Mormon Church, wrong again re masturbation

Post by **_Coggins7** » Sun May 11, 2008 11:43 pm

Define the law of chastity, Loran.

Here's an official Church definition, with salient portions italicized:

The power of procreation is a beautiful and sacred? part of God’s plan for His children. They are an expression of love within marriage and allow husband and wife to participate in the creation of life. God has commanded that the sacred power and privilege of sexual relations be exercised only between a man and woman who are legally married. This commandment? is referred to as the law of chastity?, and keeping it brings peace, self-respect, and strength from self-control.

God delights in chastity and hates sexual sin. Chastity includes strict abstinence from sexual relations before marriage and complete fidelity and loyalty to one’s spouse after marriage. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony and to be reared by a father and mother who honor marital vows. As you obey the law of chastity, you will enjoy more fully the influence of the Holy Ghost in your life. Those who break this law are subject to a lasting sense of shame and guilt that burdens their lives, however, through sincere repentance? and application of the Atonement, they can find forgiveness which brings a peace of conscience and a fulness of Joy (Mosiah 4:3).

Chastity requires faithfulness in thought and action. You are to keep your thoughts clean and be modest in your dress, speech, and actions ( Matthew 5:27–28) . You must avoid pornography in any form and treat the God-given procreative power and your body as sacred gifts.

You are not to participate in abortions or homosexual or lesbian relations. Men and women who are living together but are not married may not be baptized without first getting married or separated. Those who are married to more than one person at a time may not be baptized.

God wants you to follow His plan of reserving intimacy for marriage to help you and your family find happiness, deepen marital love, and protect your family

http://www.Mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/bas ... f-chastity

That's one official Church definition.

Heterosexuals can hold hands, kiss, embrace, dance close, nuzzle, flirt, socialize with like-minded adults. How do you suppose the branch president would react, were that to happen between two gay men at a single's ward dance?

Most likely, he'd ask them to stop or leave.

Now, perhaps you could define "Gay"?

Post by **_moksha** » Sun May 11, 2008 11:52 pm

harmony wrote: How do you suppose the branch president would react, were that to happen between two gay men at a single's ward dance?

The expression "poop bricks" comes to mind.

Post by **_asbestosman** » Sun May 11, 2008 11:52 pm

harmony wrote:Heterosexuals can hold hands, kiss, embrace, dance close, nuzzle, flirt, socialize with like-minded adults. How do you suppose the branch president would react, were that to happen between two gay men at a single's ward dance?

Probably the same way my bishop would react if I did that with any woman other than my wife.

Flirting is supposed to be a step towards marriage.

Post by **_Coggins7** » Sun May 11, 2008 11:55 pm

moksha wrote:
harmony wrote: How do you suppose the branch president would react, were that to happen between two gay men at a single's ward dance?

The expression "poop bricks" comes to mind.

More than likely, given the conspicuousness of homosexuality in our culture, ask then to cease the behavior or leave the dance.

Post by **_Gazelam** » Mon May 12, 2008 1:06 am

Harmony,

Heterosexuals can hold hands, kiss, embrace, dance close, nuzzle, flirt, socialize with like-minded adults. How do you suppose the branch president would react, were that to happen between two gay men at a single's ward dance?

that's when you call together the Elders Quorum or Priests Quorum and throw them out of the building and escort them off the property. Violently if need be. Tell them they are only welcome back if they clean up their act.

_Yoda · Post by **_Yoda** » Mon May 12, 2008 1:09 am

moksha wrote:
harmony wrote: How do you suppose the branch president would react, were that to happen between two gay men at a single's ward dance?

The expression "poop bricks" comes to mind.

LOL! I love the penguin! ;)

Post by **_harmony** » Mon May 12, 2008 1:59 am

Gazelam wrote:Harmony,

Heterosexuals can hold hands, kiss, embrace, dance close, nuzzle, flirt, socialize with like-minded adults. How do you suppose the branch president would react, were that to happen between two gay men at a single's ward dance?

that's when you call together the Elders Quorum or Priests Quorum and throw them out of the building and escort them off the property. Violently if need be. Tell them they are only welcome back if they clean up their act.

That's when they bring the police back and arrest the EQ or PQ, for assault.

Why is a gay man holding hands and dancing with another gay man grounds for them both to be forced to leave, even escorted from the building? They aren't engaging in homosexual sex acts... they're engaging in the same behavior as the heterosexuals at the same dance.

Post by **_harmony** » Mon May 12, 2008 2:03 am

asbestosman wrote:
harmony wrote:Heterosexuals can hold hands, kiss, embrace, dance close, nuzzle, flirt, socialize with like-minded adults. How do you suppose the branch president would react, were that to happen between two gay men at a single's ward dance?

Probably the same way my bishop would react if I did that with any woman other than my wife.

Flirting is supposed to be a step towards marriage.

They are single LDS men. Why should they be precluded from engaging in the same behavior as other single LDS men, simply because their partner is also a single LDS man? They aren't having sex, Ab. They're holding hands and dancing.

Post by **_Coggins7** » Mon May 12, 2008 2:16 am

Harmony keeps up the pose, and quite a pose it is. This woman has nothing on Gumby.

Post by **_asbestosman** » Mon May 12, 2008 2:17 am

harmony wrote:They are single LDS men. Why should they be precluded from engaging in the same behavior as other single LDS men, simply because their partner is also a single LDS man? They aren't having sex, Ab. They're holding hands and dancing.

Other single LDS men would be told not to do it either even if they are heterosexual (not that they would).

If I hold hands with my bishop's wife, I'm not having sex, but you can bet I'd be in trouble.

The difference is that we allow single LDS men to flirt with women because that is a step towards dating, then courtship, and finally marriage. We don't single gays to take even a small step towards marriage with each other any more than we want single heterosexuals to take a step towards adultery with someone else's spouse.

Now, all that said I think it is largely dependant on culture. In some cultures kissing is something a lot more people do in which case perhaps it wouldn't be a big deal if a guy kisses a guy. I know at least in some cultures it isn't a big deal if a girl kisses a girl.

Is there anyting inherently wrong with homosexuality? No, no more so than there is something inherently wrong with remaining a bachelor, eating pork, or drinking coffee.