Is there a place in the Plan of Happiness for gays?

[CV75]

49 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.

I would sum this up as brotherly love or charity, which can be possessed of anyone regardless of sexual orientation. Or even a platonic relationship. Maybe those are more commonly accepted terms we can use.

So, it's not a date if:

1. He asked you to “hang out.”
2. He calls you dude.
3. He high-fives you at the end of the night.
4. He tells you he just can’t find the right person.
5. There are video games involved.
6. No / awkward hug and peck on the cheek.
7. He shows up to coffee wearing gym clothes.
8. After dinner, he invites you back to his place and then sets up the couch for you to sleep on.
9. You run into one of his friends and he invites them to join you.
10. Your “first date” is a party. You + that hot barista + 200 of his friends ≠ a date.

[plagiarized and edited from Cosmopolitan] --I'm not THAT funny!

Edited July 15, 2016 by CV75
[plagiarized and edited from Cosmopolitan]

[CV75]

10 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Maybe I am loopy; but, I don't have romantic feelings without some attraction.

Hey, I'm trying to keep an open mind!

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I would sum this up as brotherly love or charity, which can be possessed of anyone regardless of sexual orientation. Or even a platonic relationship. Maybe those are more commonly accepted terms we can use.

So, it's not a date if:

1. He asked you to “hang out.”
2. He calls you dude.
3. He high-fives you at the end of the night.
4. He tells you he just can’t find the right person.
5. There are video games involved.
6. No / awkward hug and peck on the cheek.
7. He shows up to coffee wearing gym clothes.
8. After dinner, he invites you back to his place and then sets up the couch for you to sleep on.
9. You run into one of his friends and he invites them to join you.
10. Your “first date” is a party. You + that hot barista + 200 of his friends ≠ a date.

[plagiarized and edited from Cosmopolitan] --I'm not THAT funny!

Excellent summary, lol (out of points and can't get the snort emoticon to post, urg...

[Calm]

We need more words for types of love, though I think I want at least ten if we are having these kinds of conversations more:

http://www.yesmagazine.org/happiness/the-ancient-greeks-6-words-for-love-and-why-knowing-them-can-change-your-life

[NEDRA]

Romantic kissing is clearly against the law of chastity, for opposite- or same-sex couples.

In my youth (I was a teen in the early 1980s), we were taught this quote from President Kimball:

 

“Even if timely courtship justifies the kiss, it should be a clean, decent, sexless one like the kiss between mother and son, or father and daughter.”

 

 

Edited July 16, 2016 by NEDRA

[Calm]

Hmm...why bother kissing then?

[NEDRA]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

Hmm...why bother kissing then?

All I'm saying is that since straight couples disobey the prophet in this regard, gay couples should be able to also.

[Kenngo1969]

The short answer to your question is, Yes.  That said, if I cannot fathom God's reasons or purposes why I bear my own comparatively insignificant burdens in mortality, I'm certainly not going to hazard any guesses why those who are attracted to their own sex have been called upon to bear that much-more-weighty burden.  That said, while I sustain the Brethren, and while I know some individual General Authorities have taught that those with this particular challenge will overcome it in the resurrection, I don't know.  But what I do know is that as unfair as any of life's given individual circumstances are, if we are faithful, when it comes to our eternal reward, the Omniscient, Omnipotent, All-Loving Lord of the Universe isn't going to have to tell any of us, "Sorry.  I know you were expecting something more, or something better, or at least something different, and I know this means it sucks to be you but ... this is the best I could do."

[Freedom]

21 hours ago, california boy said:

 

I wold like to ask you about the second part of your answer.  Is it against the Law of Chastity to dwell on romantic feelings?  If a teenage girl likes a boy in her class, is it a sin and against the Law of Chastity for her to dwell on those feelings?  Should she banish all thoughts of that boy from her thoughts?  What if there is a gay teen in that same classroom.  Is it a sin and against the Law of Chastity to have romantic thoughts on the one he feels an attraction to?  (Once again, we are not talking about acting on those attractions for either person).  If neither person acts on that attraction, has a sin been committed?

Is it a sin for a married man to dwell on romantic thoughts of another woman? It is a sin for an alcoholic to dwell on thoughts of drinking vodka? It is a sin for a person with a criminal record for theft to sit at home planing out ways to rob a bank? Is it a sin for a woman to dwell on her anger over her neighbor because the neighbor did not say hello? My post answered this question already. Having the thought is not the sin, dwelling on it is because thought invariably leads to action. We will be judged on the thoughts and intents of our hearts. 

[california boy]

I was away from the computer for a while, and it looks like this thread has exploded into many fractions and ideas.  It would consume way too much of my time  to answer each post individually.  And I think we are getting into areas that there is simply a difference of opinion.  The question that seems to have fragmented the discussion is the question of whether it is against the Law of Chastity to date, hug or kiss.  I think that we can agree that it is against the Law of Chastity for a married man to date hug or kiss someone other than his wife.  I think we can also agree that it is against the Law of Chastity to date, hug or kiss someone you are related to.  So as I see it, there are three questions that I would like to focus on.keeping in mind that we are NOT discussing married men and people we are related to

Is it against the Law of Chastity for any single person who is not related to the person to date hug or kiss someone.

And is there a difference between someone who is gay and someone who is straight when it comes to this question.  Do the rules change and it becomes against the Law of Chastity when you want to date, hug or kiss someone of the same sex.

Is this your personal opinion, or is this church policy/doctrine?

I should add that in dating, hugging and kissing, the person is still required to push away any thoughts of sexual behavior towards the person they are dating, hugging, and kissing. whether they are straight or gay.  I think we have all agreed on that as well.

I don't think that if we can come to an agreement on this then it is possible to move the discussion forward. I want to thank everyone for working with me on trying to better understand this issue.  I appreciate your thoughts.

Edited July 16, 2016 by california boy

[HappyJackWagon]

8 hours ago, Freedom said:

Is it a sin for a married man to dwell on romantic thoughts of another woman? It is a sin for an alcoholic to dwell on thoughts of drinking vodka? It is a sin for a person with a criminal record for theft to sit at home planing out ways to rob a bank? Is it a sin for a woman to dwell on her anger over her neighbor because the neighbor did not say hello? My post answered this question already. Having the thought is not the sin, dwelling on it is because thought invariably leads to action. We will be judged on the thoughts and intents of our hearts. 

I understand your thought process but how would one define "dwelling on the sin"? Thinking about it for a full minute? Five minutes? Planning ways to commit the sin?

I don't believe temptations are sins. Maybe the person who is dwelling on it is doing the absolute best they can not to give in to action? Remember, Christ was tempted. Were His temptations sins? How long did he consider turning a rock into bread? Did he consider giving up in the garden? If so, how long did he think about it? Ultimately He didn't turn the rock into bread and He didn't give up in the garden, therefore he didn't sin. The sin is the action. Focusing ones thoughts and trying not to dwell on the temptation is an attempt at placing a safety barrier between the individual and the sin, but is not sin in and of itself.

[mfbukowski]

Just a quick comment.

I find the OP question rather confusing and question begging, and quite manipulative.

There is a place for everyone in the plan of happiness, and gays benefit as much as anyone else.  

We all have agency. That is part of the plan. We all need to follow rules to get along in society. That is part of the plan. We all have the ability to choose a response in any situation. 

The plan of happiness is within us. My advice to everyone is go forward and make yourself happy because no one else can do it for you. If you are unhappy you are not participating in the plan.

If you disagree with a church, find another one.

It's that simple. Don't try to change others just change yourself.

Whining and complaining doesn't help anyone.

Edited July 16, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

I was away from the computer for a while, and it looks like this thread has exploded into many fractions and ideas.  It would consume way too much of my time  to answer each post individually.  And I think we are getting into areas that there is simply a difference of opinion.  The question that seems to have fragmented the discussion is the question of whether it is against the Law of Chastity to date, hug or kiss.  I think that we can agree that it is against the Law of Chastity for a married man to date hug or kiss someone other than his wife.  I think we can also agree that it is against the Law of Chastity to date, hug or kiss someone you are related to.  So as I see it, there are three questions that I would like to focus on.keeping in mind that we are NOT discussing married men and people we are related to

Is it against the Law of Chastity for any single person who is not related to the person to date hug or kiss someone.

And is there a difference between someone who is gay and someone who is straight when it comes to this question.  Do the rules change and it becomes against the Law of Chastity when you want to date, hug or kiss someone of the same sex.

Is this your personal opinion, or is this church policy/doctrine?

I should add that in dating, hugging and kissing, the person is still required to push away any thoughts of sexual behavior towards the person they are dating, hugging, and kissing. whether they are straight or gay.  I think we have all agreed on that as well.

I don't think that if we can come to an agreement on this then it is possible to move the discussion forward. I want to thank everyone for working with me on trying to better understand this issue.  I appreciate your thoughts.

The law of C is simple.

No sexual relations with anyone unless you are legally and lawfully married to that person, and the church excludes ssm.

Done.

[rpn]

Dating, kissing and hugging.

Dating is for the purpose of getting married: there have been quite a number of recent talks urging the young people of the church to stop hanging out with each other, and start actually dating, and eventually marrying.

So yes, I think dating those of same gender, is endorsing a gay lifestyle.   I don't think hanging out with gay people is a violation, but pairing off very well could be.

But so long as kisses are not intending to arouse, and are not continued if there is arousal (both of which would be crossing the line into sexual activity, and thus a violation of chastity outside of marriage, even though lots of members pretend that kissing is no big deal), they are not sinful.   I don't see a problem of sharing affection by kissing platonically.

I also don't see a problem with a lot of kinds of hugs, up to the point where they are intended to arouse sexual feelings, or continued after they do.   There are lots and lots of unmarried people who think there is no violation of chastity if all you are doing is dry humping or touching through clothes, but those are not the lines God has sent.   For Him it is the arousal of sexual feelings outside of marriage, either intentionally (knowing that happens or is likely to happen and doing it anyway) or continuing it when an innocent hug results in sexual arousal.

I don't think holding hands are a problem, walking together arm in arm, unless such things result in arousing sexual feelings.

Holding someone in one's arms and hoping you will always love and be able to share the emotional intimacy is romantic, not automatically sexual and not a chastity thing.   Almost everyone does it with at least a few relationships.   Wishing for a spouse isn't a chastity thing either, but wishing for a same sex spouse does tend to result in persuading ourselves that our personal feelings can change the way families are established in God's Plan.  

But there is an interesting factual thing, that God has to know that many many of His children do not have a family of origin that provides the nurturing and bonds that are necessary for all those within that family to survive and be healthy and learn about Him.  So many many people, out of necessity, or sometimes out of love for all God's children, have become family with people way beyond or even instead of their family of origin.  There is a lot of room in His plan for [healthy, moral, and non-sexual/non-lustful] relationships that are formed outside of the eternal family pattern, to meet earthly needs.   There may eventually, think millennium, even be a way for the righteous to be sealed to non-family of origin (sort of like the dynastic sealings that Joseph Smith must have believed were appropriate because he participated in them, but which were clarified by latter prophet, who said to be sealed to one's own physical ancestors).  But it will only be effective for those who have kept their Second Estate, however it gets sorted out.  

And that is the struggle for us all: to conform our will to His, to learn how to control our bodies, its appetites and passions, consistent with His will, until we are like Him.

Edited July 16, 2016 by rpn

[JulieM]

23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The law of C is simple.

No sexual relations with anyone unless you are legally and lawfully married to that person, and the church excludes ssm.

Done.

Not so simple.  Plural marriages were not between legally wed couples and they involved sexual relations.

[BCSpace]

Quote

Is there a place in the Plan of Happiness for gays?

Of course. In the resurrection, there will be neither choosing to be gay nor any natural or genetic inclinations to be gay.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Not so simple.  Plural marriages were not between legally wed couples and they involved sexual relations.

Presentism.

Highly debatable, and not worth discussion.  What was the law then? Who was to enforce it? When it became clearly illegal, the church abandoned it.

Pointless to argue about. And if it was wrong from the start, oh well.

Yes the church makes mistakes.

That has absolutely nothing to do with making yourself happy. The thread is about happiness not about 19th century law in Utah.

Edited July 16, 2016 by mfbukowski

[UtahTexan]

Maybe there should be a whole board just dedicated to conversations regarding gays.  My gosh....we seem to be enamored with the topic

As to the question:  The Lord....and the Church...are very clear about the topic.

As to any heavenly Plans......it is above our pay grade...The Lord will treat whomever He treats the way he chooses to.

We should worry about what WE do and leave the rest to the Lord

[california boy]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The law of C is simple.

No sexual relations with anyone unless you are legally and lawfully married to that person, and the church excludes ssm.

Done.

So if I live with my boyfriend and do not have sexual relations, I am still living the law of chastity?

[california boy]

2 hours ago, rpn said:

Dating, kissing and hugging.

Dating is for the purpose of getting married: there have been quite a number of recent talks urging the young people of the church to stop hanging out with each other, and start actually dating, and eventually marrying.

So yes, I think dating those of same gender, is endorsing a gay lifestyle.   I don't think hanging out with gay people is a violation, but pairing off very well could be.

But so long as kisses are not intending to arouse, and are not continued if there is arousal (both of which would be crossing the line into sexual activity, and thus a violation of chastity outside of marriage, even though lots of members pretend that kissing is no big deal), they are not sinful.   I don't see a problem of sharing affection by kissing platonically.

I also don't see a problem with a lot of kinds of hugs, up to the point where they are intended to arouse sexual feelings, or continued after they do.   There are lots and lots of unmarried people who think there is no violation of chastity if all you are doing is dry humping or touching through clothes, but those are not the lines God has sent.   For Him it is the arousal of sexual feelings outside of marriage, either intentionally (knowing that happens or is likely to happen and doing it anyway) or continuing it when an innocent hug results in sexual arousal.

I don't think holding hands are a problem, walking together arm in arm, unless such things result in arousing sexual feelings.

Holding someone in one's arms and hoping you will always love and be able to share the emotional intimacy is romantic, not automatically sexual and not a chastity thing.   Almost everyone does it with at least a few relationships.   Wishing for a spouse isn't a chastity thing either, but wishing for a same sex spouse does tend to result in persuading ourselves that our personal feelings can change the way families are established in God's Plan.  

But there is an interesting factual thing, that God has to know that many many of His children do not have a family of origin that provides the nurturing and bonds that are necessary for all those within that family to survive and be healthy and learn about Him.  So many many people, out of necessity, or sometimes out of love for all God's children, have become family with people way beyond or even instead of their family of origin.  There is a lot of room in His plan for [healthy, moral, and non-sexual/non-lustful] relationships that are formed outside of the eternal family pattern, to meet earthly needs.   There may eventually, think millennium, even be a way for the righteous to be sealed to non-family of origin (sort of like the dynastic sealings that Joseph Smith must have believed were appropriate because he participated in them, but which were clarified by latter prophet, who said to be sealed to one's own physical ancestors).  But it will only be effective for those who have kept their Second Estate, however it gets sorted out.  

And that is the struggle for us all: to conform our will to His, to learn how to control our bodies, its appetites and passions, consistent with His will, until we are like Him.

Is this just your opinion or is it doctrine?  If it is doctrine can you find the place where it is defined as such?

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Presentism.

Not at all.  There was only 1 wife that was considered legal when living polygamy (whether it was back then or today).  

So using the "only having sexual relations with your legally and lawfully" wedded spouse as a definition for the law of chastity is not as simple as you try to portray it.  Those living plural marriage had sexual relations with someone they were not legally married to.

Also, those entering a SSM are legally wed.  

Again, not simple when just using the church's law of chastity as it is written or stated in the temple.

Of course there's more to it (one can believe that lawfully means the laws of God).  But it's not simple.

 

Edited July 16, 2016 by JulieM

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Presentism.

Highly debatable, and not worth discussion.  What was the law then? Who was to enforce it? When it became clearly illegal, the church abandoned it.

It was illegal even back when early church members lived it.  

Here's the law for Illinois (1833):

Quote

"Sec 121. Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or two husbands at one and the same time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive. If any person or persons within this State, being married, or who shall hereafter marry, do at any time marry any person or persons, the former husband or wife being alive, the person so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine, not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned in the penitentiary, not exceeding two years. It shall not be necessary to prove either of the said marriages by the register or certificate thereof, or other record evidence; but the same may be proved by such evidence as is admissible to prove a marriage in other cases, and when such second marriage shall have taken place without this state, cohabitation in this state after such second marriage shall be deemed the commission of the crime of bigamy, and the trial in such case may take place in the county where such cohabitation shall have occurred."
Revised Laws of Illinois, 1833, p.198-99

ETA:

So, if one is going by the current Law of Chastity, those living polygamy violated this law (having marital relations with someone they were not legally wed to). 

I don't find this a convincing argument for the church accepting legal SSM, but it is somewhat interesting when the Law of Chasity is taken literally (and then not taking into account other writings and statements from church leaders).

.

Edited July 16, 2016 by ALarson

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, BCSpace said:

Of course. In the resurrection, there will be neither choosing to be gay nor any natural or genetic inclinations to be gay.

And your evidence for the a priori statement is just what?

[ALarson]

2 hours ago, BCSpace said:

Of course. In the resurrection, there will be neither choosing to be gay nor any natural or genetic inclinations to be gay.

You don't know that this is true.  

You can only believe this is how it is going to be. 

[Jeanne]

13 hours ago, california boy said:

I was away from the computer for a while, and it looks like this thread has exploded into many fractions and ideas.  It would consume way too much of my time  to answer each post individually.  And I think we are getting into areas that there is simply a difference of opinion.  The question that seems to have fragmented the discussion is the question of whether it is against the Law of Chastity to date, hug or kiss.  I think that we can agree that it is against the Law of Chastity for a married man to date hug or kiss someone other than his wife.  I think we can also agree that it is against the Law of Chastity to date, hug or kiss someone you are related to.  So as I see it, there are three questions that I would like to focus on.keeping in mind that we are NOT discussing married men and people we are related to

Is it against the Law of Chastity for any single person who is not related to the person to date hug or kiss someone.

And is there a difference between someone who is gay and someone who is straight when it comes to this question.  Do the rules change and it becomes against the Law of Chastity when you want to date, hug or kiss someone of the same sex.

Is this your personal opinion, or is this church policy/doctrine?

I should add that in dating, hugging and kissing, the person is still required to push away any thoughts of sexual behavior towards the person they are dating, hugging, and kissing. whether they are straight or gay.  I think we have all agreed on that as well.

I don't think that if we can come to an agreement on this then it is possible to move the discussion forward. I want to thank everyone for working with me on trying to better understand this issue.  I appreciate your thoughts.

Just a thought before you leave this part of the discussion.  All of you will notice that I often times end my posts with "Hugs, Jeanne".  As a single woman living away from family (though I have two living with me)!!! I thrive on a big hug and a kiss...to me, it is immoral or a sin,NOT to express affection.whether in friendship, dating or whatever.  It is also a part of being honest with ourselves..our needs and our desire to love others.  This does not mean we jump into beds.. But I think it is a shame if we close ourselves off to touch.