Missionaries and Chastity

[jkwilliams]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

Which apparently don't apply to you.

How ironic!

I don’t recall ever refusing a CFR, but it’s possible. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, YJacket said:

"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.

 

A gay man serving with a straight man does not pose the same risk as a straight young man and straight young woman serving together poses (my companion was openly gay on my mission).  The only way anything could happen is through coercion or rape.  It would be no different from a gay person living in the male dorms at BYU.  Should they be shunned from that too?  Perhaps we should shun them from going on camp outs with young men while we are at it?  This gets to be pretty ridiculous.   Shunning a worthy and eligible young man from serving is a really horrible idea, and it is not parallel to the scenario you list above. 

Edited August 15, 2022 by pogi

[california boy]

1 hour ago, YJacket said:

"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.

 

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.

[bluebell]

33 minutes ago, YJacket said:

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?

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

[manol]

In a now-closed thread @Calm asked an imo legitimate question, which was never directly responded to:

"Do men typically worry about other men being stronger than them and therefore being able to rape them if sexual pressure doesn’t work?  Sincere question."

Not that my experiences are representative of anyone else's...

I'm small in stature and wimpy for my size and have a disability, so I have probably spent most of my life in the bottom 10-15% of males in regards to fighting prowess (even lower these days because of age, but nobody straight or gay is gonna make a pass at me now).  It has never occurred to me to be afraid of a gay man sexually assaulting me, and I've been around gay men who look like they lived at the gym.  I have had negative experiences with individual men who were gay, including unwanted physical contact, but for whatever reason I don't extrapolate those experiences to being about "gay men" in general. 

One such incident of unwanted physical contact escalated to a brief fight, which I would have certainly lost and lost badly if he had wanted to beat me up, but he did not. 

Perhaps because I was bullied a fair amount by straight kids in school, straight men are more likely to make me uncomfortable than gay men are.  My experience has been that gay males are generally more (and often much more) respectful of individuals and of boundaries than straight males are. 

I would have no objection to serving with a gay missionary.  I think I did for a while, but we did not stay in contact.

Edited August 15, 2022 by manol

[ttribe]

36 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Which apparently don't apply to you.

How ironic!

Seriously, you just can't help yourself. Have a little self-discipline, would you?

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, YJacket said:

"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.

 

This is some seriously tortured reasoning.

I hate to break it to you, but homosexual men have been serving missions for decades. In many of those cases, their leadership even knew (gasp!).

This rant you're on is almost pathological.

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, 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?

yes, I had a gay companion. He told the MP and was allowed to serve. This was 98-2000. Guess what? There was a gay MP, who served even earlier. 

https://latterdaysaintmag.com/the-journey-home-for-a-mission-president-who-was-excommunicated/

Besides you can't get sent home for what you are you get sent home for what you did do. There have been missionaries galore who are gay who finished their missions, if they were out or not is who knows. There was that trans woman who served a mission, was a Stake President in Utah and even helped design temples and worked for the temple dept. God knew what they were before all that and called them anyways.

[Tacenda]

42 minutes ago, manol said:

In a now-closed thread @Calm asked an imo legitimate question, which was never directly responded to:

"Do men typically worry about other men being stronger than them and therefore being able to rape them if sexual pressure doesn’t work?  Sincere question."

Not that my experiences are representative of anyone else's...

I'm small in stature and wimpy for my size and have a disability, so I have probably spent most of my life in the bottom 10-15% of males in regards to fighting prowess (even lower these days because of age, but nobody straight or gay is gonna make a pass at me now).  It has never occurred to me to be afraid of a gay man sexually assaulting me, and I've been around gay men who look like they lived at the gym.  I have had negative experiences with individual men who were gay, including unwanted physical contact, but for whatever reason I don't extrapolate those experiences to being about "gay men" in general. 

One such incident of unwanted physical contact escalated to a brief fight, which I would have certainly lost and lost badly if he had wanted to beat me up, but he did not. 

Perhaps because I was bullied a fair amount by straight kids in school, straight men are more likely to make me uncomfortable than gay men are.  My experience has been that gay males are generally more (and often much more) respectful of individuals and of boundaries than straight males are. 

I would have no objection to serving with a gay missionary.  I think I did for a while, but we did not stay in contact.

100% agree! My straight son was beat up by a straight guy when my son told him to give him the missionary cell phone, his companion was talking to his girlfriend I believe under a blanket. I agree, it's usually the straight males that are aggressive towards gay men. I could share plenty links, and also remember the talk given by Pres Packer and how he said if a homosexual hit on a missionary companion. It wasn't nice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Young_Men_Only

"One controversial part of the sermon states that some men entice others to join them in sexual behaviors and gives an example of a missionary who punched ("floored") his gay companion, to which Packer responded, "Somebody had to do it". Packer then continued “I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it. You must protect yourself.”^[8] In the original broadcast, the audience is heard laughing after the statement "somebody had to do it".^[10]

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

"One controversial part of the sermon states that some men entice others to join them in sexual behaviors and gives an example of a missionary who punched ("floored") his gay companion, to which Packer responded, "Somebody had to do it". Packer then continued “I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it. You must protect yourself.”

As I have reported on this forum before:

Quote

When I was studying in America, I went to the on-campus pool/gym early one morning to swim laps and then get ready for the day. I was alone in the showers when another student stood near me and began masturbating. I quickly finished my shower and headed to the bathroom to shave. Within minutes, the same man was standing about two metres behind me, still masturbating. I moved to a different bathroom. He followed ...

It was early enough that no one else was in the area, and this student was considerably larger than I am. (I'm a bit heavier now, but I would have weighed about 54kg then.) I was terrified of what might happen next ... and so full of adrenaline that I was ready to either flee or fight back if necessary.

Mercifully, some more men entered the change room at this time, and my 'admirer' made himself scarce.

I refuse to accept the double standard that I'm not allowed to use physical force to protect myself from unwanted and persistent sexual advances if necessary, without being unfairly accused -- as Pres Packer has repeatedly been -- of 'homophobia' or encouraging violence against 'gay' men.

Edited August 16, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

As I have reported on this forum before:

I refuse to accept the double standard that I'm not allowed to use physical force to protect myself from unwanted and persistent sexual advances if necessary.

I'm sorry if I hit a nerve Hamba. Are you sure he was gay? 

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

"One controversial part of the sermon states that some men entice others to join them in sexual behaviors and gives an example of a missionary who punched ("floored") his gay companion, to which Packer responded, "Somebody had to do it". Packer then continued “I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it. You must protect yourself.”^[8] In the original broadcast, the audience is heard laughing after the statement "somebody had to do it".^[10]

Maybe it is my bias coming out, but when I heard and hear this story, I'm thinking instead of about how anyone (male or female) that is receiving unwanted sexual advances from someone (male or female) and the advancer isn't accepting no, then I think the receiver can use physical force (slap, shove, punch, etc) to make the advancer stop.

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Are you sure he was gay? 

I don't think that's a question that you want to ask me, of all people!

Edited August 16, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, webbles said:

Maybe it is my bias coming out, but when I heard and hear this story, I'm thinking instead of about how anyone (male or female) that is receiving unwanted sexual advances from someone (male or female) and the advancer isn't accepting no, then I think the receiver can use physical force (slap, shove, punch, etc) to make the advancer stop.

In my mind's eye, I didn't think the missionary companion was doing something like forcing himself on the other, I pictured something much different. But in your scenario and @Hamba Tuhan, yes for sure, fight for your preservation! 

[Tacenda]

Just now, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't think that's a question that you want to ask me!

I'm sorry I'm not expressing myself well, I just wondered if it could be a straight guy that is gross and was trying to intimidate you. What an actual jerk move and like I mentioned to webbles I'm all for you doing what's needed to keep someone from harming you.

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I just wondered if it could be a straight guy that is gross and was trying to intimidate you.

In the 14 years that I've been on this forum, have you ever seen me treat 'gay' and 'straight' as anything other than the novel late 19th-century social constructs that they are???

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

In the 14 years that I've been on this forum, have you ever seen me treat 'gay' and 'straight' as anything other than the novel late 19th-century social constructs that they are???

Man oh man, you're so right. Failed again and I beg your forgiveness. Wait, second thought @Hamba Tuhan. Please explain this better. You are saying that guy could be either? And it didn't matter? If so, why the reply about the missionary companions, one gay, one straight? Or am I still not understanding you?

Edited August 16, 2022 by Tacenda

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Man oh man, you're so right. Failed again and I beg your forgiveness. Wait, second thought @Hamba Tuhan. Please explain this better. You are saying that guy could be either? And it didn't matter? If so, why the reply about the missionary companions, one gay, one straight? Or am I still not understanding you?

I believe he means it is about the behaviour for him (and me too for that matter though I get sloppy and use common terminology too much as it imports assumptions into my comments that aren’t actually there).  One judges by the type of observed behaviour.  The claimed sexual identity is internal and cannot be objectively observed/described, but external behaviour such as this man was doing can be. So there is no need to label it gay or straight. It is what it is, in this case someone acting out sexually in front of someone else in an inappropriate manner.  It is better to use labels like male/male sexual behaviour, female/female, etc.

 

Edited August 16, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

If so, why the reply about the missionary companions, one gay, one straight

That was pogi

[manol]

12 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

As I have reported on this forum before:

I hadn't thought about this in decades, but something like that (though imo not as egregious) happened to me in the MTC.  It came across to me as bullying by a dominant heterosexual male.  I'm pretty sure I gave off "wimp" vibes, and my guess is that he was just following his normal script.  I was so shocked that I didn't even react at the time. 

Edited August 16, 2022 by manol

[Hamba Tuhan]

59 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Please explain this better. You are saying that guy could be either? And it didn't matter?

Either? How about neither?

'Sexual identities' exist exclusively in a person's head, and modern constructions like 'gay' and 'straight' are demonstrably not universal across either time (i.e., the past) or space (i.e., different societies/cultures). I have no access to another person's thoughts, and even if I did, why would those thoughts even matter? They are, to use the term literally, imaginary. What's more, the secular West's imagined gay/straight binary is currently breaking down anyway as demonstrated by the proliferation of novel labelled sexual identities.

Back to Elder Packer: it is disgusting to use his cautious sanction of physical force, if and when necessary, in the face of persistent, unwanted sexual advances as a tool to paint either him or the Church as 'homophobic'.

Edited August 16, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[Peacefully]

5 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 hope this person doesn’t speak for the majority. 

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

'Sexual identities' exist exclusively in a person's head, and modern constructions like 'gay' and 'straight' are demonstrably not universal across either time (i.e., the past) or space (i.e., different societies/cultures). I have no access to another person's thoughts, and even if I did, why would those thoughts even matter? They are, to use the term literally, imaginary. What's more, the secular West's imagined gay/straight binary is currently breaking down anyway as demonstrated by the proliferation of novel labelled sexual identities.

Wait, you think the secular West has an imagined gay/straight binary?

LOL!!!!!

Hi, I’m bi. We (and our subgroups) make up over half the LGBT+ population. Who are these binary obsessed secularists? The new novel labelled sexual identities are almost all subsets of bisexuality with a few falling under heterosexual and homosexual behavior. The exception is the asexual community which sometimes intersect and sometimes not but there aren’t that many of them.

If bisexuals are the majority why do you think the gay/straight binary is something the secular west is clinging to. It has already fallen. There are plenty of people (the majority even) who fall under heterosexual and homosexual labels but the binary model failing is not some impending victory for you. It already happened and whatever news is telling you it dominates is already at least a decade behind.

 

You may not want to run with that imaginary thing too far.

Religion exists exclusively in a person’s head, and modern conceptions like ‘saved’ and ‘damned’ are demonstrably not universal across time or space and are literally imaginary. And why do those thoughts even matter?

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, YJacket said:

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.

Except that homosexual missionaries have been going on missions since the opening of this dispensation. How many rapes are there? They should already be happening? I guarantee homosexual elders have served together but I haven’t heard reports of lots of pairs of missionaries being sent home for this.

Your problem is that you somehow think gay elders being “open” will somehow increase the incidence rate but you don’t have anything to back that except absurd statements about the Church tolerating sexual advances by one elder towards another for made-up reasons.

There, you have been rebutted as well as a blatantly emotional appeal can be rebutted.

It is worth noting that the reason for banning gays in the military are the same ones you are bandying about for missionaries and the US military did not become overrun with incidents of sexual assault. Well, it has actually but not for men assaulting men. Cling to your emotional appeals to how evil it is if you must but stop acting like it is a logic chain.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Peacefully said:

I hope this person doesn’t speak for the majority. 

Of the LGBT community: The L and the G are generally leaving though some are still around eking out a place. Any T that acts on their dysphoria is probably going to be kicked out if they do not leave on their own. Many of the B group can (and do) pass as heterosexual but as more of them are discovering they aren’t oddities or just confused they sometimes leave in solidarity. The homoromantic and those with a strong preference for their own gender often leave.