic or any instructions in the handbook (since I can't see all the handbook). Is my question a "morbid fixation"? It seems fair for me to ask if there is a church wide policy on this or if it falls under bishops and members discretion. And also fair to discuss the implications of a policy or lack of policy on these things.The rules are the same for any unmarried person to be chaste, and being chaste does not need to be written for different groups. The "morbid fixation" has to do with the amount of redundant threads on the same topic...it was not directed at you, but the trend.
mormonnewb Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 The rules are the same for any unmarried person to be chaste, and being chaste does not need to be written for different groups. The "morbid fixation" has to do with the amount of redundant threads on the same topic...it was not directed at you, but the trend.The rules are NOT the same. Heterosexual unmarried couples can kiss and hold hands, gay couples can't. Also, chastity is a temporary condition that ends when the heterosexual couples marries. However, the gay couple will NEVER be intimate (or even hold hands) under our doctrine.
Duncan Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 The rules are NOT the same. Heterosexual unmarried couples can kiss and hold hands, gay couples can't. Also, chastity is a temporary condition that ends when the heterosexual couples marries. However, the gay couple will NEVER be intimate (or even hold hands) under our doctrine. well, after you get married you need to be chaste because you can't be playing handsy pandsy with someone else 1
The Nehor Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 that works unless you have voyeuristic Bishops or counselours who give the recommend interview Okay, what is voyeurism in this context? Is it: Bishop: Do you keep the Law of Chastity?Male Person: Yes, but I also make out with my boyfriend and we take things pretty far showing affection.Bishop: Okay, I think we think we need to discuss this in more detail. -or- Bishop: Do you keep the Law of Chastity.Male Person: Yes, but I also make out with my gay boyfriend and we take things pretty far showing affection.Bishop: (eagerly) So, how was it? Did you enjoy it? Do you have a picture of him? What is his skin like? How often? Did you guys explore any fetishes? The rules are the same for any unmarried person to be chaste, and being chaste does not need to be written for different groups. The "morbid fixation" has to do with the amount of redundant threads on the same topic...it was not directed at you, but the trend. Have to disagree. Chastity for a heterosexual person is not taking it too far. No one cares if a guy and girl kiss goodnight after a date while we would (rightly) look askance at a gay guy going on a date with another guy at all. Of the heterosexual we ask delayed gratification while showing affection through less serious methods; of the homosexual we demand absolute control over the impulse. There are simply the way it is. I have to control myself as a single guy but I can't compare my struggles with that of a homosexual controlling his impulses. I am allowed some gratification he is now and the luxury of hope and daydreams for fulfillment in the future; he gets to live with never expressing his desires. 4
mormonnewb Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 well, after you get married you need to be chaste because you can't be playing handsy pandsy with someone elseSo you're saying that having just ONE spouse is the same as being celibate?
Duncan Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 Okay, what is voyeurism in this context? Is it: Bishop: Do you keep the Law of Chastity?Male Person: Yes, but I also make out with my boyfriend and we take things pretty far showing affection.Bishop: Okay, I think we think we need to discuss this in more detail. -or- Bishop: Do you keep the Law of Chastity.Male Person: Yes, but I also make out with my gay boyfriend and we take things pretty far showing affection.Bishop: (eagerly) So, how was it? Did you enjoy it? Do you have a picture of him? What is his skin like? How often? Did you guys explore any fetishes? Have to disagree. Chastity for a heterosexual person is not taking it too far. No one cares if a guy and girl kiss goodnight after a date while we would (rightly) look askance at a gay guy going on a date with another guy at all. Of the heterosexual we ask delayed gratification while showing affection through less serious methods; of the homosexual we demand absolute control over the impulse. There are simply the way it is. I have to control myself as a single guy but I can't compare my struggles with that of a homosexual controlling his impulses. I am allowed some gratification he is now and the luxury of hope and daydreams for fulfillment in the future; he gets to live with never expressing his desires. who was involved, what did you do, how did you feel about it, how did long it last, do you plan on doing it again, There is this this talk from Pres. N. Eldon Tanner in the Oct. 1978 GC"Remember, you who conduct worthiness interviews are representatives of the Lord and you must conduct the interviews as the Lord himself would conduct them.That is, there must be nothing immodest or degrading in your interview. Our interviews are not to be indelicate, or offensive, or pornographic in any way.May I say here that occasionally we receive reports that a bishop or a stake president has been very indiscreet or indelicate in an interview, especially of married members.It is not in order for a priesthood leader to list in detail ugly, deviant, or bestial practices and then cross-examine a member of the Church as to whether or not such things are practiced.One of the General Authorities once interviewed a young man who had gone into the mission home who had made confession of a transgression which disqualified him from missionary service.The General Authority was amazed at the sordid nature of what the young man had done and asked, “Where on earth did you get the idea to do things like this?” He was shocked when the young man answered, “From my bishop.”During a preliminary interview for the young man’s mission, the bishop had said, “Have you ever done this? Have you ever done that?” describing every unworthy and depraved act he could think of. Such things had never before entered the young man’s mind, but they were in his mind now! The adversary put in his way the opportunity and the temptation—and he fell!Brethren, our interviews must be conducted in love, in modesty. Ofttimes things can be corrected if you ask: “Would there be a reason you may feel uncomfortable or perhaps even dishonest to the Lord if you were to sign your own temple recommend?“Would you like a little time to get some very personal things in order before you sign it? Remember, the Lord knows all things and will not be mocked. We are trying to help you. Never lie to try to obtain a call, a recommend, or a blessing from the Lord.”
Duncan Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 So you're saying that having just ONE spouse is the same as being celibate? I am saying that you shouldn't give in to the urge to merge with anyone other then who you are married to, i.e adultery
Recommended Posts