Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Missionaries and Chastity


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Labels don't matter, unless we are talking about gender, than they matter?

We actually use tons of labels in our church. Its what we do as humans.  We like to classify things.  It helps us make sense of the world and our experiences in it.  I don't think classifying and labeling human experience is inherently bad/wrong.   The church doesn't seem to have a problem with the gay/homosexual/heterosexual/bisexual, etc. labels.  They use them regularly. 

The only reason the gender label matters is because we, as a society have invented human gender as something separate from biological sex  as part of our current culture.  Gay/Homosexual,  whatever,  white, black, asian, indigenous are other examples of invented human social constructs that exist as part of our current culture.  Such items are used by the church because they are used by our culture and the church exist within the culture.  the definition of these thing change as the culture changes as well as new terms keep getting invented. We need to recognize these for what they are and not as some eternal immutable truths.

When it come to human behavior, almost all of it is learned.  Humans do not have complex instinctive behavior like others species.  If it is a complex behavior, then it has been learned. 

 

Link to comment

Fergitaboutit  

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
1 hour ago, TheTanakas said:

Thanks.

Nuances and subtleties as usual 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks.

Nuances and subtleties as usual 

For what it's worth, I cited Missionary Standards for Disciples of Jesus Christ. These standards are pretty much what they were when I was a missionary, other than the digital media stuff.

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

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Amulek said:

When speaking of his roommate, he stated that, "Several times he made moves on me."

When a Tacenda asked for clarification about "what kind of moves" he was talking about he responded with the following:

So, what what we have here is Bernard describing repeated instances of unwanted sexual advances, at least some of which involved physical contact.

Sounds an awful lot like sexual harassment to me, regardless of whether or not he actually called it that.

Just imagine your mother or a female coworker saying this about their boss: Several times he made moves on me. I would be sitting at my desk doing [my] work and he would come and look over my shoulder. He would continue to lean in until he touched my back. I would move away, but eventually my chest and head were pinned to the desktop.

Seriously. In what world would that be okay?

 

Yes and all of this is proving my point.

Homosexuals are seen as holier, better, more spiritual, more awesome than anyone else.  They can do no wrong and any question brought up is met with derision, shame, threats, etc. etc. etc.

Now, just play this scenario with openly homosexual missionaries and a young single 18 year old missionary who has been told he is bad for not "loving" the LGBTECQ or for treating them the "right way"; that the MP gives a "how to treat them well" talk.

Do you think that kid is EVER going to go to his MP and say . . "hey my openly homosexual companion is hitting on me, making me feel uncomfortable".

Not a chance in hell.

Link to comment
23 hours ago, california boy said:

Thank you for being so open about why the vast majority of LGBT members leave the Church.  Doesn't really sound like a safe place to worship God does it.

I don't really care if you feel it is safe or not.  Really I don't.

I care about whether we are aligning ourselves to God's will and his standards-your feelings about the matter are irrelevant.

Do I care that the guy who fantasies about having sex with the married woman doesn't feel "safe" because he can't tell everyone how much he fantasies about sex? No, no I do not.

Link to comment
23 hours ago, bluebell said:

No, the missionary has to follow mission standards in all things (words and actions), including not being abusive to his companion. 

Okay, so good we have established that words do matter, words do count.

So why is it appropriate for a missionary to openly tell everyone that he would like to have romantic/sexual encounters with the same-sex?  Why is that even remotely acceptable. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Several times he made the "moves" on you?  Even if you rejected the "moves?"  What were the "moves?  Color me skeptical.

Perhaps you could also be colored disingenuous?

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
3 hours ago, pogi said:

Did he call it “sexual harassment”?   Or is that your interpretation of events? 

That term was not in use at the time. 

I wasn’t angry, but it was very annoying. It made me uncomfortable enough to want to change roommates. I did not want to be in the shower room with him or his new roommate. I suppose that makes me homophobic.

At school I had to eat lunch in the faculty room after the rest of the teachers because of my schedule.  There were three ladies in the room at the same time…a school security officer, an office person, and another non-faculty person. They had really foul conversations. After a couple of times I just had lunch in my office. Would that be harassment?

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
22 minutes ago, YJacket said:

I don't really care if you feel it is safe or not.  Really I don't.

I care about whether we are aligning ourselves to God's will and his standards-your feelings about the matter are irrelevant.

Do I care that the guy who fantasies about having sex with the married woman doesn't feel "safe" because he can't tell everyone how much he fantasies about sex? No, no I do not.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/matt/22?lang=eng. See verse 39.

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, YJacket said:

Yes and all of this is proving my point.

Homosexuals are seen as holier, better, more spiritual, more awesome than anyone else.  They can do no wrong and any question brought up is met with derision, shame, threats, etc. etc. etc.

Now, just play this scenario with openly homosexual missionaries and a young single 18 year old missionary who has been told he is bad for not "loving" the LGBTECQ or for treating them the "right way"; that the MP gives a "how to treat them well" talk.

Do you think that kid is EVER going to go to his MP and say . . "hey my openly homosexual companion is hitting on me, making me feel uncomfortable".

Not a chance in hell.

The tortured reasoning just keeps coming. This obsession of yours just isn't healthy.

Link to comment

 

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Sounds an awful lot like sexual harassment to me, regardless of whether or not he actually called it that.

Just wanted to make sure I didn't miss something in what he said.  

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Seriously. In what world would that be okay?

It clearly made Bernard feel uncomfortable.  I am not discounting that.  But what one person accepts as tolerable flirting can be very different from what another person perceives as tolerable.  It is rather subjective and without verbal communication asking the person to stop and telling them that it makes you uncomfortable - I don't think it would count as "sexual harassment".

To answer your question directly - it is ok in a world where physical contact/non-verbal communication/flirting can be interpreted many different ways by different people and where there is no objective right answer to any of this.  There is no clear objective boundary on physical touch or flirting as to what is "okay" and what is "not okay".  Cleary private parts are out of bounds, beyond that it is pretty vague and subjective/cultural with different personal boundaries and comfort levels with each individual.  

It doesn't seem that Bernard ever told him to stop or that it made him feel uncomfortable.  All he said was that he got up and left.  That is a form of non-verbal communication that could be interpreted in different ways.  We can't expect people to read our minds.  For all we know since Bernard never said anything about it, he may have interpreted that to mean that Bernard didn't get the flirt message and that he needed to try again, or try harder next time.  That would not be sexual harassment until it was made verbally clear that Bernard was uncomfortable and he was asked to stop.  If he continued after that, then it would cross the lines into sexual harassment. 

I think women have learned these lessons much better than men.   

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
35 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

That term was not in use at the time. 

I wasn’t angry, but it was very annoying. It made me uncomfortable enough to want to change roommates. I did not want to be in the shower room with him or his new roommate. I suppose that makes me homophobic.

At school I had to eat lunch in the faculty room after the rest of the teachers because of my schedule.  There were three ladies in the room at the same time…a school security officer, an office person, and another non-faculty person. They had really foul conversations. After a couple of times I just had lunch in my office. Would that be harassment?

I don't think you are homophobic.  Not something I am implying.  I totally understand why that would make you uncomfortable.  But for all the reasons I list above, I don't think I would interpret that as "sexual harassment" (back then, or by todays standards). 

In this new scenario you mention, again, there is no verbal communication asking them to stop or letting them know it makes you uncomfortable.  I have no idea if they were talking to you or about you or trying to get your attention.  It sounds like they were having a conversation with each other that you personally found offensive.  If that is the case, it is not sexual harassment.  At least in the situations you mention, I don't think one could be guilty of sexual harassment without first making your boundaries verbally clear.   

Link to comment
1 hour ago, pogi said:

I don't think you are homophobic.  Not something I am implying.  I totally understand why that would make you uncomfortable.  But for all the reasons I list above, I don't think I would interpret that as "sexual harassment" (back then, or by todays standards). 

In this new scenario you mention, again, there is no verbal communication asking them to stop or letting them know it makes you uncomfortable.  I have no idea if they were talking to you or about you or trying to get your attention.  It sounds like they were having a conversation with each other that you personally found offensive.  If that is the case, it is not sexual harassment.  At least in the situations you mention, I don't think one could be guilty of sexual harassment without first making your boundaries verbally clear.   

Interesting take.

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
1 hour ago, pogi said:

 

Just wanted to make sure I didn't miss something in what he said.  

It clearly made Bernard feel uncomfortable.  I am not discounting that.  But what one person accepts as tolerable flirting can be very different from what another person perceives as tolerable.  It is rather subjective and without verbal communication asking the person to stop and telling them that it makes you uncomfortable - I don't think it would count as "sexual harassment".

To answer your question directly - it is ok in a world where physical contact/non-verbal communication/flirting can be interpreted many different ways by different people and where there is no objective right answer to any of this.  There is no clear objective boundary on physical touch or flirting as to what is "okay" and what is "not okay".  Cleary private parts are out of bounds, beyond that it is pretty vague and subjective/cultural with different personal boundaries and comfort levels with each individual.  

It doesn't seem that Bernard ever told him to stop or that it made him feel uncomfortable.  All he said was that he got up and left.  That is a form of non-verbal communication that could be interpreted in different ways.  We can't expect people to read our minds.  For all we know since Bernard never said anything about it, he may have interpreted that to mean that Bernard didn't get the flirt message and that he needed to try again, or try harder next time.  That would not be sexual harassment until it was made verbally clear that Bernard was uncomfortable and he was asked to stop.  If he continued after that, then it would cross the lines into sexual harassment. 

I think women have learned these lessons much better than men.   

Hmmm. Pressing your roommate down to his desk with your body multiple times is just a flirt message. Interesting. Never thought of it that way.

Link to comment

Duplicate

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...