LDS Freedom Forum

MMbelieve wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 7:12 am

justme wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 6:55 am

MMbelieve wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 6:49 am

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑June 30th, 2019, 7:17 pm There are already antagonists of the Church who spread rumors that some Elders are having gay sex, based on the fact that they are living with each other, and are at an age that hormones are raging. Now we will have Elders telling other people they are homosexuals.......what non-member is going to believe they are chaste? What an unholy mess.

I agree there will be a schism/split in the Church, and one side will have sealings for gay couples, maybe in a temple they have built, or taken over.

I don’t understand how a missionary identifying as gay can even live with a companion of the same sex and be considered temple worthy. Isint that the same as an unmarried man and woman cohabitating? If your sexual attraction is such that you are driven to your own sex then it shouldn’t be allowed. Basically, they are then getting a free pass. So maybe another thing to change would be the cohabitation guidelines lifted?

"cohabitation guideline"? What is that? Literally. Not having access to the General Handbook, maybe there is something in there. I would think though that it is not the cohabitation that is the problem but rather if there is sex involved. Shouldn't that also apply to missionaries?

Maybe im old school but I thought living unmarried with the opposite sex was a no no in the church. Aside from family of course. Otherwise, lets let college students cohabitate with a no sex clause, lol.
If theres no guideline then I would be surprised as it is frowned upon.

I guess I am just confused at the word and concept of "guideline". Is there a written lists of "guidelines" somewhere that a person must check off to be a member? Is it possible to not sin yet be in violation of a "guideline"? What would the penalty be for violating a "guideline" but not sinning.

Maybe I just have a strong libertarian streak and problems with authority but I am confused at the concept of a guideline.

Now since the original comment was about missionary work I do concede that there can be missionary rules that can be enforced. (though as a missionary I constantly was annoyed at the rules)

justme wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 7:34 am

MMbelieve wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 7:12 am

justme wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 6:55 am

MMbelieve wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 6:49 am

I don’t understand how a missionary identifying as gay can even live with a companion of the same sex and be considered temple worthy. Isint that the same as an unmarried man and woman cohabitating? If your sexual attraction is such that you are driven to your own sex then it shouldn’t be allowed. Basically, they are then getting a free pass. So maybe another thing to change would be the cohabitation guidelines lifted?

"cohabitation guideline"? What is that? Literally. Not having access to the General Handbook, maybe there is something in there. I would think though that it is not the cohabitation that is the problem but rather if there is sex involved. Shouldn't that also apply to missionaries?

Maybe im old school but I thought living unmarried with the opposite sex was a no no in the church. Aside from family of course. Otherwise, lets let college students cohabitate with a no sex clause, lol.
If theres no guideline then I would be surprised as it is frowned upon.

I guess I am just confused at the word and concept of "guideline". Is there a written lists of "guidelines" somewhere that a person must check off to be a member? Is it possible to not sin yet be in violation of a "guideline"? What would the penalty be for violating a "guideline" but not sinning.

Maybe I just have a strong libertarian streak and problems with authority but I am confused at the concept of a guideline.

Now since the original comment was about missionary work I do concede that there can be missionary rules that can be enforced. (though as a missionary I constantly was annoyed at the rules)

A guideline is something to try to live by of proper behavior. Just like there are guidelines for operating within a family, not following it doesnt mean your not family anymore.

guide·line
/ˈɡīdˌlīn/
noun
a general rule, principle, or piece of advice.
"the organization has issued guidelines for people working with prisoners"
synonyms: recommendation, instruction, direction, suggestion, advice; More

Sunain wrote: ↑June 30th, 2019, 7:05 pm Isn't that the whole problem with the gay agenda. Once you accept any part of it, they keep pushing for more acceptance. Here a little, there a little, and before long we get to where we are today. Satan is literally taking a page out of the Lord's playbook on this one.

I absolutely agree! Compromise only works in favor of Satan. It never, ever works in favor of the Savior.

MMbelieve wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 7:53 am

justme wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 7:34 am

MMbelieve wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 7:12 am

justme wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 6:55 am

"cohabitation guideline"? What is that? Literally. Not having access to the General Handbook, maybe there is something in there. I would think though that it is not the cohabitation that is the problem but rather if there is sex involved. Shouldn't that also apply to missionaries?

Maybe im old school but I thought living unmarried with the opposite sex was a no no in the church. Aside from family of course. Otherwise, lets let college students cohabitate with a no sex clause, lol.
If theres no guideline then I would be surprised as it is frowned upon.

I guess I am just confused at the word and concept of "guideline". Is there a written lists of "guidelines" somewhere that a person must check off to be a member? Is it possible to not sin yet be in violation of a "guideline"? What would the penalty be for violating a "guideline" but not sinning.

Maybe I just have a strong libertarian streak and problems with authority but I am confused at the concept of a guideline.

Now since the original comment was about missionary work I do concede that there can be missionary rules that can be enforced. (though as a missionary I constantly was annoyed at the rules)

A guideline is something to try to live by of proper behavior. Just like there are guidelines for operating within a family, not following it doesnt mean your not family anymore.

guide·line
/ˈɡīdˌlīn/
noun
a general rule, principle, or piece of advice.
"the organization has issued guidelines for people working with prisoners"
synonyms: recommendation, instruction, direction, suggestion, advice; More

Oh I understand that and agree and I am not trying to be difficult. My main thought is more who gets to determine these guidelines, how are they communicated and enforced.

Can someone confirm that missionaries can openly be gay and serve? If so, someone needs to start a petition and gather signatures of those against such hypocritical standards and fight back against this agenda.

I pray that this is only rumor.

Mahalanobis Distance wrote: ↑June 30th, 2019, 6:27 pm I think the next battle to be lost or won will be the push to let gays hold hands on campus at BYU. This is already happening, but the battle isn't over yet.

Why is this the next target? Because it's all too easy to get the media jump on the bandwagon. "It's just holding hands". " It's chaste". "They are not doing anything wrong".

It's so easy to cast the leaders as the bad guys. The PR folks at the church office building will be having a cow.

Once a few of them start holding hands and getting discipline over it, they only have to secretly record the meetings at the honor code office when they get called in - and turn it into a public display. I hope the BYU administration is getting prepared for that.

And then holding hands at Church activities, then in Church meetings, with the same reasoning.

So if I'm a pedophile, I can openly identify, and I can teach Primary and Young Men/ Young Women?

///
If I were a mission president, I would respect the wishes of those who would not want to be companions.

When I was on my mission, we specifically required people of the opposite sex co-habiting to be married or not co-habit before they could accept baptism. I couldn't tell you precisely where this is stated as a specific requirement however, outside of "The mission president said so".

https://mormonandgay.churchofjesuschris ... 0&lang=eng

In this 48 second video, Elder Christofferson states that a person who is dealing with same-sex attraction, but is living the law of chastity and the other teachings of the gospel, may participate fully in the Church. They may hold callings, go to the temple, and have ALL the opportunities given to any member of the Church. "All the opportunities and blessings will be available to them."

At the Affirmation conference, his gay brother Tom specified to Bishops and Stake Presidents that this includes full-time missions.

MMbelieve wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 6:49 am

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑June 30th, 2019, 7:17 pm There are already antagonists of the Church who spread rumors that some Elders are having gay sex, based on the fact that they are living with each other, and are at an age that hormones are raging. Now we will have Elders telling other people they are homosexuals.......what non-member is going to believe they are chaste? What an unholy mess.

I agree there will be a schism/split in the Church, and one side will have sealings for gay couples, maybe in a temple they have built, or taken over.

I don’t understand how a missionary identifying as gay can even live with a companion of the same sex and be considered temple worthy. Isint that the same as an unmarried man and woman cohabitating? If your sexual attraction is such that you are driven to your own sex then it shouldn’t be allowed. Basically, they are then getting a free pass. So maybe another thing to change would be the cohabitation guidelines lifted?

Neither did Boyd K. Packer. He related a story of a young missionary that punched his companion due to homosexual advances.

There are some men who entice young men to join them in these immoral acts. If you are ever approached to participate in anything like that, it is time to vigorously resist.
While I was in a mission on one occasion, a missionary said he had something to confess. I was very worried because he just could not get himself to tell me what he had done.
After patient encouragement he finally blurted out, "I hit my companion."
"Oh, is that all," I said in great relief.
"But I floored him," he said.
After learning a little more, my response was "Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it, and it wouldn't be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way"
I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it. You must protect yourself.

JohnnyL wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 9:15 am

Mahalanobis Distance wrote: ↑June 30th, 2019, 6:27 pm I think the next battle to be lost or won will be the push to let gays hold hands on campus at BYU. This is already happening, but the battle isn't over yet.

Why is this the next target? Because it's all too easy to get the media jump on the bandwagon. "It's just holding hands". " It's chaste". "They are not doing anything wrong".

It's so easy to cast the leaders as the bad guys. The PR folks at the church office building will be having a cow.

Once a few of them start holding hands and getting discipline over it, they only have to secretly record the meetings at the honor code office when they get called in - and turn it into a public display. I hope the BYU administration is getting prepared for that.

And then holding hands at Church activities, then in Church meetings, with the same reasoning.

There are already gay couples holding hands at Church activities and in Church meetings. You just need to pick the right ward and stake. A serious case of leadership roulette in this area.

This is actually what Richard Ostler teaches at his firesides. He tells ward and stake leaders that they can be as inclusive of gay couples as they choose, up to giving temple recommends, which they can't do if the LGBTQ person is acting on it (dating, kissing, married to same gender, etc). The Honor Code does not apply in the real world.

Maybe we could designate certain missions as same-sex in regards to missionaries and sisters who are lesbian, or young men who are gay, could be paired off as companions so as to avoid situations where non-gay missionaries might feel uncomfortable sharing apartments with a gay companion.

"Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you..." Moroni 10:32

I have a hard time believing there are homosexuals in the Church that are not acting on it.

5tev3 wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 10:31 am "Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you..." Moroni 10:32

It's pesky little scriptures like that which have caused the pro-LGBTQ members of the Church to decide that gay sex is sanctioned by God in a gay marriage. You see, God wouldn't send gay people to Earth, to be born in an LDS family, at a time when gay marriage is legal, if He didn't expect his gay children to get married and raise families. We are now so woke, after 1000's of years of incorrect Bible reading, translation, and teaching. Just ask any of the myriads of pro-gay groups in the Church. Yes, I'm feeling snarky about this. It's dystopian.

Have I mentioned the latest group? They have usurped the word Peculiar. Yep, it's called Peculiar, because LGBTQ are a Peculiar people, and very special in God's eyes.

Gage wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 10:41 am I have a hard time believing there are homosexuals in the Church that are not acting on it.

Hmm that is cynical. What about the homosexuals you see in the temple?

justme wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 11:12 am

Gage wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 10:41 am I have a hard time believing there are homosexuals in the Church that are not acting on it.

Hmm that is cynical. What about the homosexuals you see in the temple?

How would you know a person in the temple is a homosexual?

pho·to·syn·the·sis wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 9:59 am

MMbelieve wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 6:49 am

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑June 30th, 2019, 7:17 pm There are already antagonists of the Church who spread rumors that some Elders are having gay sex, based on the fact that they are living with each other, and are at an age that hormones are raging. Now we will have Elders telling other people they are homosexuals.......what non-member is going to believe they are chaste? What an unholy mess.

I agree there will be a schism/split in the Church, and one side will have sealings for gay couples, maybe in a temple they have built, or taken over.

I don’t understand how a missionary identifying as gay can even live with a companion of the same sex and be considered temple worthy. Isint that the same as an unmarried man and woman cohabitating? If your sexual attraction is such that you are driven to your own sex then it shouldn’t be allowed. Basically, they are then getting a free pass. So maybe another thing to change would be the cohabitation guidelines lifted?

Neither did Boyd K. Packer. He related a story of a young missionary that punched his companion due to homosexual advances.

There are some men who entice young men to join them in these immoral acts. If you are ever approached to participate in anything like that, it is time to vigorously resist.
While I was in a mission on one occasion, a missionary said he had something to confess. I was very worried because he just could not get himself to tell me what he had done.
After patient encouragement he finally blurted out, "I hit my companion."
"Oh, is that all," I said in great relief.
"But I floored him," he said.
After learning a little more, my response was "Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it, and it wouldn't be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way"
I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it. You must protect yourself.

When I was a missionary over 30 years ago and first heard that Packer statement it was obvious then that he was simply wrong. I am glad that the world and the church including the Apostles have caught up to the times and realize that you can not physically assault someone like that.

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 11:15 am

justme wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 11:12 am

Gage wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 10:41 am I have a hard time believing there are homosexuals in the Church that are not acting on it.

Hmm that is cynical. What about the homosexuals you see in the temple?

How would you know a person in the temple is a homosexual?

Because I know several that I have seen in the temple.

When I was a missionary over 30 years ago and first heard that Packer statement it was obvious then that he was simply wrong. I am glad that the world and the church including the Apostles have caught up to the times and realize that you can not physically assault someone like that.

Turn the tables a bit. Say a man was approaching a sister missionary in the same way and, unknown to him, she was a kick boxer prior to her call and nails him. Would you say that was appropriate?

justme wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 11:20 am

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 11:15 am

justme wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 11:12 am

Gage wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 10:41 am I have a hard time believing there are homosexuals in the Church that are not acting on it.

Hmm that is cynical. What about the homosexuals you see in the temple?

How would you know a person in the temple is a homosexual?

Because I know several that I have seen in the temple.

And so have you. If your question is more rhetorical then it becomes interesting. Can you tell a person by just looking? I don't know. Some think you can.

justme wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 11:16 am

pho·to·syn·the·sis wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 9:59 am

MMbelieve wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 6:49 am

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑June 30th, 2019, 7:17 pm There are already antagonists of the Church who spread rumors that some Elders are having gay sex, based on the fact that they are living with each other, and are at an age that hormones are raging. Now we will have Elders telling other people they are homosexuals.......what non-member is going to believe they are chaste? What an unholy mess.

I agree there will be a schism/split in the Church, and one side will have sealings for gay couples, maybe in a temple they have built, or taken over.

I don’t understand how a missionary identifying as gay can even live with a companion of the same sex and be considered temple worthy. Isint that the same as an unmarried man and woman cohabitating? If your sexual attraction is such that you are driven to your own sex then it shouldn’t be allowed. Basically, they are then getting a free pass. So maybe another thing to change would be the cohabitation guidelines lifted?

Neither did Boyd K. Packer. He related a story of a young missionary that punched his companion due to homosexual advances.

There are some men who entice young men to join them in these immoral acts. If you are ever approached to participate in anything like that, it is time to vigorously resist.
While I was in a mission on one occasion, a missionary said he had something to confess. I was very worried because he just could not get himself to tell me what he had done.
After patient encouragement he finally blurted out, "I hit my companion."
"Oh, is that all," I said in great relief.
"But I floored him," he said.
After learning a little more, my response was "Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it, and it wouldn't be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way"
I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it. You must protect yourself.

When I was a missionary over 30 years ago and first heard that Packer statement it was obvious then that he was simply wrong. I am glad that the world and the church including the Apostles have caught up to the times and realize that you can not physically assault someone like that.

Yes, you can. If a person (male or female) attempts to sexually seduce or assault you against your will, you can defend yourself. You should defend yourself. If the Apostle's have "caught up to the times" that's not a good thing.

Fiannan wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 11:21 am

When I was a missionary over 30 years ago and first heard that Packer statement it was obvious then that he was simply wrong. I am glad that the world and the church including the Apostles have caught up to the times and realize that you can not physically assault someone like that.

Turn the tables a bit. Say a man was approaching a sister missionary in the same way and, unknown to him, she was a kick boxer prior to her call and nails him. Would you say that was appropriate?

Are we talking using appropriate physical force to fight off an attack? Then yes. If he had made a pass then I think there a better ways to handle it. That was not the way we understood the Packer story back in the day.

justme wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 11:26 am

Fiannan wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 11:21 am

When I was a missionary over 30 years ago and first heard that Packer statement it was obvious then that he was simply wrong. I am glad that the world and the church including the Apostles have caught up to the times and realize that you can not physically assault someone like that.

Turn the tables a bit. Say a man was approaching a sister missionary in the same way and, unknown to him, she was a kick boxer prior to her call and nails him. Would you say that was appropriate?

Are we talking using appropriate physical force to fight off an attack? Then yes. If he had made a pass then I think there a better ways to handle it. That was not the way we understood the Packer story back in the day.

I’m a peaceful person and generally agree that physical assault has no place in civil society. But let’s be for real..if a missionary makes a sexual advance or “pass” at another missionary he/she deserves what they get...including the salty sting from a backhand across the kisser.

If two gay missionaries end up as companions, that would seem to be adding temptation. They wouldn't put a young sister and elder together as companions for many reasons, one of them being the temptation it would present.