mikbone 1010 Report post Posted August 28, 2021 (edited) Do we support this? Why can’r we have male female companions? Why is the LGBTQ+ community so much better at bridling their passions? Do we have ways of identifying LGBTQ+ missionaries so that they are not matched as companions? Edited August 28, 2021 by mikbone Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
laronius 641 Report post Posted August 28, 2021 As long as they serve with a heterosexual companion then yes. That way at most the attraction would only be one way. 1 1 LDSGator and Traveler reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LDSGator 722 Report post Posted August 28, 2021 (edited) I don’t care about the sexual preference of a missionary. But, I feel strongly that an LDS mission is NOT the time to express your sexuality, no matter what it is. LGBTQ+ or not, if you can’t control yourself you really should not go on a mission. Edited August 28, 2021 by LDSGator 7 Traveler, Anddenex, Jane_Doe and 4 others reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NeuroTypical 9966 Report post Posted August 28, 2021 Maybe ask this guy how it's handled in his mission. https://www.facebook.com/100030251625836/videos/451994329152284/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikbone 1010 Report post Posted August 28, 2021 (edited) In the current policy I would have to decline an offer to serve as a Bishop (no one is asking BTW). My son had a LGBTQ+ companion. He did not enjoy the experience. That missionary went on later to have a companionship wherein they consummated their lust. The flaming missionary did elect to go home early. The other missionary stayed in the field. Finished his mission and within the year of serving honorably was sealed in the Temple of the Lord. Edited August 28, 2021 by mikbone 1 NeuroTypical reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CV75 1060 Report post Posted August 29, 2021 21 hours ago, mikbone said: In the current policy I would have to decline an offer to serve as a Bishop (no one is asking BTW). My son had a LGBTQ+ companion. He did not enjoy the experience. That missionary went on later to have a companionship wherein they consummated their lust. The flaming missionary did elect to go home early. The other missionary stayed in the field. Finished his mission and within the year of serving honorably was sealed in the Temple of the Lord. I thought missionaries were generally sent home for having sexual intercourse. What made this case different? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CV75 1060 Report post Posted August 29, 2021 21 hours ago, mikbone said: Do we support this? Why can’r we have male female companions? Why is the LGBTQ+ community so much better at bridling their passions? Do we have ways of identifying LGBTQ+ missionaries so that they are not matched as companions? I'm not sure they are better at bridling their passions, but there is a spectrum of attraction and desire that might be in play that is hopefully discerned by the missionary and with their bishop and mission president as necessary to prevent moral lapse. I do think they are often better at hiding their passions for obviously societal and ecclesiastical reasons. 1 LDSGator reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikbone 1010 Report post Posted August 29, 2021 1 hour ago, CV75 said: I thought missionaries were generally sent home for having sexual intercourse. What made this case different? I have no idea, not privy to that information. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LDSGator 722 Report post Posted August 29, 2021 6 minutes ago, mikbone said: I have no idea, not privy to that information. Well, to be fair, it’s a personal issue between the missionary, their president, and the other person involved. It’s none of our affair. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CV75 1060 Report post Posted August 29, 2021 3 hours ago, mikbone said: I have no idea, not privy to that information. 2 hours ago, LDSGator said: Well, to be fair, it’s a personal issue between the missionary, their president, and the other person involved. It’s none of our affair. Yes, I understand, but "back in the day" missionaries were summarily sent home, if not excommunicated also, for having sex. I knew several in my mission, both elders and sisters. 3 Just_A_Guy, JohnsonJones and LDSGator reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LDSGator 722 Report post Posted August 29, 2021 16 minutes ago, CV75 said: Yes, I understand, but "back in the day" missionaries were summarily sent home, if not excommunicated also, for having sex. I knew several in my mission, both elders and sisters. Understand fully my friend. I never served a mission, so I have no firsthand experience. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikbone 1010 Report post Posted August 29, 2021 38 minutes ago, CV75 said: Yes, I understand, but "back in the day" missionaries were summarily sent home, if not excommunicated also, for having sex. I knew several in my mission, both elders and sisters. Way back in the day… Contrast Alma chapters 39-42 with Alma 48: 17-18. 1 dprh reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Just_A_Guy 12703 Report post Posted August 29, 2021 2 hours ago, CV75 said: Yes, I understand, but "back in the day" missionaries were summarily sent home, if not excommunicated also, for having sex. I knew several in my mission, both elders and sisters. Well, now we’ve raised the bar, doncha know? [In all serious: a person who is in a missionary-companion-type relationship with another person who is sexually aggressive towards them, is in an intensely vulnerable situation. Time was, someone on the receiving end of such advances could punch the aggressor in the nose; but for twenty years the LGBTQ movement has not-so-subtly sent the message that when Gay Bubba puts the moves on you and refuses to stop, telling him “no” is an act of bigotry.] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
