Law of Chastity Enforcement

[RobinFinderson]

Could very many straight guys do something like this just to make some type of a political statement? I don't think so.

You'd have to find a bi-curious guy. Did you ask Mike Waters?

He wasn't married at the time. I may have discussed the idea with him, but I don't remember. I thought that we would both have to be pedigreed heterosexuals, with temple marriages, to pull the thing off. Lots of straight actors play gay and vice versa. It is just holding hands and a backrub. Hell, President Bush holds the hands of Saudi princes and rubs the back of Angela Merkel and he always struck me as straight as they come.

[wuapinmon]

He wasn't married at the time. I may have discussed the idea with him, but I don't remember. I thought that we would both have to be pedigreed heterosexuals, with temple marriages, to pull the thing off. Lots of straight actors play gay and vice versa. It is just holding hands and a backrub. Hell, President Bush holds the hands of Saudi princes and rubs the back of Angela Merkel and he always struck me as straight as they come.

[YOUTUBE]
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/of8EnmAyB0s&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/of8EnmAyB0s&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

[BigPiney]

In college I had a gay friend who attended the byu before he decided to transfer.

I knew I liked you. It is also acceptable to say "the BY".

[Solon]

I knew I liked you. It is also acceptable to say "the BY".

Oh yeah, "the BY." That's classic.

I got "the byu" from my father-in-law, who's as old-timey as it gets.

Note to board: my gay friend at the BY was not Big Piney.

[Solon]

I don't remember anything about "man and woman" in the temple covenant. I do remember something about "legally and lawfully wedded." Am I wrong about the wording? I'm not arguing here, just asking.

I've been thinking about this since Monday, when Utah began re-issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, and to legally recognize their marriages for the foreseeable future.

I'm pretty sure that the LDS temple defines chastity as telling women & men to have no sexual relations except with their "husbands & wives to whom they are legally and lawfully wedded." The phrasing suggests that women are married to husbands, and men to wives, but that is not really a sticking point in this context (yet).

I think it's only a matter of time before we start to see more obvious cracks in this definition. It's not just about whether or not to allow homosexuals to marry in the temple. I think the first stresses will come at lower levels of membership-progression. For instance, what if a legally married gay person wants to be baptized? Is the church going to require a divorce? Or what if a legally married homosexual LDS person wants to go through the temple for his/her own endowment - not to get sealed to a spouse, but for the endowment only? I can also see a scenario where an LDS bishop/stake president would quietly support this.

I wonder if the LDS church is going to have to change this definition of "chastity." Perhaps it will maintain current practices without really paying attention to what the rules & teachings actually say.
Or, just maybe, this will be a nice little loophole for embracing gay members & gay marriage into LDS belief (I'm not holding my breath).

[Paperback Writer]

I've been thinking about this since Monday, when Utah began re-issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, and to legally recognize their marriages for the foreseeable future.

I'm pretty sure that the LDS temple defines chastity as telling women & men to have no sexual relations except with their "husbands & wives to whom they are legally and lawfully wedded." The phrasing suggests that women are married to husbands, and men to wives, but that is not really a sticking point in this context (yet).

I think it's only a matter of time before we start to see more obvious cracks in this definition. It's not just about whether or not to allow homosexuals to marry in the temple. I think the first stresses will come at lower levels of membership-progression. For instance, what if a legally married gay person wants to be baptized? Is the church going to require a divorce? Or what if a legally married homosexual LDS person wants to go through the temple for his/her own endowment - not to get sealed to a spouse, but for the endowment only? I can also see a scenario where an LDS bishop/stake president would quietly support this.

I wonder if the LDS church is going to have to change this definition of "chastity." Perhaps it will maintain current practices without really paying attention to what the rules & teachings actually say.
Or, just maybe, this will be a nice little loophole for embracing gay members & gay marriage into LDS belief (I'm not holding my breath).

It will be interesting to watch it unfold. I expect in my children's lifetime the blessings of the temple will be extended to gays but may stop short of sealings of gay marriages. I'm not too sure if the LDS church is ready for it now but it would seem there's a little time while gay marriage continues to be decided in the courts. I was discussing this with a hardline Mormon yesterday. My thought was that once gay marriage was decided by the US Supreme Court, the LDS church would recognize gay marriages and modify its chastity definition to fidelity within a legal marriage. I mentioned the LDS church being able to fall back on the 12th Article of Faith. But the hardline Mormon guy came back with: "...the US Supreme Court legalized abortion but its still a sin....". Maybe the LDS church will revert to a policy of "don't ask, don't tell". Will be interesting.

[Uncle Ted]

I've been thinking about this since Monday, when Utah began re-issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, and to legally recognize their marriages for the foreseeable future.

I'm pretty sure that the LDS temple defines chastity as telling women & men to have no sexual relations except with their "husbands & wives to whom they are legally and lawfully wedded." The phrasing suggests that women are married to husbands, and men to wives, but that is not really a sticking point in this context (yet).

I think it's only a matter of time before we start to see more obvious cracks in this definition. It's not just about whether or not to allow homosexuals to marry in the temple. I think the first stresses will come at lower levels of membership-progression. For instance, what if a legally married gay person wants to be baptized? Is the church going to require a divorce? Or what if a legally married homosexual LDS person wants to go through the temple for his/her own endowment - not to get sealed to a spouse, but for the endowment only? I can also see a scenario where an LDS bishop/stake president would quietly support this.

I wonder if the LDS church is going to have to change this definition of "chastity." Perhaps it will maintain current practices without really paying attention to what the rules & teachings actually say.
Or, just maybe, this will be a nice little loophole for embracing gay members & gay marriage into LDS belief (I'm not holding my breath).

It is not like the LDS church hasn't aligned its definition of chastity with the law before... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Anti-Bigamy_Act (Well, eventually)

It may take a while, however, for the revelation to come but when it does it will be glorious.

[MarkGrace]

I've been thinking about this since Monday, when Utah began re-issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, and to legally recognize their marriages for the foreseeable future.

I'm pretty sure that the LDS temple defines chastity as telling women & men to have no sexual relations except with their "husbands & wives to whom they are legally and lawfully wedded." The phrasing suggests that women are married to husbands, and men to wives, but that is not really a sticking point in this context (yet).

I think it's only a matter of time before we start to see more obvious cracks in this definition. It's not just about whether or not to allow homosexuals to marry in the temple. I think the first stresses will come at lower levels of membership-progression. For instance, what if a legally married gay person wants to be baptized? Is the church going to require a divorce? Or what if a legally married homosexual LDS person wants to go through the temple for his/her own endowment - not to get sealed to a spouse, but for the endowment only? I can also see a scenario where an LDS bishop/stake president would quietly support this.

I wonder if the LDS church is going to have to change this definition of "chastity." Perhaps it will maintain current practices without really paying attention to what the rules & teachings actually say.
Or, just maybe, this will be a nice little loophole for embracing gay members & gay marriage into LDS belief (I'm not holding my breath).

Pretty soon you'll just see banners at LDS churches like the ones you see at other churches around here because we love gays and Nirvana. In fact, I should just go steal this one and put it up on our building.

Rainbow.jpg

[Northwestcoug]

Not to rain on everyone's rainbow parade, though I welcome a more inclusive church:

I am very pessimistic about the church welcoming gays and lesbians through official temple ceremonies, at least in my lifetime. I think a move like this would strike at the heart of what the church has told women from the beginning; namely their worth is centered around being a wife and a mother. If the church allows gays and lesbians to get married in the temple, what does that do to the church's concept of women? Marriage is still the ultimate ideal for the church, and women's divine roles are attained through marriage and nothing else. If the doctrine changes so that marriage includes two of the same sex, not only does it essentially destroy the concept of marriage as the church teaches it, but it also rewrites most of the roles God has supposedly given women.

Sorry, I just don't see it happening any time soon.

[Paperback Writer]

Not to rain on everyone's rainbow parade, though I welcome a more inclusive church:

I am very pessimistic about the church welcoming gays and lesbians through official temple ceremonies, at least in my lifetime. I think a move like this would strike at the heart of what the church has told women from the beginning; namely their worth is centered around being a wife and a mother. If the church allows gays and lesbians to get married in the temple, what does that do to the church's concept of women? Marriage is still the ultimate ideal for the church, and women's divine roles are attained through marriage and nothing else. If the doctrine changes so that marriage includes two of the same sex, not only does it essentially destroy the concept of marriage as the church teaches it, but it also rewrites most of the roles God has supposedly given women.

Sorry, I just don't see it happening any time soon.

I don't see the church allowing temple sealings to gay marriages anytime soon. Allowing gays to enter the temple though, I could see happening much sooner.

Something to consider: a lesbian can also be a wife and a mother. No re-writing of traditional roles in that instance. More of an expansion of what is considered an acceptable marriage.

[Northwestcoug]

I don't see the church allowing temple sealings to gay marriages anytime soon. Allowing gays to enter the temple though, I could see happening much sooner.

Something to consider: a lesbian can also be a wife and a mother. No re-writing of traditional roles in that instance. More of an expansion of what is considered an acceptable marriage.

I don't think the church would want to historically revisit another class of 'member-lite' with restricted privileges by endowing gays, and nothing else. But I could be wrong.

Yes, allowing lesbians to marry wouldn't necessarily re-write a woman's role. But again, it would still destroy the church's current concept of marriage as being an eternal bond of two people with separate roles, one being the priesthood and the other motherhood.

[TripletDaddy]

gays can already enter the temple and participate. as long as they aren't participating in any sort of physical activity, they should be good to go. Im waiting for the first gay married celibate LDS couple. If you ever wanted to land your photo in the ensign or lds living, that would be the ticket, especially if you are Polynesian!

[Paperback Writer]

I don't think the church would want to historically revisit another class of 'member-lite' with restricted privileges by endowing gays, and nothing else. But I could be wrong.

Yes, allowing lesbians to marry wouldn't necessarily re-write a woman's role. But again, it would still destroy the church's current concept of marriage as being an eternal bond of two people with separate roles, one being the priesthood and the other motherhood.

In other words, the LDS church needs to ordain females. Kidding aside, I'm in agreement. However, traditional marital roles are evolving in our society; although more slowly within LDS culture. But roles are getting blurred and I think that is a good thing. For instance, I have a sibling who is a stay-at-home parent and married to a female CEO. If that could occur with an active-LDS family, perhaps it would be more acceptable, in the future, with an active-lesbian-LDS family.

[Pelado]

gays can already enter the temple and participate. as long as they aren't participating in any sort of physical activity, they should be good to go. Im waiting for the first gay married celibate LDS couple. If you ever wanted to land your photo in the ensign or lds living, that would be the ticket, especially if you are Polynesian!

Gays who exercise are restricted from temple access?

[TripletDaddy]

Gays who exercise are restricted from temple access?

only if they are working on their abs.