Let's stop beating around the bush

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

To the church, saying SSA is not a sin, is like saying a passing thought of a naked beautiful woman is not a sin, if not dwelt upon by the thinker.

However, love, LOVE, LOVE is a very different thing. And for a man to love another man is horrifying, and means that SSA has gone too far, and is now devilish and evil.

Why is holding hands so offensive and worthy of priesthood intervention? Because it indicates love. And if a man can truly love a man, in the true sense of love, then there is no God.

It's really as simple as that.

Is that true? I don't think so. Emotional attachment is not the same as physical comsummation. Holding hands may or may not be a probelm, but it is certainly not some Rubicon-esque trip wire for church discipline.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by creekster

Is that true? I don't think so. Emotional attachment is not the same as physical comsummation. Holding hands may or may not be a probelm, but it is certainly not some Rubicon-esque trip wire for church discipline.

The way that a man can love a woman, and a woman can love a man--it is not possible per Mormonism, that a man can love a man in the same way.

Period. Because love is a gift from God. And the love of a man towards a man is evil.

It's really simple. And it explains how the church cannot budge an inch in recognizing any truth in the love of a man for a man.

Will specific examples convince you? I doubt it. So I won't go to the trouble of acquiring them.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The way that a man can love a woman, and a woman can love a man--it is not possible per Mormonism, that a man can love a man in the same way.

Period. Because love is a gift from God. And the love of a man towards a man is evil.

It's really simple. And it explains how the church cannot budge an inch in recognizing any truth in the love of a man for a man.

Will specific examples convince you? I doubt it. So I won't go to the trouble of acquiring them.

I am confused (really, and more so than usually). Are you spekaing euphemistically about the love of a man for a woman? Or do you mean that the church literally will discipline a man for being emoitonally attached to another man regardless of any physical consumamtion of the attachemnt? I am not aware that this is true; do you believe it to be true?

[non sequitur]

This is an excerpt from BYU's honor code:

One's stated same-gender attraction is not an Honor Code issue. However, the Honor Code requires all members of the university community to manifest a strict commitment to the law of chastity. Homosexual behavior and/or advocacy of homosexual behavior are inappropriate and violate the Honor Code. Homosexual behavior includes not only sexual relations between members of the same sex, but all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings. Advocacy includes seeking to influence others to engage in homosexual behavior or promoting homosexual relations as being morally acceptable.

Violations of the Honor Code may result in actions up to and including separation from the University.

Isn't that self-contradictory? It's okay to have same sex attraction, but it's not okay to have homosexual feelings?

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

This is an excerpt from BYU's honor code:

One's stated same-gender attraction is not an Honor Code issue. However, the Honor Code requires all members of the university community to manifest a strict commitment to the law of chastity. Homosexual behavior and/or advocacy of homosexual behavior are inappropriate and violate the Honor Code. Homosexual behavior includes not only sexual relations between members of the same sex, but all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings. Advocacy includes seeking to influence others to engage in homosexual behavior or promoting homosexual relations as being morally acceptable.

Violations of the Honor Code may result in actions up to and including separation from the University.

Isn't that self-contradictory? It's okay to have same sex attraction, but it's not okay to have homosexual feelings?

I disagree with it, but it's not self-contradictory. You can HAVE homosexual feelings and admit to those feelings but you can't physically EXPRESS homosexual feelings, even with holding hands, kissing, etc.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

I disagree with it, but it's not self-contradictory. You can HAVE homosexual feelings and admit to those feelings but you can't physically EXPRESS homosexual feelings, even with holding hands, kissing, etc.

But surely you can read between the lines. If the feelings are not sinful, then how can there be a sin in expressing those feelings. The Church's attitude seems to be: "If you're attracted to someone of the same sex, that's fine. Just keep it to yourself."

[creekster]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

But surely you can read between the lines. If the feelings are not sinful, then how can there be a sin in expressing those feelings. The Church's attitude seems to be: "If you're attracted to someone of the same sex, that's fine. Just keep it to yourself."

As I noted, I don't like looking ot the HC for this issue, but even so I think you are looking at it backwards. THe portion you highlighted prohibits physical acts that are expressions of homosexual feelings. Itis not talking about verbal expressions, it is talking about acting physically on urges, or acticing physically so as to create urges.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by creekster

As I noted, I don't like looking ot the HC for this issue, but even so I think you are looking at it backwards. THe portion you highlighted prohibits physical acts that are expressions of homosexual feelings. Itis not talking about verbal expressions, it is talking about acting physically on urges, or acticing physically so as to create urges.

Let me give you a hypothetical:

Suppose there were a person with same sex attraction that was in love with another man but never physically acted on his attraction. Let's also suppose that he lived with the person he was in love with and that he made no secret to people in the ward that he was in love with his partner. How do you suppose his verbal expressions of love would go over in the ward?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Let me give you a hypothetical:

Suppose there were a person with same sex attraction that was in love with another man but never physically acted on his attraction. Let's also suppose that he lived with the person he was in love with and that he made no secret to people in the ward that he was in love with his partner. How do you suppose his verbal expressions of love would go over in the ward?

Not well, but that is a different issue altogether.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

Not well, but that is a different issue altogether.

I suppose nonseq believes in the Easter Bunny as well.

A man sexually attracted to any object and stays within proximity of it, will not act upon it? Yeah right.

And the BYU coed will refuse to eat the twinkie in front of her, if nobody is watching in the middle of the night.