Teancum Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 To give my answer to the question in the OP-California Boy I am sorry to say the answer is no. There is no place in the LDS "Plan of Happiness" for homosexuals. None whatsoever. You are correct in concluding that the LDS Church will not, nor should it be expected to, change its position on this subject. The only real choice in mortality for a gay LDS person is to live a life of celibacy and be denied one of the, in my opinion, most important things a human can aspire to. And that is an emotionally and physically intimate relationship with someone you love deeply. But do not despair. The LDS church really does not have to corner market on truth. Live your life honorably and decently. Do no harm. If God is there I believe God will honor that. If not then at least you have lived this life to its fullest and true to who you are. 4
Robert F. Smith Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 1 hour 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. Nest you'll be wanting to distinguish between heavy and soft petting. How far should the envelope be pushed? And all that. Risky business that.
VideoGameJunkie Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 Homosexuals who endure in this life will be made right in the next life and can enter into a temple sealing with a member of the opposite sex and gain exaltation. Otherwise, those who want to remain single can still achieve the 2nd level of the Celestial Kingdom.
Robert F. Smith Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 2 minutes ago, Teancum said: To give my answer to the question in the OP-California Boy I am sorry to say the answer is no. There is no place in the LDS "Plan of Happiness" for homosexuals. None whatsoever. Well, if and only if the LDS Church is wrong about the Plan of Happiness, then you would be right. ......................................... The only real choice in mortality for a gay LDS person is to live a life of celibacy and be denied one of the, in my opinion, most important things a human can aspire to. And that is an emotionally and physically intimate relationship with someone you love deeply. But do not despair. The LDS church really does not have to corner market on truth. Live your life honorably and decently. Do no harm. If God is there I believe God will honor that. If not then at least you have lived this life to its fullest and true to who you are. You are correct here, Teancum, and I have been saying this to californiaboy for years, but he is always searching for something more. It never occurs to him to just let the Mormon Church be what it is and go on with his life. He will have plenty of time after death to deal with the truth or falsity of LDS claims, and to accept or reject work done on his behalf. The Plan of Happiness applies to all if and only if the LDS Church is right about it. 2
JLHPROF Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 25 minutes ago, california boy said: 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. I did - here The spirit of the law of chastity is to keep one's thoughts and feelings under control and appropriate. Lust is undisciplined, rebellious, etc.
Calm Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 27 minutes ago, CV75 said: 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. How many people use "romance" in the classical sense these days? Is cb using it that way? This was the first definition to come up for "romance": "1.a feeling of excitement and mystery associated with love. "in search of romance" 2.a quality or feeling of mystery, excitement, and remoteness from everyday life. "the beauty and romance of the night" synonyms:mystery, glamour, excitement, exoticism, mystique; More verb 1. court; woo. "the wealthy estate owner romanced her" synonyms:woo, chase, pursue; More 2. another term for romanticize. "to a certain degree I am romancing the past" ------- In the context of that definition, because of the nuance that "romance" is leading towards something (the excitement and mystery or courting) I personally would have to say that while having immediate and temporary romantic feelings about someone is not a sin, but doing anything to promote those feelings may be a sin depending on whether or not a romantic relationship could lead to a marriage that is based in the Law of Chastity as well as other laws of the Gospel. calb, if you see romance as something fundamentally different than this definition, please define it. 2
california boy Posted July 15, 2016 Author Posted July 15, 2016 41 minutes ago, kllindley said: 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: 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. So do you think dating, kissing and hugging between a unmarried straight couple is also against the Law of Chastity? Is this just a personal opinion or do you believe this is church doctrine? Not sure why you felt the quote you included clarifies anything. Maybe you could explain why you included it and what things you drew from it that pertains to this thread.
california boy Posted July 15, 2016 Author Posted July 15, 2016 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: 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. So do you think having romantic feelings that are based on tenderness, love, desire to be with that person etc is the same as lust? Do you think Christ was cautioning us against those kinds of feelings?? I am trying to figure out why you have a problem with the way most of us here on this thread have defined lunt?
california boy Posted July 15, 2016 Author Posted July 15, 2016 43 minutes ago, kllindley said: 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. For the sake of this discussion, we are talking about romantic feelings between two unmarried people not related to each other. Does that make things more clear?
kllindley Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 1 minute ago, california boy said: So do you think dating, kissing and hugging between a unmarried straight couple is also against the Law of Chastity? Not at all. Don't know where you got that. 2 minutes ago, california boy said: Is this just a personal opinion or do you believe this is church doctrine? Non sequitur 4 minutes ago, california boy said: Not sure why you felt the quote you included clarifies anything. Maybe you could explain why you included it and what things you drew from it that pertains to this thread. Wow. I am sorry that's not more clear. I am genuinely surprised that you felt it was not pertinent, because I found it to be very applicable. Maybe that is evidence of another fundamental disagreement. The reason I included it was that I understand the Law of Chastity to be about much more than sex. It consists of important principles relating to families, creation, relationships. Not only how we act, but how we think and talk about these issues. If we just focus on the sex aspect, and don't connect that doctrine to other doctrines, such as the eternal family, and our identity as children of God, it will stop making sense. 1
smac97 Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 (edited) On 7/15/2016 at 11:57 AM, california boy said: 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. 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? It certainly can be. All other things being equal, dating and kissing and hugging is fine. But there are limits. Again, a married man cannot (romantically / quasi-sexually) date / kiss / hug a woman other than his wife. Same with a brother and sister. Quote Are you just making that assumption or is there something in this quote that makes that clear? Actually, I had this counsel in mind. It's from the Church's Eternal Marriage Student Manual, in the chapter entitled "Morality and Modesty." It quotes Pres. Kimball at length: Quote “Immorality does not begin in adultery or perversion. It begins with little indiscretions like sex thoughts, sex discussions, passionate kissing, petting and such, growing with every exercise." In my view, there is no set of circumstances in which an LDS married man could date / kiss / hug a woman other than his wife (in a romantic, quasi-sexual way). That conduct is prohibited to him, even though it is not prohibited to others. Likewise, I don't think there exists a situation in which a brother and sister (either or both of whom are LDS) can date / kiss / hug in a romantic, quasi-sexual way. That conduct is prohibited to them, even though it is not prohibited to others. Likewise, I don't think there exists a situation in which two people of the same gender (either or both of whom are LDS) can date / kiss / hug in a romantic, quasi-sexual way. That conduct is prohibited to them, even though it is not prohibited to others. Quote “The early apostles and prophets mention numerous sins that were reprehensible to them. Many of them were sexual sins—adultery, being without natural affection, lustfulness, infidelity, incontinence, filthy communications, impurity, inordinate affection, fornication. They included all sexual relations outside marriage—petting, sex perversion, masturbation, and preoccupation with sex in one’s thoughts and talking. " These "sins" are all prohibited. "Little indiscretions" leading up to them would, I think, also be prohibited. Quote “Conscience tells the individual when he is entering forbidden worlds, and it continues to prick until silenced by the will or by sin’s repetition." I think same-gender dating / kissing / hugging typifies the "entering {of} forbidden worlds" referenced here. Quote “Can anyone truthfully say he did not know such things were wrong? These unholy practices, whatever may be their unmentionable names with all their approaches and numerous manifestations, are condemned by the Lord and his church. Some may be more heinous than others, but all are sin." I can quite understand how someone not of the LDS faith would feel that same-gender romantic/quasi-sexual behavior (dating, hugging, kissing) is fine. But for Latter-day Saints, it's a different story. We have been taught the Law of Chastity. We know what it is. We know it's more than a pharisaical exercise of walking-right-up-to-the-line-of-transgression-and-just-barely-not-crossing-it. There is no reasonable dispute that viewing pornography is incompatible with the Law of Chastity. There is no reasonable dispute that a married man kissing and dating and hugging but not having sex with a woman other than his wife is a violation of the Law of Chastity. And with respect, I do not think there is a reasonable dispute that a same-gender couple engaging in romantic, quasi-sexual behavior (dating, kissing, hugging, etc.) are violating the Law of Chastity. As Pres. Kimball so aptly put it, "Can anyone truthfully say he did not know such things were wrong?" Quote “The world may have its norm; the Church has a different one. … The world may countenance premarital sex experiences, but the Lord and his church condemn in no uncertain terms any and every sex relationship outside of marriage. … I don't think there is a bright line differentiation to be found in the Restored Gospel relative to "homosexual behaviors." It requires a judgment call, I suppose, but a rather obvious one. I don't think any reasonable person familiar with the LDS Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity and homosexual behavior could, with a straight face, say "Yeah, I'm sure the LDS Church is fine with gay people dating and kissing and hugging, just not with them having sex or getting married." Quote Tell me where you made the leap from sexual behavior to dating, hugging and kissing from that quote. It's not a "leap." It is a logical, coherent application of broad Gospel principles. The scriptures do not specifically prohibit looking at porn, but it's not a "leap" for the LDS Church to condemn such activity as violating the Law of Chastity. The Word of Wisdom say nothing of meth or cocaine, but it's not a "leap" for the LDS Church to characterize the use of such substances as violating the Word of Wisdom. I've read a few articles over the past several months about the development of "sexbots" (computer-aided devices intended to provide sexual gratification). I don't think any general authorities have addressed this type of technology yet. I suspect it's just a matter of time. Now in all candor, do you have any doubt about what the Brethren are going to say about sexbots? Could any of us really say that Latter-day Saints today are not justified in concluding that the use of such devices is incompatible with the Restored Gospel? That such a conclusion is an unwarranted "leap?" Consider the following comment from Pres. Kimball (same link as above): Quote “Since courtship is prelude to marriage and encourages close associations, many have convinced themselves that intimacies are legitimate—a part of the courting process. Many have cast off bridle and harness and have relaxed the restraints. Instead of remaining in the field of simple expressions of affection, some have turned themselves loose to fondling, often called ‘necking,’ with its intimate contacts and its passionate kissing." I think Pres. Kimball here is characterizing the things under discussion (dating, kissing, hugging) as "simple expressions of affection" which are part of "courtship" that is "prelude to marriage." In my view, there's no real question here in terms of what he or any other General Authority has said or would say about "simple expressions of affection" in a same-gender context. Later on in the manual linked to above, we get a quote from a letter from The First Presidency, which reads in pertinent part (emphases added): Quote The Lord’s law of moral conduct is abstinence outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual contact, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior, is sinful. Those who persist in such practices or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. We remind you of scriptures that make clear the relationship between one’s thoughts and actions (see Matthew 15:19; Mosiah 4:29–30; Alma 12:14; 3 Nephi 12:28; D&C 121:45). There is a distinction between immoral thoughts and feelings and participating in either immoral heterosexual or any homosexual behavior. However, such thoughts and feelings, regardless of their causes, can and should be overcome and sinful behavior should be eliminated. This can be achieved through faith in God, sincere repentance, and persistent effort. The help of others may be needed. We commend and encourage those who are overcoming inappropriate thoughts and feelings. We plead with those involved in such behavior to forsake it. We love them and pray for them. We are confident that through repentance and obtaining needed help, they can experience the peace that comes from conforming their lives to God’s teachings. Again, no "leap" is needed. Just fair-minded and reasonable reading. Thanks, -Smac Edited July 20, 2016 by smac97 2
kllindley Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 3 minutes ago, california boy said: For the sake of this discussion, we are talking about romantic feelings between two unmarried people not related to each other. Does that make things more clear? Sure, Thanks for clarifying your question. Then indulging, dwelling on, or promoting those romantic feelings for someone of the same-sex would be against the Law of Chastity. 1
california boy Posted July 15, 2016 Author Posted July 15, 2016 42 minutes ago, Calm said: 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). In this discussion, we are using the term romantic feelings to be feelings that are not sexual. Feelings like caring, loving, sharing, enjoying companionship, feeling protected, honored and respected etc. We have broken the sexual feelings away from romantic feelings, and for purposes of discussion have addressed those as lusting. which in think everyone thinks is inappropriate thought for someone who is not married and should be suppressed and not dwelt on. Does that make things a little more clear? Yeah it sometimes is hard to use language, when some words carry so much baggage. I think we can safely say that romance novels are probably more about lust. than romance. While I haven't read any of them, I have seen the covers.
HappyJackWagon Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 34 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: 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? No. Please tell me where I'm wrong. According to the church... -Identifying and behaving gay in this life is a sin in every circumstance and will not qualify a person for exaltation which is considered the ultimate joyful destination. -At death a gay person may be turned straight, at which time a he/she may receive the ordinances of a straight person to receive exaltation (I say "may" because the only authority to speak on this is a 70 answering a Q&A after which he received a pat on the back by Elder Oaks- so it must be doctrine) -If a person is turned straight and is allowed to progress past the judgment of his 2nd estate/ mortal probation, then much of what made up his personal identity in this life will be changed. I wonder if he'd recognize himself. -If a person is not turned straight as Elder Wickham theorizes then he will forever be damned to a lower level of glory or eternal solitude. What important part of the story am I missing? Could you elaborate on the doctrines of this theorized 2nd chance?
kllindley Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 2 minutes ago, california boy said: In this discussion, we are using the term romantic feelings to be feelings that are not sexual. Feelings like caring, loving, sharing, enjoying companionship, feeling protected, honored and respected etc. That is not what I would understand by romantic feelings. All those things you listed would be perfectly appropriate between mother and son, father-daughter, brother-sister, even close friends of either gender. I was responding more to feelings that entail exclusiveness in intimacy. 1
Calm Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 47 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. I need to understand more clearly where you are coming from I differentiate between romantic and intimate companionship. The latter includes desiring the other to care for you, to cherish, to grow closer in thought. This is in fact quite parallel to the idea of becoming one with God and God's family, though oneness goes beyond it. There is no inherent sin in desiring intimate companionship, only if that desire is twisted by selfish motives as in a desire to use or manipulate the other in some way. Romantic companionship hopefully includes a desire for intimate companionship, though from what I have seen not all view it that way (intimate companionship takes work, many view romance and romantic love as making everything about a relationship easy and if something is hard, it is a sign that romantic love is lacking or an illusion). And as I said above, since romantic feelings are defined in the context of moving towards a fuller relationship which includes physical attraction and fulfillment to the fullest possible for the couple (courting, wooing has that implication), I see seeking out romantic companionships from those of our own sex as inappropriate and sinful in the Gospel context. Dating for teens helps them discover the type of person they believe they want to be with in a marriage relationship even if they are not dating for the purpose of marriage. Romantic/physically attracted/sexual kissing and hugging is a part of that. As they get older and more experienced in what they desire, while I do believe there should be some openness to dating 'outside the box', I do not think dating to develop a romantic relationship with someone one does not desire to marry is appropriate (if one is trying to live the Gospel) nor is it appropriate to continue dating (which has the connotation of romance attached) even with the mutual understanding that 'we will just be friends', though I don't see anything wrong in going out together as companions for a couple that has decided to nix the romance. The reason why I limit longterm dating to marriage potential is I have seen too much pain caused by unequal romantic desires in romantic relationships that are not working towards a common goal (I don't see deep relationships as being able to be achieved unless working towards a common goal, even if that goal is simply intimate companionship). One person invests much more in the relationship than another and ends up resenting or being hurt by the inequality. A deep relationship (whether romantic or not, but especially romantic) needs to eventually have a fundamental core of relatively equal investment, even if that type of investment is different for each individual. If the potential for investment in the same desired type of relationship isn't there, it is kindness imo to step back and define the relationship differently and allow the other to sincerely choose if they want to continue on that basis. 2
Calm Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 9 minutes ago, california boy said: In this discussion, we are using the term romantic feelings to be feelings that are not sexual. Feelings like caring, loving, sharing, enjoying companionship, feeling protected, honored and respected etc. We have broken the sexual feelings away from romantic feelings, and for purposes of discussion have addressed those as lusting. which in think everyone thinks is inappropriate thought for someone who is not married and should be suppressed and not dwelt on. Does that make things a little more clear? Yeah it sometimes is hard to use language, when some words carry so much baggage. I think we can safely say that romance novels are probably more about lust. than romance. While I haven't read any of them, I have seen the covers. I don't think it is appropriate to define romance that way. The terms you are using work for all forms of intimate relationships (friends or family). What are the characteristics in your view that make a romantic companionship different than other forms of intimate compnionships? 2
smac97 Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 56 minutes ago, Teancum said: To give my answer to the question in the OP-California Boy I am sorry to say the answer is no. There is no place in the LDS "Plan of Happiness" for homosexuals. None whatsoever. ... The only real choice in mortality for a gay LDS person is to live a life of celibacy and be denied one of the, in my opinion, most important things a human can aspire to. And that is an emotionally and physically intimate relationship with someone you love deeply. The above statements are contradictory. Either "gay LDS" have a "choice" to accept the Restored Gospel, to live according to its precepts (including the Law of Chastity), and thereby participate in the "Plan of Happiness," or else . . . they don't have a choice because, as you put it, "there is no place in the LDS 'Plan of Happiness' for homosexuals." You can't have it both ways. But it just so happens that your first and second sentences above are rank falsehoods. And we all know it. There is a "place in the LDS 'Plan of Happiness'" for all of God's children. Every. Single. One. Thanks, -Smac 1
Calm Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 (edited) Sexual is not typical defined as lustful but: "Relating to the instincts, physiological processes, and activities connected with physical attraction or intimate physical contact between individuals" http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/sexual Lustful/lustual (my word meaning of or relating to lust) overlaps with sexual, but is not synonymous. Conversations are easier without definitions that dramatically stray from common usage (unless one is having a technical/academic discussion which fields may use definitions not in the common vernacular, which this discussion is not). In my opinion, your defintion of "romance" and "sexual" are too far from common usage to avoid major confusion. The first is too broad, the second too narrow. Edited July 15, 2016 by Calm
smac97 Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 19 minutes ago, california boy said: In this discussion, we are using the term romantic feelings to be feelings that are not sexual. Feelings like caring, loving, sharing, enjoying companionship, feeling protected, honored and respected etc. And all of those are fine. But if and when they are associated with sexual feelings, then the Law of Chastity comes into play. I have a number of sisters and sisters-in-law. I "care" for and "love" all of them. I enjoy their companionship. I respect them. But there is nary a whit of sexual feelings for any of them. The same goes for many other women in my acquaintance. Quote We have broken the sexual feelings away from romantic feelings, and for purposes of discussion have addressed those as lusting. which in think everyone thinks is inappropriate thought for someone who is not married and should be suppressed and not dwelt on. Does that make things a little more clear? Yeah it sometimes is hard to use language, when some words carry so much baggage. I think we can safely say that romance novels are probably more about lust. than romance. While I haven't read any of them, I have seen the covers. This rather folds back into what I said in the other thread. The Church is not interesting in constraining people with SSA from having non-romantic, non-sexual personal/familial relationships with other people. Rather, such persons face constraints centered on A) the Law of Chastity (no sexual behavior with someone of the same gender), and family and sealing ordinances (no being in a same-sex marriage). And it just so happens that all the rest of us also must comply with these constraints. Hence, we are all held to the same standard of conduct. Thanks, -Smac 2
ERMD Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 44 minutes ago, california boy said: I am trying to figure out why you have a problem with the way most of us here on this thread have defined lunt? CFR
Maedros Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 3 hours ago, Rain said: Do you all feel the same way if you are married and the person you are in love with is someone other than your spouse? In that case it would be a violation of the law because your marital covenants prohibit you from 'falling in love' with someone other than your spouse.
CV75 Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 39 minutes ago, Calm said: How many people use "romance" in the classical sense these days? Is cb using it that way? Not many, but I did – goes to show far of a stretch it is! But he does seem to hold that some romantic relationships are devoid of sexual connotations. I would still not say that same-gender people engaged in such a relationship are eligible to marry each other. I would still say that any inappropriate interaction would break the law of chastity, and any wilfulness or willfully unchaste act in relation to it would be sinful. Because a church is a community, members are obligated to uphold its standards in appearance as well as in fact and deed for the sake of those who are weaker. And they have to minister to the needs of those who are weak in upholding the standards in appearance as well as in fact and deed. For this reason, and because the members are part of a larger society, mores, signals and cues of appropriate behavior between people of the same and different gender, cannot be charitably flouted, either. 3
Jeanne Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 1 minute ago, CV75 said: Not many, but I did – goes to show far of a stretch it is! But he does seem to hold that some romantic relationships are devoid of sexual connotations. I would still not say that same-gender people engaged in such a relationship are eligible to marry each other. I would still say that any inappropriate interaction would break the law of chastity, and any wilfulness or willfully unchaste act in relation to it would be sinful. Because a church is a community, members are obligated to uphold its standards in appearance as well as in fact and deed for the sake of those who are weaker. And they have to minister to the needs of those who are weak in upholding the standards in appearance as well as in fact and deed. For this reason, and because the members are part of a larger society, mores, signals and cues of appropriate behavior between people of the same and different gender, cannot be charitably flouted, either. Maybe I am loopy; but, I don't have romantic feelings without some attraction. 2
Rain Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 26 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 To get it out of the way: I am talking about romantic actions. I figured that was obvious, but with some of the responses from some people I want to make clear I'm not talking about platonic actions. That initial first romantic feeling is NOT sinful. Having the feelings come and go or even persistently is not sinful. Knowingly dwelling on that feeling is against the spirit of the law of chastity only IF it is a relationship or time that is against God's plan - a relationship that separate us from Him. If I am an endowed member and I wonder what it would be like to have my neighbor's husband take me to dinner, give me flowers, hold my hands etc. not a big deal. If at some point I realize what I am doing and CHOOSE to make the feelings my hobby it would be against the law of chastity.
Recommended Posts