Missionaries and Chastity

[jkwilliams]

Given all the hypotheticals and fantasy scenarios in a recently closed thread, I decided to look up what the General Missionary Handbook has to say about chastity and homosexuality. It’s just what you would expect: you’re supposed to keep the law of chastity and refrain from sexual behavior. I’m having trouble understanding how anyone thinks the church has changed its standards. Anyway, can we discuss current standards without going into hypothetical and wildly fantastic what-if scenarios?

Quote

 

The Law of Chastity

One temple covenant you have made is to obey the law of chastity. Do all you can to protect yourself, your companion, and others from sexual temptation that could lead to breaking this sacred covenant. Doing things that break the law of chastity may even be considered criminal in some areas.

You should avoid any thought or action that would separate you from the Spirit of God. This includes but is not limited to adultery; fornication; same-sex activity; oral sex; arousing sexual feelings; inappropriate touching; sending or receiving messages, images, or videos that are immoral or sexual in nature; masturbation; and viewing or using pornography (see 7.5.3). See For the Strength of Youth (2011), “Repentance,” 28–29, for additional information.

The Lord has taught, “Satan seeketh to destroy” (Doctrine and Covenants 132:57) and make you “miserable like unto himself” (2 Nephi 2:27). He will use people, inappropriate media, and other temptations to deceive, trap, threaten, and embarrass you. For example, be especially careful of those who may demand financial payment in return for not revealing compromising or inappropriate images and messages that you may have sent them.
If you are struggling to keep these standards or if someone is threatening you, ask the Lord for help and talk with your mission president immediately.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/missionary-standards-for-disciples-of-jesus-christ/3-missionary-conduct?lang=eng#title_number6

 

 

Edited August 15, 2022 by jkwilliams

[mfbukowski]

48 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I decided to look up what the General Missionary Handbook has to say about chastity and homosexuality.

Link please?

[rodheadlee]

52 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Given all the hypotheticals and fantasy scenarios in a recently closed thread, I decided to look up what the General Missionary Handbook has to say about chastity and homosexuality. It’s just what you would expect: you’re supposed to keep the law of chastity and refrain from sexual behavior. I’m having trouble understanding how anyone thinks the church has changed its standards. Anyway, can we discuss current standards without going into hypothetical and wildly fantastic what-if scenarios?

 

What happened to you happened to me at Cub Scouts. I was not a happy camper.

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

What happened to you happened to me at Cub Scouts. I was not a happy camper.

Isn't it sad how many of us were sexually assaulted, mine was rather minimal, just had a high school neighbor dude and an old man show me their privates while a young girl and in elementary school. But I think it has affected me, starting to realize it. 

[rodheadlee]

32 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Isn't it sad how many of us were sexually assaulted, mine was rather minimal, just had a high school neighbor dude and an old man show me their privates while a young girl and in elementary school. But I think it has affected me, starting to realize it. 

Yes, it happened to my wife 2.

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

What happened to you happened to me at Cub Scouts. I was not a happy camper.

Well, rather than rehash what happened to me, I'd rather discuss the allegation that somehow missionary standards have changed. I'm not seeing it. But I am sorry that happened to you. 

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Well, rather than rehash what happened to me, I'd rather discuss the allegation that somehow missionary standards have changed. I'm not seeing it. But I am sorry that happened to you. 

It seems pretty clear that the standards haven't changed.

What has changed is the way that church leadership views gay and lesbian members, and that makes some members incredibly uncomfortable/angry/delusional.  

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It seems pretty clear that the standards haven't changed.

What has changed is the way that church leadership views gay and lesbian members, and that makes some members incredibly uncomfortable/angry/delusional.  

Seems like it. My dad is kind of that way. He gets completely riled up, angry, and irrational at the slightest mention of gay people. I don't know why that is. For that reason, my son doesn't plan on coming out to my parents. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Given all the hypotheticals and fantasy scenarios in a recently closed thread, I decided to look up what the General Missionary Handbook has to say about chastity and homosexuality. It’s just what you would expect: you’re supposed to keep the law of chastity and refrain from sexual behavior. I’m having trouble understanding how anyone thinks the church has changed its standards. Anyway, can we discuss current standards without going into hypothetical and wildly fantastic what-if scenarios?

 

The only thing I see that has changed since [date] is the specific reference to electronic/digital media and extortion.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, CV75 said:

The only thing I see that has changed since [date] is the specific reference to electronic/digital media and extortion.

Same here. We usually didn't even have access to a phone (or a shower, for that matter), so our opportunities for exposure to that kind of stuff were low. 

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Seems like it. My dad is kind of that way. He gets completely riled up, angry, and irrational at the slightest mention of gay people. I don't know why that is. For that reason, my son doesn't plan on coming out to my parents. 

I don't blame your son.  

Maybe your dad does that because he doesn't know any gay people, and he has a false idea in his head of what they are like.  But who really knows, and your son shouldn't have to risk his mental health or a relationship with his grandpa just so your dad might be able to get over his feelings.

[YJacket]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Given all the hypotheticals and fantasy scenarios in a recently closed thread, I decided to look up what the General Missionary Handbook has to say about chastity and homosexuality. It’s just what you would expect: you’re supposed to keep the law of chastity and refrain from sexual behavior. I’m having trouble understanding how anyone thinks the church has changed its standards. Anyway, can we discuss current standards without going into hypothetical and wildly fantastic what-if scenarios?

 

"All the hypotheticals"

You have got to be kidding me. It is a specific hypothetical, it is not a "what if this, what if that, what if".

It is simple a very logical single flow scenario from two premises.

1) Openly homosexual missionaries are allowed to serve.

2) Homosexuals are no different than heterosexuals.

From those two things come the following single flow hypothesis.

1) We do not allow single young men to serve as companions to single young women

           a) This is because obviously the dynamic of a single young man paired with a single young woman would INEVITABLY lead to unchaste situations.

2) Therefore why is it acceptable to treat OPEN homosexuals DIFFERENTLY than heterosexuals?

       b) Given that a homosexual has the same sexual mechanisms as a heterosexual, that therefore means that they will INEVITABLY be paired with single young men to whom they are sexually attracted.

       c) Given that there is a tremendous push to ensure that the homosexual is treated "kindly, fairly", that nothing is ever done to them.  It is absolutely logically that INEVITABLY an open homosexual will be paired with a young single man to whom he will be sexually attracted and that he will inevitably act out on that sexual attraction in some manner. The missionary who is acted upon will not have any recourse.  This is PLAINLY and CLEARLY obvious as given to the fact that the mere discussion of this situation is branded as homophobic, bigoted, and every other name in the book.

     d) Just to proof how absolutely hypocritical anyone who pushes for OPEN homosexual missionaries to serve with other single individuals of the same sex the following logical conclusion is provided: then single young men should serve with single young women as companions.  Why do I bring this up? Because no one in their right mind will advocate for that . . .but they will advocate for homosexual men serving with other men.  Which given the FACT that LGBTQETC is now ~20% of the youth will INEVITABLY lead to a homosexual young man being a companion with ANOTHER homosexual young man.

So logically it means the following:

It is perfectly acceptable for an OPENLY homosexual young man to be companions with another OPENLY homosexual young man.  

It is perfectly unacceptable for a young man to be a companion to a young woman.

Therefore, anyone who advocates for OPEN homosexuals to serve is a hypocrite and is treating homosexuals as a higher class of being; i.e. they are much holier and better because they can somehow magically control their sexual desires and urges better than the heterosexual. 

If that is NOT the case, then all those who advocate for OPEN homosexuals to serve with the same-sex should also advocate for a single man and a single woman to serve together.

This isn't a multitude of "what ifs", it's not a massive huge amount.  It is extremely limited, logical flow that not a single person has been able to rebutt . . .except to call me a bigot a homophobe, a horrible person, and whatever other name in the book you want.

I'm just holding your feet to the fire; stop treating homosexuals as if they are a gift from God and somehow a holier class of being; they aren't and are in fact a lot worse off than a lot of people.  They have a "reprobate" mind.  But these are the last days, good called evil and evil called good.

And no; I will not encourage my children to serve missions; not with this filth and hypocrisy. I loved my mission; one of the highlights of my life.

 

Edited August 15, 2022 by YJacket

[YJacket]

48 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It seems pretty clear that the standards haven't changed.

What has changed is the way that church leadership views gay and lesbian members, and that makes some members incredibly uncomfortable/angry/delusional.  

Of course the standards have changed.

Are words actions yes or no?

[YJacket]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Well, rather than rehash what happened to me, I'd rather discuss the allegation that somehow missionary standards have changed. I'm not seeing it. But I am sorry that happened to you. 

Are words actions? Yes or no?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, YJacket said:

Are words actions? Yes or no?

What words have changed? I cited the current missionary handbook. CFR that there is contrary teaching from the church. 

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, YJacket said:

Of course the standards have changed.

Are words actions yes or no?

No, words are not actions.

But besides that point (which I have no idea what you are trying to say by asking it), no the standards haven't changed.

[YJacket]

What is interesting to me is that in the process of advocating for homosexual missionaries serving, many here are proving my point.

I agree as a young single male missionary, I didn't particularly care to hear about the dates of my companions. 

It's unacceptable to talk about dates but it IS acceptable to talk about how one would would like to go on dates with the same-sex? That is what proclaiming to the world OPENLY means; it is stating "I am sexually, romantically attracted to the same sex and if I had the option to act on it, I would".

So why is it unacceptable to talk about the actual dates, but acceptable to talk about how one would go on dates if one could (i.e. proclaim that one is proud and open about being a homosexual)?

In other words, it seems to be important to talk about how one sexually/romantically desires the same sex as a missionary, but then unimportant to talk about the actual dates or interest that one has as an openly homosexual missionary?

How do people square that peg into a round hole.

[YJacket]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No, words are not actions.

But besides that point (which I have no idea what you are trying to say by asking it), no the standards haven't changed.

Okay so words are not action. I'm glad we have that established.

A missionary therefore can say FU to his companion and it's no big deal right? He can call his companion a moron, an idiot, he can call him every vile name and because it's not an action therefore it is acceptable?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, YJacket said:

What is interesting to me is that in the process of advocating for homosexual missionaries serving, many here are proving my point.

I agree as a young single male missionary, I didn't particularly care to hear about the dates of my companions. 

It's unacceptable to talk about dates but it IS acceptable to talk about how one would would like to go on dates with the same-sex? That is what proclaiming to the world OPENLY means; it is stating "I am sexually, romantically attracted to the same sex and if I had the option to act on it, I would".

So why is it unacceptable to talk about the actual dates, but acceptable to talk about how one would go on dates if one could (i.e. proclaim that one is proud and open about being a homosexual)?

In other words, it seems to be important to talk about how one sexually/romantically desires the same sex as a missionary, but then unimportant to talk about the actual dates or interest that one has as an openly homosexual missionary?

How do people square that peg into a round hole.

Again, CFR on church teachings changing. 

[YJacket]

30 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

What words have changed? I cited the current missionary handbook. CFR that there is contrary teaching from the church. 

The standard has changed. 

When I served anyone who proclaimed they were openly homosexual and proud of it-would have been sent home.

That is not the case today.

[YJacket]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

Again, CFR on church teachings changing. 

Are you REALLY arguing that 20 years ago a young man could proclaim that he is OPENLY homosexual, tell everyone he meets that he is a homosexual and that he would be allowed to continue to serve?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, YJacket said:

Are you REALLY arguing that 20 years ago a young man could proclaim that he is OPENLY homosexual, tell everyone he meets that he is a homosexual and that he would be allowed to continue to serve?

Answer the CFR. Board rules. 

[ksfisher]

I’m not sure that  I can tell the difference between where this thread is going and where the locked one went.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

I’m not sure that  I can tell the difference between where this thread is going and where the locked one went.

If people would back up their assertions, it wouldn’t be going the same way. Very frustrating. 

[mfbukowski]

14 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Answer the CFR. Board rules. 

Which apparently don't apply to you.

How ironic!