DEI coming to Relief Society??

[Dusty Wanderer]

So Joseph restored everything in one single day? did he not continually restore over the years? and Brigham young and every prophet after that? whether it be canonized or not (Family proclamation).

This is certainly the narrative. However, true restoration occurs with revelation from heaven. If that is what BY and every prophet after him have been doing with their changes to things that supposedly had already been "restored", then they left out that very important detail.

Do you know what doctrine that has been taken out of the bible that has not yet been touched by JS? Does that still not need to be brought out into the light?

116 pages?

I look forward to the restoration of missing scripture or new scripture, too. But don't think for a minute that this will occur through institutional committees and general boards.

[FrankOne]

Nelson is a puppet. The real question is, who is pulling his strings?

I'm not even sure he is. He is more like what Lenin called a "useful idiot",

hm, this provokes a new thought. Biden = Nelson.

[Dusty Wanderer]

Is there a tax benefit for two women living together and living the law of chastity that would cause them to marry each other?

I can't see any reason for it other than to make a statement, which exposes the pride behind their desires. If mere companionship is what they were after, they could have kept it to two "friends" or "roommates" living together, which has worked well-enough for ages. Nah, this is an ideological broadcast.

[spiritMan]

It helps to understand that a lesbian relationship is still two women and therefore isn't based on sex nearly as much as on the emotional relationship between them. But granted, it's still abnormal as blazes.

While it isn't as though the church actually condones same sex relations even in marraige, the problem as I see it is the church has destigmatized homosexuality, and when you add on top of that how the church will not get involved with causes or cures, one can easily get the impression that homosexuality has been religiously stamped as just the way someone "is". when this is absolutely not the case.

And oh heck yeah, plural marraige is certainly NOT destigmatized. The guy in the example you cite would never ever even be welcomed in church much less be EQP.

A lesbian relationship isn't sexual?

Seriously dude, you have some insane outdated notion that women are NOT sexual.

[Serragon]

With all the love for you.

Are you stupid or something?

Should we now have a man who lives in the same house with 3 other woman who he is married to but claims he only had sex with one of them be EQP?

What now happens when 16 year old Sally brings home a girl friend and says dad we are going to get married but don't worry we won't have sex, we are just following the RSPs example.

Seriously dude take a step back if you think this is cool you are a fool and are prime example of why the LDS Church is doomed.

It helps to understand that a lesbian relationship is still two women and therefore isn't based on sex nearly as much as on the emotional relationship between them. But granted, it's still abnormal as blazes.

While it isn't as though the church actually condones same sex relations even in marraige, the problem as I see it is the church has destigmatized homosexuality, and when you add on top of that how the church will not get involved with causes or cures, one can easily get the impression that homosexuality has been religiously stamped as just the way someone "is". when this is absolutely not the case.

And oh heck yeah, plural marraige is certainly NOT destigmatized. The guy in the example you cite would never ever even be welcomed in church much less be EQP.

Again are you dumb or something? .

This is uncalled for.

Make your points and arguments without the personal attacks.

[Comanchero]

Please state some of these statements that couldn't be clearer since RMN has been president. I personally don't remember any clear statements, but I would be very happy to be wrong. It would be great to use those very clear statements as a basis for changing the hearts and minds of our young people and the women of the church away from these worldly doctrines.

I do remember homosexuality being removed from the handbook as apsotasy. I do remember inviting homosexual choirs to sing on temple grounds. I do remember missionaries being allowed to be openly homosexual on their missions. I do remember being told by the Q15 that we could no longer exclude people based upon their lifestyle choices. I do remember people being allowed to actively advocate for temple sealings of homosexuals not being grounds for wittholding recommends.

But I don't remember any statements from RMN that "couldn't be clearer". In fact, clarity appears to be what is being actively avoided by our leadership so that everyone can feel secure in that their ideology is what is meant by "Think Celestial".

"In recent years, many countries, including the United States, have legalized same-sex marriage. As members of the Church, we respect the laws of the land and abide by them, including civil marriage. The truth is, however, that in the beginning—in the beginning—marriage was ordained by God! And to this day it is defined by Him as being between a man and a woman. God has not changed His definition of marriage.
God has also not changed His law of chastity." -President Nelson

Thanks! That is pretty clear.

Except for the "to this day" and "God has not changed". Both of those statements mean essentially "as of now". Once again, giving hope to both sides of the issue. To you, he is firm and clear as day, but to those advocating for acceptance of SSM it could be on the horizon.

And since 2019 when he gave this talk, the Law of Chastity has been redefined in the church handbook to allow Same sex relations that are permissable to Man/Woman non married couples. And the wording of the Law of Chastity has been changed in the temple.

So while I agree that the statement was pretty clear, it was also designed to give hope to those who want it to change in the future. A more clear statement would have included the admonition that it will never change.

In the most recent GC, President Nelson said-

The Lord has clearly taught that only men and women who are sealed as husband and wife in the temple, and who keep their covenants, will be together throughout the eternities. He said, “All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise … have an end when men are dead.”

Physical intimacy is only for a man and a woman who are married to each other.
Much of the world does not believe this, but public opinion is not the arbiter of truth. The Lord has declared that no unchaste person will attain the celestial kingdom. -President Nelson

How can that not be clear to anyone??

[jack]

Why are they supplicating the Lord on a settled matter of morality? The LGBTQ movement completely annihilates the LDS understanding of Eternal Marriage. Is it a concern for their own children who have drifted into the gay lifestyle?

Clearly they are supplicating in the hopes of getting a blacks and the priesthood type revelation. Once received (which simply means all "feel good" about the idea), it will be presented as a time of joy and rejoicing, that the poor, oppressed homosexuals can now finally be accepted to the station to which God created them. We will be taught that we don't know why they were excluded, but that we shouldn't think much about that and simply rejoice. Any past statements condemning homosexuality will be considered bigoted ignorance.

As far as settle morality goes, there is no such thing when you have an organization set up in such a way that whatever the CEO says becomes the new truth because he is more important than any who existed previously. For the most part, our leaders are not scriptorians or wielders of priesthood power. They are simply generally good and nice men who have been successful in the world. They will not check what is happening on any sort of spiritual grounds.

There are many who say that the church will never cross certain lines because it wouldn't make any sense doctrinally. Anyone who actually believes this is either naive or ignorant. There is no doctrine that cannot be changed and explained away when the center of belief is the office of "prophet" rather than true christian principles.

Seems like it should be rather easy for someone in President Nelson's position to get an answer, no?

Now the great and grand secret of the whole matter, and the summum bonum of the whole subject that is lying before us, consists in obtaining the powers of the Holy Priesthood. For him to whom these keys are given there is no difficulty in obtaining a knowledge of facts in relation to the salvation of the children of men, both as well for the dead as for the living. - D&C 128:11

[Christianlee]

"In recent years, many countries, including the United States, have legalized same-sex marriage. As members of the Church, we respect the laws of the land and abide by them, including civil marriage. The truth is, however, that in the beginning—in the beginning—marriage was ordained by God! And to this day it is defined by Him as being between a man and a woman. God has not changed His definition of marriage.
God has also not changed His law of chastity." -President Nelson

Thanks! That is pretty clear.

Except for the "to this day" and "God has not changed". Both of those statements mean essentially "as of now". Once again, giving hope to both sides of the issue. To you, he is firm and clear as day, but to those advocating for acceptance of SSM it could be on the horizon.

And since 2019 when he gave this talk, the Law of Chastity has been redefined in the church handbook to allow Same sex relations that are permissable to Man/Woman non married couples. And the wording of the Law of Chastity has been changed in the temple.

So while I agree that the statement was pretty clear, it was also designed to give hope to those who want it to change in the future. A more clear statement would have included the admonition that it will never change.

In the most recent GC, President Nelson said-

The Lord has clearly taught that only men and women who are sealed as husband and wife in the temple, and who keep their covenants, will be together throughout the eternities. He said, “All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise … have an end when men are dead.”

Physical intimacy is only for a man and a woman who are married to each other.
Much of the world does not believe this, but public opinion is not the arbiter of truth. The Lord has declared that no unchaste person will attain the celestial kingdom. -President Nelson

How can that not be clear to anyone??

Good. Now let’s eliminate lesbian Relief Society Presidents. And stop people from advocating the legalization of same sex marriage. It would be better to shut up than to endorse it. And don’t appoint an LGBQT advocate as Young Women’s President.

[Dusty Wanderer]

"In recent years, many countries, including the United States, have legalized same-sex marriage. As members of the Church, we respect the laws of the land and abide by them, including civil marriage. The truth is, however, that in the beginning—in the beginning—marriage was ordained by God! And to this day it is defined by Him as being between a man and a woman. God has not changed His definition of marriage.
God has also not changed His law of chastity." -President Nelson

Thanks! That is pretty clear.

Except for the "to this day" and "God has not changed". Both of those statements mean essentially "as of now". Once again, giving hope to both sides of the issue. To you, he is firm and clear as day, but to those advocating for acceptance of SSM it could be on the horizon.

And since 2019 when he gave this talk, the Law of Chastity has been redefined in the church handbook to allow Same sex relations that are permissable to Man/Woman non married couples. And the wording of the Law of Chastity has been changed in the temple.

So while I agree that the statement was pretty clear, it was also designed to give hope to those who want it to change in the future. A more clear statement would have included the admonition that it will never change.

In the most recent GC, President Nelson said-

The Lord has clearly taught that only men and women who are sealed as husband and wife in the temple, and who keep their covenants, will be together throughout the eternities. He said, “All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise … have an end when men are dead.”

Physical intimacy is only for a man and a woman who are married to each other.
Much of the world does not believe this, but public opinion is not the arbiter of truth. The Lord has declared that no unchaste person will attain the celestial kingdom. -President Nelson

How can that not be clear to anyone??

It just occurred to me that the early saints were probably wondering the same thing. Joseph and Hyrum denouncing plural marriage and spiritual wifery, but looking around, saw something different in practice.

[Serragon]

"In recent years, many countries, including the United States, have legalized same-sex marriage. As members of the Church, we respect the laws of the land and abide by them, including civil marriage. The truth is, however, that in the beginning—in the beginning—marriage was ordained by God! And to this day it is defined by Him as being between a man and a woman. God has not changed His definition of marriage.
God has also not changed His law of chastity." -President Nelson

Thanks! That is pretty clear.

Except for the "to this day" and "God has not changed". Both of those statements mean essentially "as of now". Once again, giving hope to both sides of the issue. To you, he is firm and clear as day, but to those advocating for acceptance of SSM it could be on the horizon.

And since 2019 when he gave this talk, the Law of Chastity has been redefined in the church handbook to allow Same sex relations that are permissable to Man/Woman non married couples. And the wording of the Law of Chastity has been changed in the temple.

So while I agree that the statement was pretty clear, it was also designed to give hope to those who want it to change in the future. A more clear statement would have included the admonition that it will never change.

In the most recent GC, President Nelson said-

The Lord has clearly taught that only men and women who are sealed as husband and wife in the temple, and who keep their covenants, will be together throughout the eternities. He said, “All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise … have an end when men are dead.”

Physical intimacy is only for a man and a woman who are married to each other.
Much of the world does not believe this, but public opinion is not the arbiter of truth. The Lord has declared that no unchaste person will attain the celestial kingdom. -President Nelson

How can that not be clear to anyone??

Thanks Again! I am actually happy to see RMN saying these things.

One thing I notice that is missing is any reference to same sex relationships. This continues the pattern of treating homosexual and heterosexual relationships as equivalents. The only aspect of sin contained in homosexual relationships by the church's standard is that God does not recognize the marriage.

And this is a big deal, because it normalizes homosexuality within the church, and ultimately will lead to same sex marriages being accepted by the church.

I also notice that he is only speaking of these things in terms of the celestial kingdom. It used to be that we talked about these things at the level of salvation. But it seems we have already moved the line that will never be crossed to temple sealings. Not so long ago that line was at SSM and before that it was at homosexuality. But it appears that those lines are malleable as the world demands.

And lastly, there is again no reference to it never being accepted.

So.. once again, because of carefully chosen words and phrases and careful ommittance of other words and phrases, we find a message that makes the old guard feel comforted and the new guard hopeful for the future.

After all, if homosexual relationships are the equivalent of hetero relationships, and homosexuality in and of itself is no longer a sin, and we have already seen the church cave on these issues to the point where openly married same sex couples can be in full fellowship in the church, then what exactly is the basis for keeping them from temple sealings? The only thing seems to be that God hasnt' authorized it, but as we have seen He seems to be changing His mind rather quickly on this issue, and it seems also that our leaders are supplicating Him to get such an change in authorization.

[Cruiserdude]

Thanks! That is pretty clear.

Except for the "to this day" and "God has not changed". Both of those statements mean essentially "as of now". Once again, giving hope to both sides of the issue. To you, he is firm and clear as day, but to those advocating for acceptance of SSM it could be on the horizon.

And since 2019 when he gave this talk, the Law of Chastity has been redefined in the church handbook to allow Same sex relations that are permissable to Man/Woman non married couples. And the wording of the Law of Chastity has been changed in the temple.

So while I agree that the statement was pretty clear, it was also designed to give hope to those who want it to change in the future. A more clear statement would have included the admonition that it will never change.

In the most recent GC, President Nelson said-

The Lord has clearly taught that only men and women who are sealed as husband and wife in the temple, and who keep their covenants, will be together throughout the eternities. He said, “All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise … have an end when men are dead.”

Physical intimacy is only for a man and a woman who are married to each other.
Much of the world does not believe this, but public opinion is not the arbiter of truth. The Lord has declared that no unchaste person will attain the celestial kingdom. -President Nelson

How can that not be clear to anyone??

It just occurred to me that the early saints were probably wondering the same thing. Joseph and Hyrum denouncing plural marriage and spiritual wifery, but looking around, saw something different in practice.

Now there's an astute observation

[spiritMan]

It helps to understand that a lesbian relationship is still two women and therefore isn't based on sex nearly as much as on the emotional relationship between them. But granted, it's still abnormal as blazes.

While it isn't as though the church actually condones same sex relations even in marraige, the problem as I see it is the church has destigmatized homosexuality, and when you add on top of that how the church will not get involved with causes or cures, one can easily get the impression that homosexuality has been religiously stamped as just the way someone "is". when this is absolutely not the case.

And oh heck yeah, plural marraige is certainly NOT destigmatized. The guy in the example you cite would never ever even be welcomed in church much less be EQP.

Again are you dumb or something? .

This is uncalled for.

Make your points and arguments without the personal attacks.

Meh... don't really care.

[Niemand]

Is there a tax benefit for two women living together and living the law of chastity that would cause them to marry each other?

There was a case a few years ago of two heterosexual men in Dublin who married for the tax breaks. Both men were 60+, and had been good friends for years, but not in a romantic relationship. By marrying each other it meant that whoever died first could leave all his money to the other one without giving money to the Irish tax authorities. There are a few other financial benefits they got as well.

I think some folk were angry about this. Not for anti-gay reasons but pro-gay reasons. These kinds of laws have lots of unintended consequences from the POV of activists. Like providing a new income line for divorce lawyers. And the inevitable immigration thing.

[Atrasado]

It's kinda throughout. This is a LGBTQ audience. I tried to find a sample spot this morning. Around 37 minute for like 5+minutes, if I remember right.

I'm not sure she said that the proclamation was wrong. Normally there is more subtlety to it than that.

What I did hear her say is that RMN's primary concern is for the homosexuals, and that he has stated that they weep with the homosexuals and that they are constantly supplicating the Lord to figure out what to do.

I think it is clear that she believes that RMN would like to move the church more towards full homosexual acceptance as rapidly as possible, but finds himself constrained due to church culture and the damage moving too quickly would cause. People will accept small changes, but will revolt at large ones.

When you consider the ideology and the resume of a lot of people being elevated into leadership, and when you consider the public statements by church leaders and the content in church publications and websites, and when you consider the changes that have been occurring at church colleges both in teaching and in policy, it is difficult to disagree with her. It is clear to me that the RMN believes that modern progressive critical theory is part of Christianity and mormonism.

Why are they supplicating the Lord on a settled matter of morality? The LGBTQ movement completely annihilates the LDS understanding of Eternal Marriage. Is it a concern for their own children who have drifted into the gay lifestyle?

Hence D&C 85:7-8, which states that when the One Mighty and Strong is sent to set in order the House of God, the "man, who was called of God and appointed, that putteth forth his hand to steady the ark of God, shall fall by the shaft of death, like as a tree that is smitten by the vivid shaft of lightning." If praying to Heavenly Father (assuming that they are actually praying to him and not another) to change his laws of morality isn't steadying the ark, I don't know what is.

[randyps]

"In recent years, many countries, including the United States, have legalized same-sex marriage. As members of the Church, we respect the laws of the land and abide by them, including civil marriage. The truth is, however, that in the beginning—in the beginning—marriage was ordained by God! And to this day it is defined by Him as being between a man and a woman. God has not changed His definition of marriage.
God has also not changed His law of chastity." -President Nelson

Thanks! That is pretty clear.

Except for the "to this day" and "God has not changed". Both of those statements mean essentially "as of now". Once again, giving hope to both sides of the issue. To you, he is firm and clear as day, but to those advocating for acceptance of SSM it could be on the horizon.

And since 2019 when he gave this talk, the Law of Chastity has been redefined in the church handbook to allow Same sex relations that are permissable to Man/Woman non married couples. And the wording of the Law of Chastity has been changed in the temple.

So while I agree that the statement was pretty clear, it was also designed to give hope to those who want it to change in the future. A more clear statement would have included the admonition that it will never change.

In the most recent GC, President Nelson said-

The Lord has clearly taught that only men and women who are sealed as husband and wife in the temple, and who keep their covenants, will be together throughout the eternities. He said, “All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise … have an end when men are dead.”

Physical intimacy is only for a man and a woman who are married to each other.
Much of the world does not believe this, but public opinion is not the arbiter of truth. The Lord has declared that no unchaste person will attain the celestial kingdom. -President Nelson

How can that not be clear to anyone??

Does it disqualify a lesbian who is legally married and chaste from holding a calling?

[4Joshua8]

Thanks! That is pretty clear.

Except for the "to this day" and "God has not changed". Both of those statements mean essentially "as of now". Once again, giving hope to both sides of the issue. To you, he is firm and clear as day, but to those advocating for acceptance of SSM it could be on the horizon.

And since 2019 when he gave this talk, the Law of Chastity has been redefined in the church handbook to allow Same sex relations that are permissable to Man/Woman non married couples. And the wording of the Law of Chastity has been changed in the temple.

So while I agree that the statement was pretty clear, it was also designed to give hope to those who want it to change in the future. A more clear statement would have included the admonition that it will never change.

In the most recent GC, President Nelson said-

The Lord has clearly taught that only men and women who are sealed as husband and wife in the temple, and who keep their covenants, will be together throughout the eternities. He said, “All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise … have an end when men are dead.”

Physical intimacy is only for a man and a woman who are married to each other.
Much of the world does not believe this, but public opinion is not the arbiter of truth. The Lord has declared that no unchaste person will attain the celestial kingdom. -President Nelson

How can that not be clear to anyone??

Does it disqualify a lesbian who is legally married and chaste from holding a calling?

It used to be that if she is chaste, she isn't a lesbian.

[Christianlee]

Thanks! That is pretty clear.

Except for the "to this day" and "God has not changed". Both of those statements mean essentially "as of now". Once again, giving hope to both sides of the issue. To you, he is firm and clear as day, but to those advocating for acceptance of SSM it could be on the horizon.

And since 2019 when he gave this talk, the Law of Chastity has been redefined in the church handbook to allow Same sex relations that are permissable to Man/Woman non married couples. And the wording of the Law of Chastity has been changed in the temple.

So while I agree that the statement was pretty clear, it was also designed to give hope to those who want it to change in the future. A more clear statement would have included the admonition that it will never change.

In the most recent GC, President Nelson said-

The Lord has clearly taught that only men and women who are sealed as husband and wife in the temple, and who keep their covenants, will be together throughout the eternities. He said, “All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise … have an end when men are dead.”

Physical intimacy is only for a man and a woman who are married to each other.
Much of the world does not believe this, but public opinion is not the arbiter of truth. The Lord has declared that no unchaste person will attain the celestial kingdom. -President Nelson

How can that not be clear to anyone??

Does it disqualify a lesbian who is legally married and chaste from holding a calling?

Did she enter into a relationship which the scriptures forbid? I have seen an awful lot of women who called themselves lesbian who suddenly became straight when the right man came along. I do not believe a chaste woman is ever really a lesbian.

[Dusty Wanderer]

Thanks! That is pretty clear.

Except for the "to this day" and "God has not changed". Both of those statements mean essentially "as of now". Once again, giving hope to both sides of the issue. To you, he is firm and clear as day, but to those advocating for acceptance of SSM it could be on the horizon.

And since 2019 when he gave this talk, the Law of Chastity has been redefined in the church handbook to allow Same sex relations that are permissable to Man/Woman non married couples. And the wording of the Law of Chastity has been changed in the temple.

So while I agree that the statement was pretty clear, it was also designed to give hope to those who want it to change in the future. A more clear statement would have included the admonition that it will never change.

In the most recent GC, President Nelson said-

The Lord has clearly taught that only men and women who are sealed as husband and wife in the temple, and who keep their covenants, will be together throughout the eternities. He said, “All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise … have an end when men are dead.”

Physical intimacy is only for a man and a woman who are married to each other.
Much of the world does not believe this, but public opinion is not the arbiter of truth. The Lord has declared that no unchaste person will attain the celestial kingdom. -President Nelson

How can that not be clear to anyone??

Does it disqualify a lesbian who is legally married and chaste from holding a calling?

1. Legal is not equal to moral. Unless the government is your god.
2. Typically, chastity for married people means having sexual relations only with your spouse. But in this case it means the opposite, chaste spouse is abstinence. And if abstinence is the goal, why marry?

Do you not see the mental gymnastics one must go through to describe the situation and the absurdity of it?

[Severus]

With all the love for you.

Are you stupid or something?

Should we now have a man who lives in the same house with 3 other woman who he is married to but claims he only had sex with one of them be EQP?

What now happens when 16 year old Sally brings home a girl friend and says dad we are going to get married but don't worry we won't have sex, we are just following the RSPs example.

Seriously dude take a step back if you think this is cool you are a fool and are prime example of why the LDS Church is doomed.

It helps to understand that a lesbian relationship is still two women and therefore isn't based on sex nearly as much as on the emotional relationship between them. But granted, it's still abnormal as blazes.

What you describe is not a lesbian relationship. That is just two friends who love each other, which is common and natural. What makes a relationship lesbian or homosexual is the desire for sex with that person.

I am not a good teacher and very poor at explaining anything, but let me give it a shot.

I wasn't trying to leave out the sexual attraction part altogether, but women are definately different from men as they are all into emotional bonding and even view sex through an emotional lens. On the one hand, women are emotionally harmed by a steady run of one night stands, but men can do sex with no commitment, no emotional bond, and don't even remember names from one night to the next. This is why I said lesbianism is relationship based. And it is. Intense studies on lesbians over decades have across the board proven the emotional component to be first in the relationship and the sexual component to be secondary. Women are still women no matter who they are sexually intimate with. They need emotional bonding, emotional intimacy and all that understanding tender treatment stuff before sex is a good experience for them.

[randyps]

In the most recent GC, President Nelson said-

The Lord has clearly taught that only men and women who are sealed as husband and wife in the temple, and who keep their covenants, will be together throughout the eternities. He said, “All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise … have an end when men are dead.”

Physical intimacy is only for a man and a woman who are married to each other.
Much of the world does not believe this, but public opinion is not the arbiter of truth. The Lord has declared that no unchaste person will attain the celestial kingdom. -President Nelson

How can that not be clear to anyone??

Does it disqualify a lesbian who is legally married and chaste from holding a calling?

1. Legal is not equal to moral. Unless the government is your god.
2. Typically, chastity for married people means having sexual relations only with your spouse. But in this case you are referring to it as abstinence. And if abstinence is the goal, why marry?

Do you not see the mental gymnastics you must go through to describe the situation and the absurdity of it?

Everyone has different circumstances. My divorced mother at age 71 said that she has not wanted or had sex in forever. She tells me that she is lonely and wants to marry and have someone to come home too. No mental gymnastics there. I expressed on another post, im good if I dont have sex the rest of my life, at age 47 I had my fun with those things in my 20s, 30s and early 40s. As long as im single my desire to obey Gods law of chastity is greater then to fulfill some bodily urge. Everyone has different reasons.

I hear some people with diabetes have low testosterone and even erectile disfunction, I know of several men in their 50s that have ED and dont care for sex. Not everyone needs sex but many dont want to be lonely, if they cant tolerate or find a human partner they usually get a pet.

*Serragon made a great correction. Lesbian refer to two women in a sexual relationship. I used the word incorrectly describing my RS president. she is in a same sex marriage if it is assumed that she and her partner is not having sex.

[Serragon]

It helps to understand that a lesbian relationship is still two women and therefore isn't based on sex nearly as much as on the emotional relationship between them. But granted, it's still abnormal as blazes.

What you describe is not a lesbian relationship. That is just two friends who love each other, which is common and natural. What makes a relationship lesbian or homosexual is the desire for sex with that person.

I am not a good teacher and very poor at explaining anything, but let me give it a shot.

I wasn't trying to leave out the sexual attraction part altogether, but women are definately different from men as they are all into emotional bonding and even view sex through an emotional lens. On the one hand, women are emotionally harmed by a steady run of one night stands, but men can do sex with no commitment, no emotional bond, and don't even remember names from one night to the next. This is why I said lesbianism is relationship based. And it is. Intense studies on lesbians over decades have across the board proven the emotional component to be first in the relationship and the sexual component to be secondary. Women are still women no matter who they are sexually intimate with. They need emotional bonding, emotional intimacy and all that understanding tender treatment stuff before sex is a good experience for them.

What you have described is that women and men are different, which I agree with completely. Whether you studied lesbian, hetero, or bi sexual women, you would find that for most the emotional bond is more important than the sexual bond.

But women have had intense loving relationships with other women throughout history without it being sexual. When it becomes sexual, it is lesbian. Otherwise it is not.

Same goes for men. Men have had intense loving relationships with other men throughout history. But these are not homosexual relationships unless they become sexual.

[Dusty Wanderer]

Does it disqualify a lesbian who is legally married and chaste from holding a calling?

1. Legal is not equal to moral. Unless the government is your god.
2. Typically, chastity for married people means having sexual relations only with your spouse. But in this case you are referring to it as abstinence. And if abstinence is the goal, why marry?

Do you not see the mental gymnastics you must go through to describe the situation and the absurdity of it?

Everyone has different circumstances. My divorced mother at age 71 said that she has not wanted or had sex in forever. She tells me that she is lonely and wants to marry and have someone to come home too. No mental gymnastics there. I expressed on another post, im good if I dont have sex the rest of my life, at age 47 I had my fun with those things in my 20s, 30s and early 40s. As long as im single my desire to obey Gods law of chastity is greater than to fulfill some bodily urge. Everyone has different reasons.

Well, if your definition of chastity is abstinence regardless of marital status, then at least you're consistent. But then I suppose I'm a chastity-breaker because my wife and I are not abstaining.

Regardless, my point still stands, why marry if there is no need for sexual relations. Companionship can be obtained platonically.

I hear some people with diabetes have low testosterone and even erectile disfunction, I know of several men in their 50s that have ED and dont care for sex. Not everyone needs sex but many dont want to be lonely, if they cant tolerate or find a human partner they usually get a pet.

Yes, but following the same line of logic, shouldn't they marry the pet then, too - if one must marry anyone they seek companionship from?

*Serragon made a great correction. Lesbian refer to two women in a sexual relationship. I used the word incorrectly describing my RS president. she is in a same sex marriage if it is assumed that she and her partner is not having sex.

Legality, semantics, etc are distractions. It makes a mockery of what God has ordained, and it does so for no other reason than pride.

[spiritMan]

Does it disqualify a lesbian who is legally married and chaste from holding a calling?

1. Legal is not equal to moral. Unless the government is your god.
2. Typically, chastity for married people means having sexual relations only with your spouse. But in this case you are referring to it as abstinence. And if abstinence is the goal, why marry?

Do you not see the mental gymnastics you must go through to describe the situation and the absurdity of it?

Everyone has different circumstances. My divorced mother at age 71 said that she has not wanted or had sex in forever. She tells me that she is lonely and wants to marry and have someone to come home too. No mental gymnastics there. I expressed on another post, im good if I dont have sex the rest of my life, at age 47 I had my fun with those things in my 20s, 30s and early 40s. As long as im single my desire to obey Gods law of chastity is greater then to fulfill some bodily urge. Everyone has different reasons.

I hear some people with diabetes have low testosterone and even erectile disfunction, I know of several men in their 50s that have ED and dont care for sex. Not everyone needs sex but many dont want to be lonely, if they cant tolerate or find a human partner they usually get a pet.

*Serragon made a great correction. Lesbian refer to two women in a sexual relationship. I used the word incorrectly describing my RS president. she is in a same sex marriage if it is assumed that she and her partner is not having sex.

SMH the insane idioti hoops people jump through....

Well just bc she is "married" doesn't mean she has sex... My goodness this religion needs to burn in hell for it's twisting and justification of abominations.

[randyps]

Regardless, my point still stands, why marry if there is no need for sexual relations. Companionship can be obtained platonically.

After our divorce we continued to live together and raise our children. My state recognizes civil unions therefore we registered as domestic partners for tax benefits and for my employer to cover her under my insurance since she is a stay at home mom. We have been sexless the past year but we are fortunate to have the other benefits.

Same sex couples want to enjoy those same benefits and recognition by the state....is one reason to marry.

[Severus]

What you describe is not a lesbian relationship. That is just two friends who love each other, which is common and natural. What makes a relationship lesbian or homosexual is the desire for sex with that person.

I am not a good teacher and very poor at explaining anything, but let me give it a shot.

I wasn't trying to leave out the sexual attraction part altogether, but women are definately different from men as they are all into emotional bonding and even view sex through an emotional lens. On the one hand, women are emotionally harmed by a steady run of one night stands, but men can do sex with no commitment, no emotional bond, and don't even remember names from one night to the next. This is why I said lesbianism is relationship based. And it is. Intense studies on lesbians over decades have across the board proven the emotional component to be first in the relationship and the sexual component to be secondary. Women are still women no matter who they are sexually intimate with. They need emotional bonding, emotional intimacy and all that understanding tender treatment stuff before sex is a good experience for them.

What you have described is that women and men are different, which I agree with completely. Whether you studied lesbian, hetero, or bi sexual women, you would find that for most the emotional bond is more important than the sexual bond.

But women have had intense loving relationships with other women throughout history without it being sexual. When it becomes sexual, it is lesbian. Otherwise it is not.

Same goes for men. Men have had intense loving relationships with other men throughout history. But these are not homosexual relationships unless they become sexual.

thanks for responding because it reassured me what I said was understandable.

And I appreciate what you are saying. Missionary companionships can be good examples of your point. And yes there have been devoted and self sacrificing relationships between sisters, brothers or military buddies throughout history that were not sexualized ( in spite of what history revisionists want us to think ).