Missionaries and Chastity

[Ragerunner]

I had a gay companion on my mission and that was back in 1990. Mission President was fully aware and he was allowed to serve his mission. As one of his companions I also knew he was gay. 
I served with him just like I did with all my other companions and we taught the gospel with the spirit present.

I also had a couple of straight companions that I could not say the same for, as they had law of chastity issues and had not learned to control their physical bodies and actions.

Move on folks.

[jkwilliams]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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?

I am trying to understand how acknowledging that different kinds of sexual orientations are social constructs somehow negates what those constructs are meant to describe? Like you, I don't fit into a binary definition of gay/straight, and understanding that is not some imagined victory over the forces of white colonial hegemony. 

[Teancum]

17 hours 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.

 

Dude.  You do seem to have issues with this and seem pretty angry. No not everything you write is inevitable. I work with females. I have my entire career. A sexual encounter in not inevitable. Now I understand that the being with each other 24/7 creates a unique situation.  I have a solution.  Don't make companions live together. Problem solved!

[Bernard Gui]

16 hours ago, pogi said:

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). 

My first roommate at BYU was gay. Several times he made moves on me. I asked for an exchange of roommates so he would be with another gay student and I could have a straight one.

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

My first roommate at BYU was gay. Several times he made moves on me. I asked for an exchange of roommates so he would be with another gay student and I could have a straight one.

Do you mind sharing what kind of moves, were they subtle or outright physical?

[Bernard Gui]

12 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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'.

It wasn’t until the Restoration that the eternal nature of gender and primacy of marriage between a man and a woman were revealed.

[Bernard Gui]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Do you mind sharing what kind of moves, were they subtle or outright physical?

I would be sitting at my desk doing homework 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 on the desktop. I would then stand up and walk away. This happened several times. I did not get violent and I did not report him. I just wanted to be left alone.

Edited August 16, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I would be sitting at my desk doing homework 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 on the desktop. I would then stand up and walk away. This happened several times. I did not get violent and I did not report him. I just wanted to be left alone.

Thanks for clarifying, scary. I do think it's a character problem, and bad characters in both straight and gay out there. 

[pogi]

41 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I asked for an exchange of roommates so he would be with another gay student...

I would be shocked if they were supportive of that.  I am pretty sure that they would do everything they could to keep gay men from living with other gay men at BYU.  Unless we shun gay people completely from missions and dorms, etc. they are going to co-mingle with straight men.  That shouldn't be a problem where there is no sexual harassment or other violations.  Where that does happen, there are better ways to deal with that than shunning all homosexuals (I am not saying that is what you are suggesting).  

 

 

Edited August 16, 2022 by pogi

[Bernard Gui]

23 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks for clarifying, scary. I do think it's a character problem, and bad characters in both straight and gay out there. 

Yep.

 

[Bernard Gui]

38 minutes ago, pogi said:

I would be shocked if they were supportive of that.  I am pretty sure that they would do everything they could to keep gay men from living with other gay men at BYU.  Unless we shun gay people completely from missions and dorms, etc. they are going to co-mingle with straight men.  That shouldn't be a problem where there is no sexual harassment or other violations.  Where that does happen, there are better ways to deal with that than shunning all homosexuals (I am not saying that is what you are suggesting).  

No, that is not what I am suggesting.  Just pointing out an issue that can happen and did to me. As far as I know, the only ones who knew about this were the two gay fellows, the other roommate, and myself, but there were behaviors that other men on the floor had noticed. The other roommate and I did not give this as our reason for wanting the switch.

Edited August 16, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Danzo]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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?

I think your comments illustrate Hamba's point quite well.  Categories and sub categories and endless attempts to classify and label people according to the various perceived attractions and behavior.   Everyone has to be classified.

Wait!  You don't fit into a category?  time to make up another.  We can't have anyone that isn't part of a group.  Wait! you don't want to be in a group? We have a group for you people as well.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

I think your comments illustrate Hamba's point quite well.  Categories and sub categories and endless attempts to classify and label people according to the various perceived attractions and behavior.   Everyone has to be classified.

Wait!  You don't fit into a category?  time to make up another.  We can't have anyone that isn't part of a group.  Wait! you don't want to be in a group? We have a group for you people as well.

Again, how is your disagreement with labels at all relevant to the attraction and experience of individuals? Just because you don't think someone can be labeled "homosexual" does not mean they don't have same-sex feelings. I'm at a loss as to why you guys think this is a winning argument.

[Danzo]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Again, how is your disagreement with labels at all relevant to the attraction and experience of individuals? Just because you don't think someone can be labeled "homosexual" does not mean they don't have same-sex feelings. I'm at a loss as to why you guys think this is a winning argument.

Not a winning argument, a descriptive argument.  It doesn't really matter if I win an argument or lose an argument. It s about perspective.  All complex human behavior is learned. We are not instinctual creatures.  My (and I suspect Hamba's although he can clarify for himself) point is that we don't need to limit ourselves with the labels that we make up for ourselves and others. Gods plan plan for us takes into account all of the variety of feelings we experience (Same sex, opposite sex, no sexual feelings, etc).

Also, labels can be dangerous since they can be used to hold us back.   The gospel frees us from these labels. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Danzo said:

Not a winning argument, a descriptive argument.  It doesn't really matter if I win an argument or lose an argument. It s about perspective.  All complex human behavior is learned. We are not instinctual creatures.  My (and I suspect Hamba's although he can clarify for himself) point is that we don't need to limit ourselves with the labels that we make up for ourselves and others. Gods plan plan for us takes into account all of the variety of feelings we experience (Same sex, opposite sex, no sexual feelings, etc).

Also, labels can be dangerous since they can be used to hold us back.   The gospel frees us from these labels. 

I don't think it does, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about whether there are two eternal genders and whether there are homosexuals in the church. Sure, labels can be constraining, but they can also be useful. 

[The Nehor]

33 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I think your comments illustrate Hamba's point quite well.  Categories and sub categories and endless attempts to classify and label people according to the various perceived attractions and behavior.   Everyone has to be classified.

Wait!  You don't fit into a category?  time to make up another.  We can't have anyone that isn't part of a group.  Wait! you don't want to be in a group? We have a group for you people as well.

They illustrate what he is trying to say about the gender binary collapsing but my point was that the gender binary had already collapsed. Please reread the post of mine you quoted. I think you may have misunderstood on what point I disagreed.

[MustardSeed]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Hi, I’m bi.

Hearing a bit of this from you lately, not sure if I missed it earlier. Not sure why it matters to me but thanks. 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I am trying to understand how acknowledging that different kinds of sexual orientations are social constructs somehow negates what those constructs are meant to describe? Like you, I don't fit into a binary definition of gay/straight, and understanding that is not some imagined victory over the forces of white colonial hegemony. 

I am just confused how the secular “West” is somehow bound to the gender binary which is supposedly collapsing. When the religious world is more tied to it

It comes across as someone cackling about how the branch they are sitting on will soon be cut off when it fell off a while ago.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

My first roommate at BYU was gay. Several times he made moves on me. I asked for an exchange of roommates so he would be with another gay student and I could have a straight one.

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

[MustardSeed]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

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

He already did ^^

[Amulek]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

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

You are now the second person who has questioned @Bernard Gui's experience of sexual harassment. What's up with that? Are you trying to make him feel like a woman or something?

 

[pogi]

55 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Not a winning argument, a descriptive argument.  It doesn't really matter if I win an argument or lose an argument. It s about perspective.  All complex human behavior is learned. We are not instinctual creatures.  My (and I suspect Hamba's although he can clarify for himself) point is that we don't need to limit ourselves with the labels that we make up for ourselves and others. Gods plan plan for us takes into account all of the variety of feelings we experience (Same sex, opposite sex, no sexual feelings, etc).

Also, labels can be dangerous since they can be used to hold us back.   The gospel frees us from these labels. 

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. 

Edited August 16, 2022 by pogi

[Chum]

4 minutes ago, Amulek said:

You are now the second person who has questioned @Bernard Gui's experience of sexual harassment. What's up with that? Are you trying to make him feel like a woman or something?

I tend to trust people on this board when they share their personal lives - Bernard a bit more than most. It's weird to me that someone would assert he's not forthright.

[pogi]

28 minutes ago, Amulek said:

You are now the second person who has questioned @Bernard Gui's experience of sexual harassment. What's up with that? Are you trying to make him feel like a woman or something?

 

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

[jkwilliams]

36 minutes ago, Chum said:

I tend to trust people on this board when they share their personal lives - Bernard a bit more than most. It's weird to me that someone would assert he's not forthright.

Yes, it's best to give people the benefit of the doubt until they give you reason not to.