Mormon and gay. Where are we going?

[Anddenex]

9 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

To my knowledge the temple recommend question does not say “do you live the law of celibacy?”

If I were married to a man, and went in for a temple recommend would I be able to answer Yes if I live the law of chastity? This really isn't that hard as you are making it and confusing it. What you just did is called pendantic.

It doesn't need to say do you live the law of celibacy. Live of law of chastity is sufficient and gets the point across, unless of course we try to rationalize or justify commandments with, "Well the Lord never commanded against "celibacy" -- well for same sex attraction -- yes he did. It is called the law of chastity -- really simple.

 

[BJ64]

53 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

If I were married to a man, and went in for a temple recommend would I be able to answer Yes if I live the law of chastity? This really isn't that hard as you are making it and confusing it. What you just did is called pendantic.

It doesn't need to say do you live the law of celibacy. Live of law of chastity is sufficient and gets the point across, unless of course we try to rationalize or justify commandments with, "Well the Lord never commanded against "celibacy" -- well for same sex attraction -- yes he did. It is called the law of chastity -- really simple.

 

It’s just that several times you stated that hey were the same thing so I’m just making it clear that they are not. 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

2 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Sure you do. 🙄 It is those high levels of testosterone that help you.

 

2 hours ago, Anddenex said:

What you just did is called pendantic.

And what you are doing in these statements is the logical fallacy ad hominem.  Can't we just debate the topic without the personal attacks? 

[askandanswer]

On 7/20/2018 at 5:56 AM, zil said:

Wait, is it a dress, a kilt, or a duck!?  No wonder I don't understand men.

I'm just wandering what was the ad dress of the duck that was shot and kilt

Edited July 21, 2018 by askandanswer

[pwrfrk]

Without reading the 250 trillion messages on 7 pages....

Being that the church IS the True Church, it is the person that must change.  You change yourself to fit the needs of the church.  You cannot expect the church to change for you.  If it were to, then it no longer is the True Church.  Do you get what I mean?

[Guest Scott]

Quote

That was a success story, until he and his wife failed. 

How do you know that?   Just because a couple is married for __ amount of years doesn't mean that they were happy.

My cousin's wife was only attracted to her own gender and they were married for several years.   She got married to him because she loved him in a non-sexual way; she was an active member of the church and wanted to do the "right" thing; she wanted kids; and to go to the Celestial Kingdom.

Both she and my cousin were good people.  They tried their best, but there was a lot of heartache since my cousin knew that she was having sex only out of duty and she wasn't attracted to him sexually.   It was hard on her as well because she was only having sex out of duty.

They split up, but I don't see either person as a failure.  Both were good people and made every effort to do the right thing.   Why would they be considered failures?

The thing about the LDS Church is that it makes some people really happy and some people really depressed.    That's why surveys often show that Mormon communities often have both the happiest and most depressed populations at same time, but depending on  the person.    One may think that the depression is high because those other people are sinners or apostates and those are the ones who are depressed, but this isn't true.

The thing about the Church is that it is great if you fit inside the mold.   If you fit in that mold, you have a great sense of community and fellowship.   For those who still believe in the Church, but who don't fit in the mold, it is incredibly depressing.    You can say that they didn't try hard enough or just need to pray and everything will be hunky-dory, but that's often not the case.

Many of those people who don't fit inside the mold or at least who don't think they fit inside the mold consider Church to be an incredibly depressing experience, even if they believe in it, have faith, and are trying to follow the teachings.      

The thing is that the Church does tell you how you should act, which is easy for most of us to understand, but many people translate this as the Church tells you how you should feel.    Whether a person has an  intention to do so or not, having feelings that you feel that you shouldn't be feeling isn't a happy experience.   This is true whether or not you ever act on those impulses.  

Even if someone attracted to the same gender never acts on those impulses, it doesn't mean that they don't feel dirty or that something is wrong with them.   That's why the suicide rate is so high among LDS members with same gender attraction.   Statements or implications such as "they aren't trying hard enough" or "they are just being selfish in one way or another" only destroys a person's self worth.  I say the real failure here is on the members who make such generalizations and judgments (and I don't mean you specifically) .  

To sum it up, I really disagree with your post.

•  

Edited July 20, 2018 by Scott

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

1 hour ago, Scott said:

They split up, but I don't see either person as a failure.  Both were good people and made every effort to do the right thing.   Why would they be considered failures?

 I agree.  I think this situation is clearly in the area of something that is not my place to judge.  It's between them and the Lord.  

[zil]

@BJ64, I agree that some of @Anddenex's posts have been less than bluntly clear, perhaps because it was perfectly clear without a zillion posts and he's trying to find other ways to explain it to you, but I'll explain it to you in nice, blunt, clear language:

(From this point on, "you" is generic and does not refer to any specific person - replace it with "one" if desired.)

The law of chastity is that you will not have sexual relations except with your opposite-biological-gender spouse¹.  Period.  The end.  Full stop.

¹If you're a biological male, your spouse may only be a biological female.  If you're a biological female, your spouse may only be a biological male.  (In scripture, the biological male is called "man" and the biological female is called "woman".  For the remainder of this post (and, frankly, any post I make), those are the definitions of "man" and "woman".)

This means that all humans - married or single, attracted to the same sex or to the opposite sex, young or old, male or female - all are expected to obey the law of chastity, always and ever.

If you are wed to someone of the opposite sex, you may have sexual relations with them and only with them.  Otherwise, you may not have sexual relations.

Simple.  No ambiguity.  No two-rules, no unfairness, one simple rule.

Now there's also a law commanding men and women to marry and produce and raise children.  If you suffer from same-sex attraction and cannot bring yourself to obey this commandment to marry and multiply, you are still expected to obey the law of chastity.  The better thing is to obey all the commandments, but just because you can't bring yourself to obey one does not mean you are exempted from obeying the other, nor does it mean that you're the only one required to obey the other, nor does it mean it's unjust that you must obey the other.

Nor does it mean you're the only one who's got a hard life - everyone does, or will eventually.

Edited July 20, 2018 by zil

[Anddenex]

6 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

 

And what you are doing in these statements is the logical fallacy ad hominem.  Can't we just debate the topic without the personal attacks? 

Is there a reason why you are just asking me LP? Or do you not think, since you have been "liking" his posts, when a person keeps trying to say you don't understand something (when you clearly do) isn't a personal attack? Who began the personal attack (twice), and have you said anything to him?

Edited July 20, 2018 by Anddenex

[BJ64]

1 hour ago, zil said:

@BJ64, I agree that some of @Anddenex's posts have been less than bluntly clear, perhaps because it was perfectly clear without a zillion posts and he's trying to find other ways to explain it to you, but I'll explain it to you in nice, blunt, clear language:

I knew exactly what he meant. I merely pointed out that he said celibacy and law of Chastity are the same thing when they aren’t. 

[anatess2]

8 hours ago, BJ64 said:

Celibacy as a commandment does not exist in the church except for gays which I would assume is the reason the author said it is a false commandment or false doctrine or whatever you said he said and gays are not required to be celibate if they choose to marry someone of the opposite gender. 

This is ignorant.

The law for homosexuals is the same for every other person.  They are commanded to be celibate UNTIL marriage - marriage being Godly only between 2 genders.

The fallacy is in the thinking that YOU CAN ONLY MARRY (or can love) THOSE WHOM YOU HAVE SEXUAL ATTRACTION TO.  Sexual attraction does not equal Love nor is it a prerequisite to such.  This is the lie that plagues the LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ movement.  A homosexual is just as capable as loving the opposite gender as any other.  The Godly order is - first you Love.  Then when you marry, you may express that love through sexual expressions.  Not, first you get sexually bothered, then you Love.  Idiotic.

And just like I asked @jmom in her thread about contemplating divorce - Define Love.  This seems to be a question that needs to be asked for everyone here as people spout the word without knowing what it is.

Edited July 20, 2018 by anatess2

[zil]

15 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

I knew exactly what he meant. I merely pointed out that he said celibacy and law of Chastity are the same thing when they aren’t. 

He didn't say that.  For some, celibacy is the method by which they obey the law of chastity.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

22 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Is there a reason why you are just asking me LP? Or do you not think, since you have been "liking" his posts, when a person keeps trying to say you don't understand something (when you clearly do) isn't a personal attack? Who began the personal attack (twice), and have you said anything to him?

It's a judgement call on that I suppose.  I don't see it that as a personal attack, if you do, you should speak up.  

Edited July 20, 2018 by LiterateParakeet

[Anddenex]

4 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

It's a judgement call on that I suppose.  I don't see it that as a personal attack, if you do, you should speak up.  

OK, the next time you are showing you understand something, and we disagree, I will keep telling you you don't understand something and then we will see if you "don't see ... that as a personal attack."

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

24 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

OK, the next time you are showing you understand something, and we disagree, I will keep telling you you don't understand something and then we will see if you "don't see ... that as a personal attack."

Fair enough.  

[Vort]

8 hours ago, BJ64 said:

It’s just that several times you stated that hey were the same thing so I’m just making it clear that they are not. 

He said that they are the same for unmarried people. He was correct. Celibacy is the voluntary and usually religious-based abstinence from sex, marriage, or both.

For you to claim that celibacy means only "abstaining from marriage" and is thus contrary to gospel principles is a silly (and false) word game. I suspect you understand perfectly well what Anddenex is saying. Why you continue to argue with him as if you actually have some valid point is beyond me.

Edited July 20, 2018 by Vort

[estradling75]

16 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

LOL, no.  It's a natural connection to think about testosterone and sex, right?  But for women, there is not the same connection between estrogen and sex.   Everyone talks about PMS (and negatively at that), PMS and sex don't go well together.   So I just hadn't really thought about women's sex drive (or lack thereof) being influenced by hormones. Seems obvious now that I think about it, but it's not a topic that has ever come up for me before.     

To further expand on this idea...  You mentioned how young women seem to get pregnant the first time they have sex....  Lets examine that idea.

The Hormones in question are related to reproduction.  Women's hormones cycle as part of the reproductive cycle.  Men's hormones do not.

For a large part of the woman's cycle she is simply not fertile and it makes no sense for her hormones to try to influence her to have sex.  However during the few days that she is fertile it makes every sense in the word that Hormones responsible for reproduction to exert themselves and try to influence the woman to have sex.

In spite influence of this it is still woman's choice.  But it should not surprise anyone that when the temptation is highest, we are more likely to give in.  The younger and more inexperienced you are the more likely this is.  

Thus both men and women can expect to be a the highest hormonal temptation when they are fertile. Note that this is the same for both genders but it is also profoundly different because women are only fertile for a few days in the cycle... men are fertile 24 - 7.  This has huge implications and a lot of women don't get it.

Men are almost always running at highest hormonal temptation for sex, a level women only have a few days in the cycle.  For women out there if you find that you need to take extra effort for a few day to avoid undue influence caused by your cycle... men do not get that... we do not get to tough it out for a few days and then it get easier.

Add to this men who are young and inexperience and it becomes understandable why they might need all the help then can get to control themselves.  (Something that get dismissed by many women when we talk about modesty).

The flipside is that for men this is their 'Normal' and they must learn to adapt and control.  But for women when this part of their cycle comes it might take them a bit by surprise because their own experience is not constant.  Thus it should not be all that surprising that a young inexperienced women suddenly finding their own hormones pushing for sex might give in. Right at the time pregnancy is most likely to happen

And of course this is all generalizations.  Individual can have their own variation from what is considered "Normal' for their sex.

[BJ64]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

This is ignorant.

The law for homosexuals is the same for every other person.  They are commanded to be celibate UNTIL marriage - marriage being Godly only between 2 genders.

 

There you go again confusing Celibacy and the law of Chastity. 

cel·i·ba·cy

ˈseləbəsē/

noun

1. the state of abstaining from marriage and sexual relations.

No one in the church is commanded to be celibate. Celibacy is not a feature of our religion. 

Do you know how stupid it sounds to say that in the church everyone is commanded to abstain from marriage until marriage? 

 

[anatess2]

9 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

There you go again confusing Celibacy and the law of Chastity. 

cel·i·ba·cy

ˈseləbəsē/

noun

1. the state of abstaining from marriage and sexual relations.

No one in the church is commanded to be celibate. Celibacy is not a feature of our religion. 

Do you know how stupid it sounds to say that in the church everyone is commanded to abstain from marriage until marriage? 

 

Dude.  I think you mistook me for someone else.  As my post has mentioned celibacy is only required UNTIL marriage.  I'm pointing out that there is no "different law" for homosexuals.

Celibacy is not abstaining from marriage.  Celibacy is abstaining from sex.  You can be married and celibate if you so choose - some people live in a forced celibacy in a marriage (e.g. the spouse is physically incapable of sexual activity).  The vow of celibacy in the Catholic Church priesthood is abstaining from sex and abstaining from marriage to a specific person - the Catholic holy orders is marriage to the Body of Christ.

Edited July 20, 2018 by anatess2

[Grunt]

18 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

There you go again confusing Celibacy and the law of Chastity. 

cel·i·ba·cy

ˈseləbəsē/

noun

1. the state of abstaining from marriage and sexual relations.

No one in the church is commanded to be celibate. Celibacy is not a feature of our religion. 

Do you know how stupid it sounds to say that in the church everyone is commanded to abstain from marriage until marriage? 

 

Not to be rude, but do you REALLY not understand what he's saying, or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?   I think it's pretty clear what his position is to anyone with a lukewarm IQ.

[BJ64]

22 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Dude.  I think you mistook me for someone else.  As my post has mentioned celibacy is only required UNTIL marriage.  I'm pointing out that there is no "different law" for homosexuals.

Celibacy is not abstaining from marriage.  Celibacy is abstaining from sex.  You can be married and celibate if you so choose - some people live in a forced celibacy in a marriage (e.g. the spouse is physically incapable of sexual activity).  The vow of celibacy in the Catholic Church priesthood is abstaining from sex and abstaining from marriage to a specific person - the Catholic holy orders is marriage to the Body of Christ.

No, I wasn’t mistaken. Perhaps you did not read my post well because I provided the Definition. Celibacy is to abstain from marriage and sex. You can’t be married and celibate and no one in the church is required to be celibate as far as traditional marriage is concerned. 

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, BJ64 said:

No, I wasn’t mistaken. Perhaps you did not read my post well because I provided the Definition. Celibacy is to abstain from marriage and sex. You can’t be married and celibate and no one in the church is required to be celibate as far as traditional marriage is concerned. 

I read your post well.  I disagreed.  You can be married and celibate.  But that wasn't the gist of my post.  The gist of my post is that there is no different law for homosexuals.

[estradling75]

9 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

No, I wasn’t mistaken. Perhaps you did not read my post well because I provided the Definition. Celibacy is to abstain from marriage and sex. You can’t be married and celibate and no one in the church is required to be celibate as far as traditional marriage is concerned. 

And @anatess2 explicitly modified the definition when she made her statement

 

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

They are commanded to be celibate UNTIL marriage - marriage being Godly only between 2 genders.

She made her alterations clear by using all CAPS even.  Words have meaning, and some times we only want part of the meaning for our point.  When we do this we need to be clear about it..  She was.  You are forcing words and meaning into her statement that she explicitly said was not the case.

 

[Anddenex]

16 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Celibacy is to abstain from marriage and sex. You can’t be married and celibate and no one in the church is required to be celibate as far as traditional marriage is concerned. 

Then why would you make the following argument that started this whole debate, " Married couples live the law of Chastity but are not, hopefully, celibate."

In response to me you mention how a couple is able to live law of chastity, and hopefully they aren't celibate, meaning they are enjoying sexual relations and not abstaining from such.

Now you are saying, "You can't be married and celibate."

Celibacy is abstaining from marriage, or sex, or both. There are many articles, even Huffington Post, "Celibacy, for the sake of this article, is defined as the state of being voluntarily sexually abstinent for religious reasons. Practicing celibacy removes sexual activity from your lifestyle for a larger purpose, and Tyomi details why celibacy is more purposeful than abstinence."

The key being "traditional marriage" which wasn't the argument being made originally, was it now? This thread of discussion began with being celibate from SSM and keeping the law of chastity. You can't be chaste if you enter into SSM, therefore we are commanded to obstain from such through the law of Chastity -- as I and others have clearly mentioned.

[Vort]

9 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

34 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Celibacy is to abstain from marriage and sex. You can’t be married and celibate and no one in the church is required to be celibate as far as traditional marriage is concerned. 

Then why would you make the following argument that started this whole debate, " Married couples live the law of Chastity but are not, hopefully, celibate."

I'm looking forward to BJ's response to this. But I bet we won't hear it.