Same-Sex Issues


wsmrm196
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, unixknight said:

This is starting to turn into one of those "I can nitpick better than you" exchanges.

Guys, the obvious answer here is that if there's a same sex kiss, then that implies a same sex attraction.  That being the case, then yes a conversation with the Bishop is in order.  I don't know whether that would constitute a confession or not since I'm not qualified to judge the sin factor of that kiss, but the fact that it happened means there are attractions and/or feelings that should be understood and handled appropriately.  That's what the Bishop is there to help with.  

I hope that answers your question, @wsmrm196

S long as they are obeying the loc a gay or ssa person can fully participate in all church stuff to include the temple. 

https://mormonandgay.lds.org/videos?id=8476007148069176400&lang=eng

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, this is what you guys do while you're at work.  Hmmm.

Oh, I remember when I was in my 20's, was dating this young woman, also LDS, and I was at the time active and had been paying tithing & fast offering and Missionary Fund and (blah blah blah), and I got in trouble for kissing her.  Nothing long, not french, not anything, just a simple kiss.  Couldn't take sacrament or give prayer at church for 6 months.  I went inactive instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, pwrfrk said:

So, this is what you guys do while you're at work.  Hmmm.

Oh, I remember when I was in my 20's, was dating this young woman, also LDS, and I was at the time active and had been paying tithing & fast offering and Missionary Fund and (blah blah blah), and I got in trouble for kissing her.  Nothing long, not french, not anything, just a simple kiss.  Couldn't take sacrament or give prayer at church for 6 months.  I went inactive instead.

You must be like 100 years old, couldn't have happened in the 20th century. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
18 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

You must be like 100 years old, couldn't have happened in the 20th century. :P

For the past hundred years or more it was socially acceptable to briefly kiss prior to marriage.  Over the course of the 20th century it became more and more socially acceptable to kiss "passionately" prior to marriage.  But PUBLIC kissing (PDA) was considered borderline scandalous in the first half of the 20th century (or most of that half anyway).  The older generation still frowned upon PDA into the 80s.  

And even today, the more passionate it gets, the more it is generally looked upon by most people.  Today, a simple peck would be perfectly reasonable to do in public (for most people).  But if you started making out in the middle of a crowd, it would be quite disturbing.

I'd reckon (I have no idea who pwferk is, but I'd reckon that his experience came from what the bishop considered "excessive PDA" rather than an outright violation of the law of chastity.  Still, to basically disfellowship someone for such a thing is what I might consider a bit excessive.  Was there something more to it?  Was he being a fairly rebellious person at the time?  Was there something else going on?  Was he unrepentant about some attitude?

Most of the time bishops will take action, not because of a the sin itself, but because of an unrepentant attitude.  The sin itself can be forgiven.  But if you refuse to repent, then you're denying Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mores said:

For the past hundred years or more it was socially acceptable to briefly kiss prior to marriage.  Over the course of the 20th century it became more and more socially acceptable to kiss "passionately" prior to marriage.  But PUBLIC kissing (PDA) was considered borderline scandalous in the first half of the 20th century (or most of that half anyway).  The older generation still frowned upon PDA into the 80s.  

And even today, the more passionate it gets, the more it is generally looked upon by most people.  Today, a simple peck would be perfectly reasonable to do in public (for most people).  But if you started making out in the middle of a crowd, it would be quite disturbing.

I'd reckon (I have no idea who pwferk is, but I'd reckon that his experience came from what the bishop considered "excessive PDA" rather than an outright violation of the law of chastity.  Still, to basically disfellowship someone for such a thing is what I might consider a bit excessive.  Was there something more to it?  Was he being a fairly rebellious person at the time?  Was there something else going on?  Was he unrepentant about some attitude?

Most of the time bishops will take action, not because of a the sin itself, but because of an unrepentant attitude.  The sin itself can be forgiven.  But if you refuse to repent, then you're denying Christ.

I agree, I was bantering playfully with you. Bishop's are different also, and what one bishop might do another one wouldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mores said:

I'd reckon (I have no idea who pwferk is, but I'd reckon that his experience came from what the bishop considered "excessive PDA" rather than an outright violation of the law of chastity.  Still, to basically disfellowship someone for such a thing is what I might consider a bit excessive.  Was there something more to it?  Was he being a fairly rebellious person at the time?  Was there something else going on?  Was he unrepentant about some attitude?

I was thinking about that too.  I've noticed that when it comes to repentance, the biggest factor when determining what is done and for how long, is attitude. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mores said:

For the past hundred years or more it was socially acceptable to briefly kiss prior to marriage.  Over the course of the 20th century it became more and more socially acceptable to kiss "passionately" prior to marriage.  But PUBLIC kissing (PDA) was considered borderline scandalous in the first half of the 20th century (or most of that half anyway).  The older generation still frowned upon PDA into the 80s.  

And even today, the more passionate it gets, the more it is generally looked upon by most people.  Today, a simple peck would be perfectly reasonable to do in public (for most people).  But if you started making out in the middle of a crowd, it would be quite disturbing.

I'd reckon (I have no idea who pwferk is, but I'd reckon that his experience came from what the bishop considered "excessive PDA" rather than an outright violation of the law of chastity.  Still, to basically disfellowship someone for such a thing is what I might consider a bit excessive.  Was there something more to it?  Was he being a fairly rebellious person at the time?  Was there something else going on?  Was he unrepentant about some attitude?

Most of the time bishops will take action, not because of a the sin itself, but because of an unrepentant attitude.  The sin itself can be forgiven.  But if you refuse to repent, then you're denying Christ.

I have had too much experience in life to believe that what one person says is the reason of another's action is seldom if ever, accurate.  Most people have a hard enough time justifying their own actions with any kind of logic.  When it come to blame - it is not often that people will take responsibility for their own actions (like leaving the church).  So they try to justify, with logic centered in blame of others, that absolves them of any responsibility.   People that punish themselves (such as leaving the church) because the sins of other - I do not trust their logic and I am not sure trying to convince them to employ better logic is the smart use of my time.

Often my father challenged me when I was a child eager to learn about life - to avoid making decisions based on others making foolish choices; rather base decisions on the logic of what matters and is based in truth - think the 13th Article of Faith.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Mores said:

For the past hundred years or more it was socially acceptable to briefly kiss prior to marriage.  Over the course of the 20th century it became more and more socially acceptable to kiss "passionately" prior to marriage.  But PUBLIC kissing (PDA) was considered borderline scandalous in the first half of the 20th century (or most of that half anyway).  The older generation still frowned upon PDA into the 80s.  

And even today, the more passionate it gets, the more it is generally looked upon by most people.  Today, a simple peck would be perfectly reasonable to do in public (for most people).  But if you started making out in the middle of a crowd, it would be quite disturbing.

I'd reckon (I have no idea who pwferk is, but I'd reckon that his experience came from what the bishop considered "excessive PDA" rather than an outright violation of the law of chastity.  Still, to basically disfellowship someone for such a thing is what I might consider a bit excessive.  Was there something more to it?  Was he being a fairly rebellious person at the time?  Was there something else going on?  Was he unrepentant about some attitude?

Most of the time bishops will take action, not because of a the sin itself, but because of an unrepentant attitude.  The sin itself can be forgiven.  But if you refuse to repent, then you're denying Christ.

pwrfrk, not pwferk.  Grammar counts!  I still remember the Bishop's name as well.  It was 1991.  No idea why the Bishop did that, though I have a few speculations.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
48 minutes ago, pwrfrk said:

pwrfrk, not pwferk.  Grammar counts!

When you have a handle that by all appearances seems to be a random assortment of letters, how much does it count?

... and ... grammar?  Do you know the difference between grammar and spelling/mechanics?

Quote

Grammar & Mechanics. Grammar is the structure of written or spoken language. ...Mechanics refers to the rules of the written language, such as capitalization, punctuation and spelling. An understanding of both grammar and mechanics is required to clearly communicate your ideas in a paper.

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, pwrfrk said:

Actually, it's short for "powerfreak", which was previously taken in a different forum, but I decided to use the abbreviated version here.

I thought it meant "powerfork". (Really.) I wondered what a powerfork was.

latest?cb=20141228022020

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share