CV75 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?I think it is clearly laid out in https://www.lds.org/youth/for-the-strength-of-youth/sexual-purity?lang=eng I think most people know when their behavior is sexual or not (and can generally even anticipate when it is headed in that direction), and in a worthiness interview, honesty is the best policy. Making a checklist of “do’s and don’ts” isn’t really productive since different behaviors carry different sexual meaning and response to different people. This is why even the guidance given to the youth gives very few (and the most obvious) examples (see link above). Public displays of affection among Church members, whether carrying sexual significance to the participants or not, may affect bystanders and observers, and it is only Christlike civility to be sensitive to the sexual mores we live with (as well as to be patient toward those are gauche!). There is no need to be express affection in public if it will come across as sexually provocative by our brothers and sisters according to their community’s norms.
mormonnewb Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 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 adulteryHowever, unless gays are allowed to marry, they are condemned to a lifetime without affection with ANYONE. You can say that The Lord is the one doing the condemning but given humanity's history of using "God's will" to impose all manner of evils upon one another, I'm more than a little skeptical. 2
Brian 2.0 Posted January 12, 2014 Author Posted January 12, 2014 (edited) 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.I was about to write the same response as a lot of you did to this comment, but then I re-read it and realize what he is saying here. ALL members (Hetero or homo) are under the SAME law of chastity, namely, no hetero sexual relations until married, and no homosexual behavior period. Which is true. The law is just WAY harsher to live if you happen to be a homosexual Edited January 12, 2014 by Brian 2.0
EllenMaksoud 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.What the church does about this issue will define the church in the 21st century, and in watching the media from the Middle East, and Far East, it seems they are much more conservative than the USA. While Americans are working out gay rights laws, other countries are making laws and killing them. As I have said frequently, the West needs to be lavishly funding genetic research because knowledge increases in this area will do the most to benefit humanity. In a sense, gays are the "blacks" of the 21st century. I have seen too many tears to believe that the behavior is entirely willful, still gay behavior carries with it huge hygienic risks. Ultimately, in the year 2100, should we survive, possible solutions to the issue could be anything from abortion of gay fetuses to a shot that will "cure" it, to complete social acceptance with the caveat that certain hygienic rules be followed. With 7 billion people on Earth, I am not convinced that there will always be a need for reproductive unions. In the Clinton years, he attended a G-8 (?) conference in Rio, where one of the items on the agenda was the reduction of world population back to around 2.5 Billion. I know it was talked about, having seen the news reports, but not much else. So, the argument that a marriage is solely for reproduction seems weak to me. The church can either lead the way or react to what culture decides.
Rob Osborn Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 I guess I do not understand the idea of the law of chastity as being more harsh for gay people. The law of chastity is the law of chastity be it for straight or gay people. Our church leaders have just reaffirmed that homosexual behavior is a sin. This is not a harsh thing. We have never considered it harsh thing in the past so why now? Is it because it has become acceptable and now we are just looking for a new way to justify immoral behavior? The church is going to end up being bullied along with a lot of other religions because of their choice to uphold God's laws of morality. My heart goes out to those who feel trapped with homosexual feelings but really- do we need to keep asking the same questions regarding what is and what is not acceptable? 1
Calm Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 However, unless gays are allowed to marry, they are condemned to a lifetime without affection with ANYONE. You can say that The Lord is the one doing the condemning but given humanity's history of using "God's will" to impose all manner of evils upon one another, I'm more than a little skeptical.Without romantic affection...they can receive as much love and affection as any heterosexual in a family or friend relationship. It is important to be accurate in description in any type of argument on any subject, but especially ones that involve a lot of emotions so that people don't tend to dismiss all one's claims because one or more appear to be written to maximise its emotional appeal. 2
mormonnewb Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 (edited) I guess I do not understand the idea of the law of chastity as being more harsh for gay people. The law of chastity is the law of chastity be it for straight or gay people. Our church leaders have just reaffirmed that homosexual behavior is a sin. This is not a harsh thing. We have never considered it harsh thing in the past so why now? Is it because it has become acceptable and now we are just looking for a new way to justify immoral behavior? The church is going to end up being bullied along with a lot of other religions because of their choice to uphold God's laws of morality. My heart goes out to those who feel trapped with homosexual feelings but really- do we need to keep asking the same questions regarding what is and what is not acceptable?I guess I do not understand the idea of the law against interracial marriage as being more harsh for black people. The law is the law be it for black or white people. Brigham Young and others have just reaffirmed that interracial marriage is a sin. This is not a harsh thing. We have never considered it harsh thing in the past so why now? Is it because it has become acceptable and now we are just looking for a new way to justify immoral behavior? The church is going to end up being bullied along with a lot of other religions because of their choice to uphold God's laws of morality. My heart goes out to those who feel trapped with feelings for someone of a different race but really- do we need to keep asking the same questions regarding what is and what is not acceptable? -- Typical Mormon, 1947 Edited January 12, 2014 by mormonnewb 1
Rivers Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 No I don't think we need to keep asking these questions. The law of chastity is pretty simple. No sex outside marriage. Marriage is the union of man and woman. Of course we have guidelines to build up a hedge around the law of chastity. We tell young people to wait til age 16 to date. We tell them to group date when they do start dating. Young men are sometimes discouraged from steady dating before their missions. Engaged couples are told to avoid being alone, french kissing, lying on top of eachother, etc etc. These guidelines are supposed to keep as far from breaking the law of chasitity as possible while still working towards the goal of a temple marriage. With gays, there is no goal to get married to a member of the same sex. So any kind of same-sex romantic behavior would be discouraged. 2
BlueDreams 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. Well, here's one anecdotal story: I had a friend who made out with someone of the same sex. He told his bishop about it. Basically the man said it probably wasn't a good idea but there wasn't anything he would actually do discipline-wise. He still could go to the temple. I think that's probably about right. It should be on par with hetero conduct as well. I also agree with Cinepro though, that culture may dictate some of the reactions given to it. What happened with this bishop may not happen with another. With luv,BD 2
strappinglad Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 How do we dismiss the not inconsiderable number of humans who do not marry ever? Many of these have not experienced romantic love and yet have strong friendships and family relationships. They are 'condemned' to their fate as well. Quite a number have chosen their situation because of work , or belief, or circumstance. Untold millions have died without even knowing any type of love let alone romantic love. Are they condemned to that fate forever? Is that fair/equal?. Would God have all men be strong, and, healthy, and wise, and tall, and straight, and black? I think God would prefer that all men be righteous no matter what their other attributes , and has given them guidelines/commandments to that end. Whether one's cross be blindness or extraordinary intelligence, He asks that one bare it with righteousness until the judgment. 4
Calm Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 "We have never considered it harsh thing in the past so why now?"Define "we" please.
EllenMaksoud Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 I guess I do not understand the idea of the law against interracial marriage as being more harsh for black people. The law is the law be it for black or white people. Brigham Young and others have just reaffirmed that interracial marriage is a sin. This is not a harsh thing. We have never considered it harsh thing in the past so why now? Is it because it has become acceptable and now we are just looking for a new way to justify immoral behavior? The church is going to end up being bullied along with a lot of other religions because of their choice to uphold God's laws of morality. My heart goes out to those who feel trapped with feelings for someone of a different race but really- do we need to keep asking the same questions regarding what is and what is not acceptable? -- Typical Mormon, 1947Increasingly, there are interracial marriages and many of the offspring of these unions produce absolutely lovely, exotic children. In Islamic culture, there is a lot of interracial mixing.
The Nehor Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 However, unless gays are allowed to marry, they are condemned to a lifetime without affection with ANYONE. You can say that The Lord is the one doing the condemning but given humanity's history of using "God's will" to impose all manner of evils upon one another, I'm more than a little skeptical. I wouldn't go that far unless you are specifically limiting affection to sexually-driven affection. I feel affection for my parents, my siblings, my nieces and nephews, and close friends. I would even describe that affection as intimate because it involves sharing parts of myself I do not usually share. It is obviously not driven by physical interest but it is affection. 4
Duncan Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 now that I think about my mission friend in 2001? got the boot from BYU for kissing a guy, something like that and suprise, surpise my friend isn't active
Calm Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 I guess I do not understand the idea of the law against interracial marriage as being more harsh for black people. The law is the law be it for black or white people. Brigham Young and others have just reaffirmed that interracial marriage is a sin. This is not a harsh thing. We have never considered it harsh thing in the past so why now? Is it because it has become acceptable and now we are just looking for a new way to justify immoral behavior? The church is going to end up being bullied along with a lot of other religions because of their choice to uphold God's laws of morality. My heart goes out to those who feel trapped with feelings for someone of a different race but really- do we need to keep asking the same questions regarding what is and what is not acceptable? -- Typical Mormon, 1947I am not sure of your reasoning here...for every black person who wanted to be involved in an interracial marriage, there was also a nonblack person so why wouldn't it be fair to say it was as hard on nonblacks as blacks since both had the option to marry within their own race and as far as I know there is not a group of individuals who are currently incapable of loving someone of the same race that they are?How does that compare to homosexual relationships where they don't have the option of marrying someone they are likely to be physically attracted to on sight (though according to self reports may develop physical attraction to the one individual of the opposite sex they grow to love)? 1
mormonnewb Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 I am not sure of your reasoning here...for every black person who wanted to be involved in an interracial marriage, there was also a nonblack person so why wouldn't it be fair to say it was as hard on nonblacks as blacks since both had the option to marry within their own race and as far as I know there is not a group of individuals who are currently incapable of loving someone of the same race that they are?How does that compare to homosexual relationships where they don't have the option of marrying someone they are likely to be physically attracted to on sight (though according to self reports may develop physical attraction to the one individual of the opposite sex they grow to love)?I was actually pushing back at the idea that "it's been fine all of this time, so why are we reconsidering it now?" By just replacing a few words, it should be perfectly clear why we should be willing to re-evaluate our beliefs.Sometimes, our policies/doctrines can be infused with the bigotry of the times. In fact, wasn't that illustrately clearly in the Church's recent statement about the priesthood/temple ban? Therefore, I think it's ALWAYS fair game to consider whether our current prejudices are causing us to deny blessings to some of His beloved children. 1
The Nehor Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 Sometimes, our policies/doctrines can be infused with the bigotry of the times. In fact, wasn't that illustrately clearly in the Church's recent statement about the priesthood/temple ban? Therefore, I think it's ALWAYS fair game to consider whether our current prejudices are causing us to deny blessings to some of His beloved children. Possibly it would be a fair and fun game but it is also completely and utterly pointless. The Church is a kingdom and not a democracy. You can tell God you want him to smack someone upside the head and change something but that is about the extent of your influence and I really doubt your input will make a difference.
MorningStar Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 Homosexuals shouldn't engage in any behavior that a married man shouldn't do with a woman he isn't married to. I'm sure it would be frowned upon if a married man were holding hands, cuddling, kissing, etc. someone who isn't his wife. 3
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 I was about to write the same response as a lot of you did to this comment, but then I re-read it and realize what he is saying here. ALL members (Hetero or homo) are under the SAME law of chastity, namely, no hetero sexual relations until married, and no homosexual behavior period. Which is true. The law is just WAY harsher to live if you happen to be a homosexualOnly because it cannot lead to marriage established by. God. God's first act was to join man and female in marriage, even explaining (when there were no others) that "for this cause shall a man leave his mother and father and cleave unto his wife and they shall be one" (hope I got this right). Then he gave his first command to "multiply and replenish the earth". This is God's doctrine and we cannot change it.
why me 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.Where should they work out their salvation? Many christian churches and also islam would be against same sex attraction. And jewish orthodoxy too. True, some christian faiths have become more liberal and acceptable but I still think that many faiths are against it. How many churches accept gay marriage? This is not about the savior paying the highest burden or leaders picking up their crosses. It is about what the bible claims, and how to interpret it. And it is about the law of chasity. 1
why me Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 (edited) Sometimes, our policies/doctrines can be infused with the bigotry of the times. In fact, wasn't that illustrately clearly in the Church's recent statement about the priesthood/temple ban? Therefore, I think it's ALWAYS fair game to consider whether our current prejudices are causing us to deny blessings to some of His beloved children.I think that it was assumed that the ban would be lifted at some point. I realize that the world is changing and with it, its moral codes on what constitutes a family. To assume that the church's policy on same sex attraction are bigoted or filled with prejudice is something that is implanted in the fundamentals of christianity when it comes to people who are gay or lesbian. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the new testament had christ saying: all people both hetero or gay should be married before engaging in sex. There is nothing wrong with people of the same sex marrying etc. Or if Paul would have said so. But alas, it doesn't. Why didn't christ speak on this issue? Did he not see the future? But what we do have is the relationship between men and women and husband and wife. We have this in the bible. Thus, we have the problem today. Edited January 12, 2014 by why me
CV75 Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 I was actually pushing back at the idea that "it's been fine all of this time, so why are we reconsidering it now?" By just replacing a few words, it should be perfectly clear why we should be willing to re-evaluate our beliefs.Sometimes, our policies/doctrines can be infused with the bigotry of the times. In fact, wasn't that illustrately clearly in the Church's recent statement about the priesthood/temple ban? Therefore, I think it's ALWAYS fair game to consider whether our current prejudices are causing us to deny blessings to some of His beloved children.I'm not sure where these teachings are infused with the bigotry of our times: https://www.lds.org/youth/for-the-strength-of-youth/sexual-purity?lang=eng According to the canon we use, marriage as a religious covenant between a man and a woman has been the means to grant blessings to all God's children from the very beginning, and has been a consistent practice through all the dispensations from Adam onward. There is no bigotry or prejudice in that.
rodheadlee 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...So basically you're suggesting they lie to get a TR? Great, I can't get a TR because I smoke should I just lie about it?
california boy Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 I'm not sure where these teachings are infused with the bigotry of our times: https://www.lds.org/youth/for-the-strength-of-youth/sexual-purity?lang=eng According to the canon we use, marriage as a religious covenant between a man and a woman has been the means to grant blessings to all God's children from the very beginning, and has been a consistent practice through all the dispensations from Adam onward. There is no bigotry or prejudice in that.I don't think anyone can argue that the policies concerning gay marriage were developed at a time when there was extreme prejudice against gays. Perhaps if this policy was being developed today, it would be quite different. The law of chastity is no sex outside of marriage. The exception to that law seems to be only different if you are gay. In that sense, yes, it does seem bigoted. People use Bible scriptures talking about gay sex outside of marriage to come up with the idea that gay sex within marriage is also against the law of chastity. Where did they get that idea? Could it possibly have come from bigoted attitudes society has against gays? Are there no blessings for gay families when they marry rather than just shacking up? Do we encourage gay couples to shack up as an alternative to marriage? How is that a better solution to their relationships? What kind of relationship is better for the family? For the children? This 12 year old has something to say about this. 1
WmLaw Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 So basically you're suggesting they lie to get a TR? Great, I can't get a TR because I smoke should I just lie about it?I'm suggesting that an interviewer not probe beyond the normal script. I'm suggesting that the interviewee not provide extraneous details that are outside the questions. I'm suggesting that if the activities in the original list don't disqualify the average unmarried member who may be dating or has a significant other - then they shouldn't disqualify someone with SSA in an analogous scenario.
Recommended Posts