ERMD Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 13 minutes ago, california boy said: Is there something else that you want to talk about that you feel needs to be basically understood before we can take the next step in understanding this complexed issue? Love to hear what you think. Yes. You are building a foundation on sandy soil. The next step you will take is marriage and sex. The very thinly-veiled attempt to equate homosexual/lesbian romantic feelings/desire/love/kissing/hugging to heterosexual romantic feelings/desire/love/kissing/hugging in an LDS context is a strawman.
CV75 Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: no no I'm not saying that, no. no no no As per the questions you asked? Nothing. So is that a definite "no"?
JLHPROF Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 24 minutes ago, california boy said: Well, whether there is such a thing as someone that is attracted to their same sex is probably the subject of another thread. For this thread, we are going to work from the assumption that there are people who are attracted to their own sex. Hope that is ok with you. I never said there wasn't someone who is attracted to their own sex. Of course there are. I said it was not a biological division like race or gender but is instead a biological character trait like depression, optimism, or a temper. And given that even fixed biological traits like whether we are male or female are apparently now a function of choice in today's society then I think that the adjustable traits that we are born with can also be changed by choice.
california boy Posted July 15, 2016 Author Posted July 15, 2016 (edited) 38 minutes ago, smac97 said: Re: Dating / Kissing / Hugging... I think these are generally okay and do not violate the Law of Chastity. These are precursors to marriage, and can therefore be acceptable behavior, with physical expressions of affection generally being where people mess up. But there are times when such romantic, quasi-sexual behavior is not acceptable: A married man dating/kissing/hugging a woman who is not his wife would, I think, be engaging in inappropriate behavior. A brother and sister engaging in such romantic, quasi-sexual behavior with each other would, I think, be engaging in inappropriate behavior. And yes (since I think we all see where this is going), I think that a couple of the same gender dating / kissing / hugging is plainly engaging in inappropriate behavior. The teachings of the Church are rather clear on that point. Thanks, -Smac I read through your link I which has been quoted earlier in the thread. The only thing that I saw that was different counsel given to gay members is this quote. The rest of the link seems to apply to everyone no matter what their orientation. Quote What should I do if I am attracted to members of my same gender? “If you find yourself struggling with sexual temptations, including feelings of same-gender attraction, do not give in to those temptations. Be assured that you can choose to avoid such behavior. You can receive the Lord’s help as you pray for strength and work to overcome the problem. As part of this process, you should seek counsel from your bishop or branch president. He will help you” (True to the Faith, 31). This quote addresses sexual temptation. We have already agreed that the church firmly teaches no sex for those that are gay and no sex for opposite sex attraction except when the couple is in a legal and lawful marriage. I hope that is still what we agreed to. It reaffirms that we can avoid such behavior. I would think that the church is talking about sexual activity outside the law of chastity. Do you think it says more than that? Do you think it states that if dating, kissing or hugging is immoral? Are you just making that assumption or is there something in this quote that makes that clear? Tell me where you made the leap from sexual behavior to dating, hugging and kissing from that quote. Edited July 15, 2016 by california boy
california boy Posted July 15, 2016 Author Posted July 15, 2016 34 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Define lust. I think the definition we are working from here is lust is desiring sexual activity. These kinds of thought should be avoided.
JLHPROF Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 Just now, california boy said: I think the definition we are working from here is lust is desiring sexual activity. These kinds of thought should be avoided. That's a pretty broad definition. If I desire to have relations with my wife I am guilty of lust? That's not scriptural at all. I think we need a new definition of lust for the purpose of this conversation. 1
Rain Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, california boy said: I appreciate your patience on this. I actually think by taking things slowly like this, we are gaining a better understanding on what feelings are appropriate and what feelings should be pushed aside. And so far, as I can tell, most agree that the same rules apply to everyone. It is ok to have romantic feelings. It is not ok to have lustful feelings. Now we are getting in a little deeper. Is it ok for everyone to hug, kiss and date as long as they do not dwell on lustful feelings. So what do you think? I think you may be misunderstanding something I and others see as a step in between. That dwell or entertaining romantic feelings part or as someone else said - the thinking part. Like I was trying to explain, if romantic feelings come to you then it is not a sin. In fact, if sexual feelings come to you it is not a sin. It is when you welcome them, entertain them, think about keeping them, that by the spirit of the law it is a sin. If (and I recognize we don't agree on this) God has no place for homosexual relations in his kingdom, then looking to further those relations in this life would be a sin. So if we let our feelings turn into thoughts or we encourage those feelings to grow, by the same reasoning as looking upon a woman to lust after her, growing those feelings is a sin. Lust may not come into play at all. An example. After I was on my mission for awhile I started to feel like something was odd in my relationship with my now husband. He was pulling away from me and I couldn't tell why (ETA: his letters were missing something.) I spent a lot of time thinking about this. At some point I realized it was wrong to have so much focus on him while on my mission instead of the Lord, those I was teaching and my companion. There was not a thing lustful in my feelings, but by spending so much time on him I was withdrawing from the Lord. That was what was sinful. I had to teach myself to stop dwelling on those feelings and thoughts. So just the feelings part of handholding etc. of same sex can be a sin IF we are trying to hang onto them or IF we recognize they are there and we just let them lounge around. With all of this I have this feeling there are spirit/letter of the law endowed/unendowed differences. So with that in mind, if an endowed person were continue to continue entertaining those feelings by holding hands and dating etc. It would be breaking the spirit of the law. I'd like to say that it wouldn't be against the letter of the law, but with an endowed person I'm really not sure. I've always figured that your baptismal covenants were pretty much the same thing as temple covenants, depending on how you look at it. But thinking on this topic it feels to me that there is at least some difference besides level of responsibility. I'd have to think on it some more before I could say it was against the spirit of the law for the unendowed. Edited July 15, 2016 by Rain 2
california boy Posted July 15, 2016 Author Posted July 15, 2016 17 minutes ago, ERMD said: Yes. You are building a foundation on sandy soil. The next step you will take is marriage and sex. The very thinly-veiled attempt to equate homosexual/lesbian romantic feelings/desire/love/kissing/hugging to heterosexual romantic feelings/desire/love/kissing/hugging in an LDS context is a strawman. I think this is exactly why so many of these threads go south. People assume and put words in other peoples mouths without any basis for doing so. No I do not intend to talk about marriage and sex. As I stated from the outset of this thread, those participating in this discussion has to accept that the church teaches that any sex including in a legal and lawful marriage for gay couples breaks the law of chastity. So no, we are not going to talk about that. If you would like to discuss that issue, you will have to start your own thread. Ok with you?? I am however interested in what those on this board think about dating, hugging and kissing. Is it breaking the Law of Chastity to date, hug or kiss someone you are not married to no matter what your orientation is.?
JLHPROF Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 1 minute ago, california boy said: Is it breaking the Law of Chastity to date, hug or kiss someone you are not married to no matter what your orientation is.? Now you are getting into "spirit of the law" vs "letter of the law" territory. The "letter of the law" limits chastity to sexual relations. The "spirit of the law" is as Christ describes - looking to lust and committing sins in our heart. 1
CV75 Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, california boy said: Thanks for your post. And I agree with most of it. I do want to explore something you said. concerning dating, kissing and hugging. Is it a sin for a teenager to date? Is it a sin for a teenager to kiss? Is it a sin for a teenager to hug? Actually is it a sin for anyone who is not married to do any of those things. Do you apply the same restrictions to all except those that are married? Is it possible to date, kiss and hug and still control those inappropriate thoughts you address? Anyone else want to comment on this issue? Is it a sin for a teenager to date? No, but the original question was whether dating, kissing or hugging breaks the law of chastity. As was explained, it depends on the mind of the dater, kisser and hugger, and whether the associated thoughts, feelings and intents are inappropriate. Is it possible to date, kiss and hug and still control those inappropriate thoughts you address? Yes, fathers and sons, brothers and sisters do it all the time. Part of doing that is using the right terminology. When they go out together, we typically don't call it a "date," which activity carries with it certain social expectations, behaviors and traditions that culminate in pairing off into a covenant and starting families. The nuances of a date is structured in a certain way to prepare people for marriage. There is a communal or community mind, so to speak, where a date would be considered inappropriate in terms of the law of chastity because the parties of the date are ineligible by reason of their gender to pair off into the marriage covenant and start a family. It would be as inappropriate as arranging a marriage between two children of the same gender in countries where dating is not part of the social fiber, or in societies where youth only group date, to suggest they can marry someone only in a same-gender group. Edited July 15, 2016 by CV75 1
california boy Posted July 15, 2016 Author Posted July 15, 2016 14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I never said there wasn't someone who is attracted to their own sex. Of course there are. I said it was not a biological division like race or gender but is instead a biological character trait like depression, optimism, or a temper. And given that even fixed biological traits like whether we are male or female are apparently now a function of choice in today's society then I think that the adjustable traits that we are born with can also be changed by choice. Thanks for that clarification. But we are still not going to talk about how a person becomes gay in this thread. You are welcome to start another thread if you would like to explore that subject. I hope you understand I am trying to stay more focused on what we are discussing rather than letting the thread splinter into different directions. How a person becomes gay is not germaine to this discussion.
ERMD Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 (edited) 5 minutes ago, california boy said: I think this is exactly why so many of these threads go south. People assume and put words in other peoples mouths without any basis for doing so. No I do not intend to talk about marriage and sex. As I stated from the outset of this thread, those participating in this discussion has to accept that the church teaches that any sex including in a legal and lawful marriage for gay couples breaks the law of chastity. So no, we are not going to talk about that. If you would like to discuss that issue, you will have to start your own thread. Ok with you?? I am however interested in what those on this board think about dating, hugging and kissing. Is it breaking the Law of Chastity to date, hug or kiss someone you are not married to no matter what your orientation is.? The Law of Chastity, as defined in the endowment, does not address this. It is however, a serious sin to engage in dating, hugging, or kissing someone of the same sex ("married" or not). It CAN be a serious sin to engage in hugging/kissing someone of the opposite sex (married {one person, not the other} or not). I will not go into the specific mechanics or thought processes involved. Edited July 15, 2016 by ERMD 1
california boy Posted July 15, 2016 Author Posted July 15, 2016 (edited) 11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: That's a pretty broad definition. If I desire to have relations with my wife I am guilty of lust? That's not scriptural at all. I think we need a new definition of lust for the purpose of this conversation. I think lust in a marriage is perfectly acceptable to God as long as that lust is directed to the person you are married to. But since you are unhappy with the definition we have been using, why don't you provide the one you would like to use. Edited July 15, 2016 by california boy
JLHPROF Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 Just now, california boy said: I think lust in a marriage is perfectly acceptable to God. But since you are unhappy with the definition we have been using, why don't you provide the one you would like to use. It's all about the spirit of the thing. Merriam Webster connects it to "Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German lust pleasure and perhaps to Latin lascivus wanton" and describes it as " intense or unbridled sexual desire". It's about the spirit that controls the feeling - if we connect it to wanton that is the best definition, wanton meaning "‘rebellious, lacking discipline". Lust controls us. If we have the spirit of God and are in control lust has no power over us. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 Sadly, I don't see a plan of happiness or hope for gays. I see a plan of loneliness. The best the church seems to be offering is a call for gays to isolate themselves from physical and emotional intimacy and the only respite offered is that maybe gays will be changed to hetero after they die. IOW- the message seems to be that death is the cure for gay. Is it any wonder there is a suicide problem? This saddens me beyond belief. 2
california boy Posted July 15, 2016 Author Posted July 15, 2016 14 minutes ago, Rain said: I think you may be misunderstanding something I and others see as a step in between. That dwell or entertaining romantic feelings part or as someone else said - the thinking part. Like I was trying to explain, if romantic feelings come to you then it is not a sin. In fact, if sexual feelings come to you it is not a sin. It is when you welcome them, entertain them, think about keeping them, that by the spirit of the law it is a sin. If (and I recognize we don't agree on this) God has no place for homosexual relations in his kingdom, then looking to further those relations in this life would be a sin. So if we let our feelings turn into thoughts or we encourage those feelings to grow, by the same reasoning as looking upon a woman to lust after her, growing those feelings is a sin. Lust may not come into play at all. An example. After I was on my mission for awhile I started to feel like something was odd in my relationship with my now husband. He was pulling away from me and I couldn't tell why. I spent a lot of time thinking about this. At some point I realized it was wrong to have so much focus on him while on my mission instead of the Lord, those I was teaching and my companion. There was not a thing lustful in my feelings thoughts, but by spending so much time on him I was withdrawing from the Lord. That was what was sinful. I had to teach myself to stop dwelling on those feelings and thoughts. So just the feelings part of handholding etc. of same sex can be a sin IF we are trying to hang onto them or IF we recognize they are there and we just let them lounge around. With all of this I have this feeeling there are spirit/letter of the law endowed/unendowed differences. So with that all in mind, if an endowed person were continue to continue entertaining those feelings by holding hands and dating etc. It would be breaking the spirit of the law. I'd like to say that it wouldn't be against the letter of the law, but with an endowed person I'm really not sure. I've always figured that your baptismal covenants were pretty much the same thing as temple covenants, depending on how you look at it. But thinking on this topic it feels to me that there is at least some difference besides level of responsibility. I'd have to think on it some more before I could say it was against the spirit of the law for the unendowed. You bring up several issues here in your post. We have discussed lustful thoughts and I think almost everyone is in agreement that one should control and subdue any lustful thoughts. But I need further clarification on your point about romantic feelings. Are you saying that romantic feelings are sinful? Going on a date is sinful? Holding hands is sinful? Hugging is sinful?? All of those are sins unless you are married to the person you are dating, hugging and/or kissing? And your second point. Do you think it is wrong to dwell on romantic feelings? If you start to develop romantic feelings for someone, is it against the Law of Chastity to think of that person in a romantic way? Wondering how wonderful it would be for the person to care for you or for you to cherish them or to grow closer to them in thought? All of those romantic feelings that we develop for others we are attracted to. I need to understand more clearly where you are coming from
CV75 Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 3 hours ago, Jeanne said: Romantic feelings is also part of a human's capacity to love. It is a part of us and I believe it is a good part. I believe two people of the same gender can have a romantic love in the classical, heroic sense that does not entail an anticipation of sexual intimacy or marriage. “Greater love hath no [wo]man than this, that a [wo]man lay down his life for his friends.” Such a relationship proscribes what we typically call dating, and would be regarded as asexual. 1
carbon dioxide Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 12 hours ago, california boy said: SMAC has agreed with the statement on the other thread, so I am going to ask a second statement. Perhaps this is as far as we will get, but here goes. Is it against the Law of Chastity according to Mormon beliefs for a gay person to have romantic feelings? Does that enter into breaking the Law of Chastity. What do you think? My position is that it does not. Having romantic feelings for another person whether same sex or opposite sex is not against the Law of Chastity. There is no sin in that. This question is only having romantic feelings. It does not include dating, kissing, hugging etc. We will see if there is agreement on this question first. I am interested to hear anyone's views. The Law of Chastity applies to everyone whether gay, straight, bisexual, or some other views that we can all think up. So if simple romantic feelings are not a violation for a straight person, they would not be a violation for a gay person. 2
california boy Posted July 15, 2016 Author Posted July 15, 2016 17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Now you are getting into "spirit of the law" vs "letter of the law" territory. The "letter of the law" limits chastity to sexual relations. The "spirit of the law" is as Christ describes - looking to lust and committing sins in our heart. If you are going to quote Christ, and not accept our definition of what lust is, you are going to have to give us your definition of what lust is so that we can better understand your position. Because I personally think that the spirit of the law of chastity is surpassing any sexual thoughts about the other person even though you have not actually committed any sexual sins with the person. Maybe you have another definition of what you think the spirit of the law of Chastity is. Thanks.
kllindley Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 51 minutes ago, california boy said: Thanks for the links. I found the articles to be quite interesting. I agree that this is a complexed issue. That is why I started this thread and appreciate the patience of those participating to lay some foundation to what we mean about romance, love, lust and feelings. I feel like we are getting some consensus here. People seem to be agreeing that there is nothing sinful about having romantic feelings, but we must always keep lustful thoughts in check. Is there something else that you want to talk about that you feel needs to be basically understood before we can take the next step in understanding this complexed issue? Love to hear what you think. I think that moving from romantic feelings to dating/kissing/hugging requires moving through thoughts and meaning making processes. These don't happen on their own the same way attraction might. So much depends on the social and/or cultural environment as well as my own personal decisions about what meanings or conclusions are acceptable. This is were I feel like we go wrong in this discussion. Because, yes. I absolutely think that same-sex dating is a sin against the Law of Chastity. Hugging and kissing, depends a lot more on context (I kiss my dad, brothers, close friends - but not french kiss; I also hug them often, sometimes even just sit with our arms around each other talking or enjoying a movie. But none of this is seen as a precursor to any "romantic" relationship. I will even go so far as to say that as a teen, even allowing myself to dwell on thoughts of a same-sex relationship would have been against the Law of Chastity in the same way it would have been against the Law of Chastity to dwell on thoughts of having a mistress while married. I know this can seem like an unfair division. But this is where I think we miss the step between attraction and behavior (not necessarily sexual). This is the step of making meaning. Maybe the following quote would help express this more eloquently: Quote In an essay by Professor Suzanne Lundquist, BYU Associate Professor of English, called “Chastity and the Environment,” she describes how through interactions with Latin and Native American cultures and myths she was able to see more clearly that chastity not just as an individual virtue, or even as a virtue between consenting, loving adults, but a social virtue. “The principles of chastity govern all relationships—relationships with self, with community, with the earth, and with deity.” Chastity affects entire families, communities, nations, and the world as a whole. The connection between reproduction and the cyclic nature of life, death, and creation show that the law of chastity maintains a delicate harmony. When we adopt incorrect and harmful attitudes about sex or family relationships, we disrupt the balance and cause effects that will ripple throughout time and space unless we repent and bring our attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors back into harmony with Divine truth. I would suggest that the law of chastity is not even, in principle, how we express sexuality, but relationality. Sexuality is only one subset of relationality. In his talk “Spiritual Ecology,” Elder Neal A. Maxwell stated that “The doctrines of Jesus Christ are so powerful that any one of these doctrines, having been broken away from the rest, goes wild and mad… Any doctrine, unless it is woven into the fabric of orthodoxy, goes wild. The doctrines of the kingdom need each other just as the people of the kingdom need each other.” Any truth that is not bound and tempered by every other truth in the divine ecology of gospel laws becomes a sort of spiritual cancer. He continued, “We worry about pollution and rightfully so, but a home in which there is not adequate love pollutes society just as surely as we pollute the air and streams around us, and people further ‘down stream’ pay a price.”20 The law of chastity governs how we treat and express unconditional love toward one another, including those whose current lifestyle choices are not in harmony with gospel law, but it also calls us to social advocacy for harmony and order regarding sex and family relationships. It is the law of chastity that petitions us in the Proclamation on the Family to “promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.” It can be a difficult to sensitively navigate the tensions between expressing unconditional love toward others whose life choices are out of harmony with gospel law and advocating for the social harmony and order that the spirit of Zion invites us into. And in light of the framing of the law of chastity I’ve articulated here, I believe that families or others who advocate for the morality of homosexual relationships are, in principle, also in violation of the law of chastity. http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2014-fairmormon-conference/mormons-can-gay-just-cant-gay If you want to jump to action (non-sexual) from feelings in this thread, I will respect that. But then I would expect that jump to reveal some frustrations and complications. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 10 hours ago, california boy said: ..................................................................... Doc you think it is against the Law of Chastity for a gay person to have romantic feelings for someone of the same sex? I didn't see your answer there. I am interested in what you have to say. No, of course not. The Law of Chastity doesn't deal with feelings, as you well know. However, you were the one who asked the question for this OP: "Is there a place in the Plan of Happiness for gays?" And I answered it it rather well, I thought.
kllindley Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 11 minutes ago, california boy said: You bring up several issues here in your post. We have discussed lustful thoughts and I think almost everyone is in agreement that one should control and subdue any lustful thoughts. But I need further clarification on your point about romantic feelings. Are you saying that romantic feelings are sinful? Going on a date is sinful? Holding hands is sinful? Hugging is sinful?? All of those are sins unless you are married to the person you are dating, hugging and/or kissing? And your second point. Do you think it is wrong to dwell on romantic feelings? If you start to develop romantic feelings for someone, is it against the Law of Chastity to think of that person in a romantic way? Wondering how wonderful it would be for the person to care for you or for you to cherish them or to grow closer to them in thought? All of those romantic feelings that we develop for others we are attracted to. I need to understand more clearly where you are coming from Wouldn't you say that it depends on the object of those romantic feelings is? As a married man, is it against the Law of Chastity to think of another woman in a romantic way (never sexual ) ? Just wondering how wonderful it would be for her to care for me or for me to cherish her or to grow closer to her in thought? What if we're talking about a teen feeling romantic feelings for the newly-wed 18 year old next-door neighbor? Siblings, or maybe less socially disgust-provoking Cousins? Significant age difference? I don't think gender is automatically above question when it comes to debating whether dwelling on romantic feelings is appropriate.
CV75 Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 (edited) 41 minutes ago, california boy said: I am however interested in what those on this board think about dating, hugging and kissing. Is it breaking the Law of Chastity to date, hug or kiss someone you are not married to no matter what your orientation is.? When these things are inappropriate (as explained above) under the law of chastity and are done willfully, then at the very least, the willfulness could be considered a sin of the heart. But I don't think that it is any more preferable to willfully engage in the inappropriately unchaste thought, word or deed than it is to sin. Edited July 15, 2016 by CV75
Calm Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 17 minutes ago, california boy said: And your second point. Do you think it is wrong to dwell on romantic feelings? If you start to develop romantic feelings for someone, is it against the Law of Chastity to think of that person in a romantic way? Wondering how wonderful it would be for the person to care for you or for you to cherish them or to grow closer to them in thought? All of those romantic feelings that we develop for others we are attracted to. Romance is a huge spectrum of behaviours, including physical and nonphysical and sexual and nonsexual behaviours. Are you sure you want to use that term in a discussion that appears to me to be essentially examining where lines need to be drawn? More precise terms are probably needed that don't have the baggage attached (think romance novels if anyone is wondering why I think sexual behaviour is often included under the umbrella of romance).
Robert F. Smith Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 24 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Sadly, I don't see a plan of happiness or hope for gays. I see a plan of loneliness. The best the church seems to be offering is a call for gays to isolate themselves from physical and emotional intimacy and the only respite offered is that maybe gays will be changed to hetero after they die. IOW- the message seems to be that death is the cure for gay. Is it any wonder there is a suicide problem? This saddens me beyond belief. So, you believe that the Plan of Salvation only entails immediate and final condemnation for anyone at any stage of life who violates any norm? Isn't that rather cynical and narrow, in that it ignores a full life filled with a variety of challenges, some but not all overcome, and then physical death and a second chance at acceptance of Christ's atonement for all, along with a host of esoteric ordinances performed by proxy -- for exaltation. Haven't you left the most important part of the story out, HappyJack?
Recommended Posts