The Continued Decline of Young Men Willing to Serve a Mission

[YJacket]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

So, all this is just a fantasy in your head. You somehow believe that this "can of worms" is going to end up with the fantasy scenarios you've dreamed up. I've been critical of the way the LDS church treats gay members, but it's hardly fair to criticize a religion for something you dreamed up that has no relationship to real life.

So you advocate for single young women to be companions with single young men?

Why do not?

Whatever scenario you come up with is just pure fantasy in your own head.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, YJacket said:

Nice weasel. You know exactly what I'm talking about but you are attempting to dodge.

So you advocate for single young women to be companions with single young men?

The odd thing is that you actually want people to discuss something you've made up as if it were real. 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, YJacket said:

Nice weasel. You know exactly what I'm talking about but you are attempting to dodge.

So you advocate for single young women to be companions with single young men?

You are the one who is changing the scenario.  I already answered this.

But I will clarify…if you can guarantee that every woman will be put with a young man who is not physically stronger than her and whose past behaviour demonstrates a commitment to treat people with respect (so a no means no), I probably wouldn’t have an issue with it with separate bedrooms (because our culture is wired to seeing nakedness in the opposite sex as sexual while gay individuals have likely grown up with nakedness of the sex they were attracted to around them, so nakedness itself isn’t communicating sexual connotations automatically).

Edited August 15, 2022 by Calm

[YJacket]

Just now, Calm said:

The Church highly promotes romance and marriage between males and females. Is there any sign anyone has seen that sister missionaries believe they will be ignored or disrespected if they report inappropriate behaviour by an elder and therefore sister missionaries are typically wary about reporting suc?

Do we have single young women serving as companions 24-7 with single young men?

You want to treat heterosexual and homosexual as equal.  So do it, put your money where your mouth is.

Why is it appropriate for a heterosexual man to be paired with a homosexual man but not appropriate for a homosexual man to be paired with a heterosexual woman?

Why are you unwilling to actually advocate fully for what your position stipulates you must advocate for?

 

[YJacket]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

The odd thing is that you actually want people to discuss something you've made up as if it were real. 

So you believe it is acceptable to have single young men serve as companions to single young women?

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, YJacket said:

So you advocate for single young women to be companions with single young men?

Why do not?

Whatever scenario you come up with is just pure fantasy in your own head.

I don't advocate for anything. I just don't tend to put much stock in fantasy scenarios dreamed up by a total stranger who seems to be overly repelled by gay people. 

[YJacket]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

You are the one who is changing the scenario.  I already answered this.

No you haven't, you put up some imaginary fantasy scenario about some emotionally laden response about size. So I'll be more pedantic.

As long as the single young man is much smaller than the single young woman it is appropriate?

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, YJacket said:

So you believe it is acceptable to have single young men serve as companions to single young women?

Why would I care about that? The church can do what it wishes. We're talking about missionaries sharing sexual experiences and making passes at each other, supposedly with the church's sanction. It's nonsense, and you know it as well as I do.

Edited August 15, 2022 by jkwilliams

[YJacket]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't advocate for anything. I just don't tend to put much stock in fantasy scenarios dreamed up by a total stranger who seems to be overly repelled by gay people. 

So it's a fantasy scenario that a homosexual young man who has openly gone on dates with other young men would hit on his single male companion missionary?

That's a fantasy scenario?

But it's NOT a fantasy scenario that a heterosexual young man who has openly gone on dates with other young women would hit on a single sister missionary he is companions with? 

I see, so again the homosexual is somehow better, more righteous a paragon of virtue than the heterosexual. Got it.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, YJacket said:

you put up some imaginary fantasy scenario about some emotionally laden response about size

Right, because I have never actually been in a situation where a guy physically restrained me from leaving so he could try and talk me into continuing to date him.

Sorry, not imagined.  Actually happened.  I was 17, alone, in a dark empty parking lot after work, after the guy had pulled out the carburetor and had me pinned against the car unable to move away.  I’d gone on one date with him and declined another.

Edited August 15, 2022 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

11 minutes ago, YJacket said:

So it's a fantasy scenario that a homosexual young man who has openly gone on dates with other young men would hit on his single male companion missionary?

That's a fantasy scenario?

But it's NOT a fantasy scenario that a heterosexual young man who has openly gone on dates with other young women would hit on a single sister missionary he is companions with? 

I see, so again the homosexual is somehow better, more righteous a paragon of virtue than the heterosexual. Got it.

The issue isn't what a missionary would hypothetically do but how the church deals with gay members who want to serve missions. You've said repeatedly that the church doesn't care if gay missionaries make passes at their companions and would shame them if they reported it. That's a load of crap. 

Edited August 15, 2022 by jkwilliams

[YJacket]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Why would I care about that? The church can do what it wishes. We're talking about missionaries sharing sexual experiences and making passes at each other, supposedly with the church's sanction. It's nonsense, and you know it as well as I do.

Oh I didn't say the Church would sanction a missionary hitting on another.  I said it would be IGNORED.  I said it would happen exactly as you are doing.

Denying that it could even happen, sticking your head in the sand and saying . . .no, no it would never happen and IF it did, it would be reported and snuffed out . . .all the while asking me for PROOF that homosexual missionaries have in actuality hit on other missionaries.

So sure it's not "sanctioned"; it will just happen and the collateral damage because of leaders sticking their heads in the sand all the while proclaiming . . .no, no we don't sanction it (which is true-it will never be openly approved), but at the same time doing exactly what you are doing.

What is sanctioned is open homosexual missionaries serving as companions and by extension it opens the floodgates for all manner of behaviors which will be ignored, swept under the rug and anyone who says hey this is a problem will be treated as you have treated me.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, YJacket said:

So it's a fantasy scenario that a homosexual young man who has openly gone on dates with other young men would hit on his single male companion missionary?

No, the fantasy scenario is being fearful of reporting it to the mission president because one believes one will be dismissed as a bigot.

I would say this might even happen on occasion, but for it to occur in enough cases that one should bar all gay men from going on missions seems highly unlikely to me.

If that is not what you are wanting as a resolution, please share.

Edited August 15, 2022 by Calm

[YJacket]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Right, because I have never actually been in a situation where a guy physically restrained me from leaving so he could try and talk me into continuing to date him.

Sorry, not imagined.  Actually happened.  I was 17, alone, in a dark empty parking lot after work, after the guy had pulled out the carburetor and had me pinned against the car unable to move away.  I’d gone on one date with him and declined another.

So you don't care about men then.  You don't actually believe it's possible for a homosexual man to do that to another man?

The only thing that matters here is size and strength? That's all this boils down to.  If you have enough size and strength to resist-it's all good?

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, YJacket said:

So you don't care about men then.  You don't actually believe it's possible for a homosexual man to do that to another man?

The only thing that matters here is size and strength? That's all this boils down to.  If you have enough size and strength to resist-it's all good?

You are ignoring half of what I am saying, the cultural stuff.  Not interested in continuing the conversation.  Readers can decide whether they want to actually read what I wrote or accept your twisted interpretations of my posts.

Edited August 15, 2022 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, YJacket said:

Oh I didn't say the Church would sanction a missionary hitting on another.  I said it would be IGNORED.  I said it would happen exactly as you are doing.

Denying that it could even happen, sticking your head in the sand and saying . . .no, no it would never happen and IF it did, it would be reported and snuffed out . . .all the while asking me for PROOF that homosexual missionaries have in actuality hit on other missionaries.

So sure it's not "sanctioned"; it will just happen and the collateral damage because of leaders sticking their heads in the sand all the while proclaiming . . .no, no we don't sanction it (which is true-it will never be openly approved), but at the same time doing exactly what you are doing.

What is sanctioned is open homosexual missionaries serving as companions and by extension it opens the floodgates for all manner of behaviors which will be ignored, swept under the rug and anyone who says hey this is a problem will be treated as you have treated me.

Your belief that it would be ignored (all caps or not) is pure fantasy. You can't give a single example of that except for what is in your head. And what is in your head is, again, a load of crap. Have missionaries made passes at other missionaries? Obviously, they have. Does the church ignore or sanction such things? Not the church I know. 

Something is really off when I'm defending the church, right? 

Edited August 15, 2022 by jkwilliams

[YJacket]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

No, the fantasy scenario is being fearful of reporting it to the mission president because one believes one will be dismissed as a bigot.

I would say this might even happen on occasion, but for it to occur in enough cases that one should bar all gay men from going on missions seems highly unlikely to me.

If that is not what you are wanting as a resolution, please share.

"I would say this might even happen on occasion"  

Thank you! Seriously, thank you for at least recognizing that it is absolutely a possibility. I can absolutely work with and understand this position.  I believe you are seriously underestimating the magnitude of the ramifications here-but if you are at least willing to state the above then over time, if I am right (and I am), you will eventually see the rest of the ramifications.  Thank you.

"but for it to occur in enough cases that one should bar all gay men from going on missions seems highly unlikely to me."

I would say the right approach is to bar all OPENLY homosexual men from going on missions.

[YJacket]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Your belief that it would be ignored (all caps or not) is pure fantasy. You can't give a single example of that except for what is in your head. And what is in your head is, again, a load of shite. Have missionaries made passes at other missionaries? Obviously, they have. Does the church ignore or sanction such things? Not the church I know. 

Something is really off when I'm defending the church, right? 

We have never had missionaries who openly state the have sexual attraction for the sex they are serving with serve together.

Culturally speaking, you won; whether you can keep your win is another then.  But the progressives and the lefts have won the cultural battle in the Church.  That is why you are able to defend the Church. The Church bent it's knee to the cultural progressives and now you control the levels of power.

The question is what are you going to do with that power; and so far-it doesn't look pretty for you because you blast anyone who opposes you with horrible names calling them bigots, homophobes, living in a fantasy world.

And probably worst of all. . . unwilling to deal with the actual specifics of how to implement policies, procedures, etc. given the can of worms you have opened up; unwilling to deal with the ramifications of what it means when it is appropriate to openly proclaim to any and all "Hey didn't you know that I have a desire to steal candy bars all the time!", but don't worry when I go into your store that sells candy bars, I promise with all my heart that I won't steal your candy bars".  "Oh you have concern that even though I have told you that I desire to steal candy bars and I'm in your store that I might want to steal your candy . . .oh you horrible, bigoted, evil, nasty store owner, how DARE you even think that I might steal one of YOUR candy bars, you are such an unrighteous evil person for even thinking that!!!!!".

You caught the car . . . good luck as you drive it off the cliff.

Edited August 15, 2022 by YJacket

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, YJacket said:

would say the right approach is to bar all OPENLY homosexual men from going on missions.

So you would bar men who were honest about having gay attraction, but had never acted on them as well or do you mean only those who had been sexually/romantically involved before a mission?

If the latter, if they had refrained from such for 3 months, 6 months, a year, would you allow them to go?

Quote

you will eventually see the rest of the ramifications. 

Yeah, right…in no way am I saying the mission president would ignore it if reported.

Edited August 15, 2022 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

No, the fantasy scenario is being fearful of reporting it to the mission president because one believes one will be dismissed as a bigot.

I would say this might even happen on occasion, but for it to occur in enough cases that one should bar all gay men from going on missions seems highly unlikely to me.

If that is not what you are wanting as a resolution, please share.

Yeah, it does happen, but in my experience, it's usually the closeted guys who end up doing this. I had a companion who was later my roommate at BYU. We were very close friends, and one night, right before I got married, I woke up to find him in my bed with his hands down my garment bottoms. Was I too ashamed to report what happened? Nope. I told him that he needed to talk to our bishop, or I would. I didn't have a problem with him being gay, but I did have a problem with him groping me without my consent. Still do have a problem with it. 

[jkwilliams]

9 minutes ago, YJacket said:

We have never had missionaries who openly state the have sexual attraction for the sex they are serving with serve together.

Culturally speaking, you won; whether you can keep your win is another then.  But the progressives and the lefts have won the cultural battle in the Church.  That is why you are able to defend the Church. The Church bent it's knee to the cultural progressives and now you control the levels of power.

The question is what are you going to do with that power; and so far-it doesn't look pretty for you because you blast anyone who opposes you with horrible names calling them bigots, homophobes, living in a fantasy world.

And probably worst of all. . . unwilling to deal with the actual specifics of how to implement policies, procedures, etc. given the can of worms you have opened up; unwilling to deal with the ramifications of what it means when it is appropriate to openly proclaim to any and all "Hey didn't you know that I have a desire to steal candy bars all the time!", but don't worry when I go into your store that sells candy bars, I promise with all my heart that I won't steal your candy bars".  "Oh you have concern that even though I have told you that I desire to steal candy bars and I'm in your store that I might want to steal your candy . . .oh you horrible, bigoted, evil, nasty store owner, how DARE you even think that I might steal one of YOUR candy bars, you are such an unrighteous evil person for even thinking that!!!!!".

You caught the car . . . good luck as you drive it off the cliff.

I'm curious: if the church continues to allow openly gay (but celibate) members to serve missions, are you going to allow your son to serve a mission? 

[jkwilliams]

13 minutes ago, YJacket said:

We have never had missionaries who openly state the have sexual attraction for the sex they are serving with serve together.

Culturally speaking, you won; whether you can keep your win is another then.  But the progressives and the lefts have won the cultural battle in the Church.  That is why you are able to defend the Church. The Church bent it's knee to the cultural progressives and now you control the levels of power.

The question is what are you going to do with that power; and so far-it doesn't look pretty for you because you blast anyone who opposes you with horrible names calling them bigots, homophobes, living in a fantasy world.

And probably worst of all. . . unwilling to deal with the actual specifics of how to implement policies, procedures, etc. given the can of worms you have opened up; unwilling to deal with the ramifications of what it means when it is appropriate to openly proclaim to any and all "Hey didn't you know that I have a desire to steal candy bars all the time!", but don't worry when I go into your store that sells candy bars, I promise with all my heart that I won't steal your candy bars".  "Oh you have concern that even though I have told you that I desire to steal candy bars and I'm in your store that I might want to steal your candy . . .oh you horrible, bigoted, evil, nasty store owner, how DARE you even think that I might steal one of YOUR candy bars, you are such an unrighteous evil person for even thinking that!!!!!".

You caught the car . . . good luck as you drive it off the cliff.

I'm sorry, but this is hilarious. Me, progressive? LOL Me, have power in the church? LOL

Again, I don't know what church you belong to, but clearly it's not the LDS church. 

[Nemesis]

Wow.  Not even sure what to do except close this thread.  The standard rules of debate dictate that the use of what if scenarios be limited.  I’m just surprised nazis weren’t brought up in the what ifs.
 

-Nemesis