Sunday, June 27, 2010

Dinner And a Movie

Heterosexuals Timmy and Tamara are good friends. The go out to movies and to dinners. They like each other. They consider each other the best-est of friends.

Okay, they are a little too old to be considering each other their BFFs, but you get the point. Timmy’s mother, Mrs. Tim thinks the relationship is a bit weird. She often gives Tamara the evil eye and makes remarks about Tamara’s habit of drinking diet coke incessantly and wearing too much eye shadow.

Tamara at one time thought her relationship with Timmy should move into something romantic, but it just never worked out that way. Timmy thought the same thing to, but again – timing is everything. For various reasons, they choose to remain good friends without benefits.

Should Mrs. Tim chill out and let the relationship be? Can T and T enjoy what they have keeping this relationship alive and active without marring or having sex?

Is it appropriate for two heterosexuals to enjoy appropriate, non-sexual relationships for the duration of their single lives?

Sam and Sandy are two men who like movies and eating as well. They accompany each other to shows and have dinners in restaurants and once went to a futbol game. Futbol, not football – but they would have gone to football if there had been tickets available. They like each other and enjoy each other’s company.

Sams Mother, Mrs. Samuel thinks is a bit odd – Sam and Sandy’s relationship. She makes comments behind Sandy’s backs making fun of his corduroys and boots. Sam likes Sandy and thought about changing the relationship, but decided against it. He even talked it over with Sandy once. They agreed it was probably better they not make theirs a sexual relationship for various reasons, but they still want to stay close.

Should Mrs. Samuel but out? Can Sam and Sandy stay friends; keep their jobs and church positions?

Do we allow homosexuals the same moral privileges we allow heterosexuals?

Here is a scripture reference from today's sundayschool lesion I taught.

1 And it came to pass... that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul...
3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.

From what I understand, this love that was shared was not sexual in any way - David later marries Jonathan's sister and loves her. Do I think they may have hugged? Would we look at that as weird if it was done today?

So, let’s throw that into the mix. Let’s add physical affection as in holding hands or an affectionate kiss good-bye. Is there such thing as a non-sexual kiss? Would we freak out as a people to see two men being physically affectionate? Not sexually, but physically? For us, is there a difference?

If sex between men is considered wrong, have we created a place in the Mormon church for affection?

When I was on my mission in central America, we saw two young men walking down the road arm in arm - and I mean wrapped up. One of them carried a normal one-person umbrella. Oh, and it was raining. I said, joking, that they must really like each other. My companion answered, "Or they just want to stay dry".

In the LDS church, are current teachings, standards and especially opinions such that would allow a wholesome relationship to exist between any men regardless of their sexuality?


  1. Very very good thoughts, I have to say. I like your point of view.

    LDS Church never really draws an exact line of definition of homosexual relationship. In the For the Strength of Youth, it just tells us what to do and not to do between a man and a woman. It never tells us what to do and not to do between two people of same gender. Am I right or right?

    Joned ^_^

  2. This is where we get really fuzzy...and anything gets to be open to interpretation according to our whims. Pure awesomeness.

  3. The General Handbook of Instruction (at least while I was on my mission) says no homosexual activity. So kissing, holding hands, being intimate, all of that--Off limits.

    Many gay LDS feel that the Church opposes only gay sex. Sex should be within the bonds of marriage and gays can't get married. So no gay sex.

    That isn't true however. The Church opposes any homosexual actions. They used to even oppose gay thoughts. But they've calmed down a bit on that part. But gay actions--Off limits. So you may see two gay men holding hands as completely within the bounds of the law of chastity. But it is not. Nice double standard.

  4. Two or three prophets ago, Spencer W Kimball was very affectionate with the brethren (I'm not just talking about two-hand shaking) it was open hugs and kisses on the cheek at least between him and other GA's (If you're too young to remember this ask your parents and/or grandparents). Did Mrs Kimball think it was too weird? Was that OK because they were old men and not young BYU twinks?

  5. @Public Loneliness: I think Mrs. Kimball said, "Oh, It's just brotherhood things."


  6. Your miss comp must have been local. Its different i just aabout every other part of the world. Men are allowed to express affection like people.

  7. There is not enough physical affection shown appropriately and non-sexually throughout the United States, this American cultural practice has rooted deeply in the LDS Church with its vast numbers of members in the American West with the strange exception of butt patting during Ward basketball pick up games.

    One nice thing about becoming older is that you can give and receive more hugs without it being so threatening to others. It's always appropriate to ask first though . . . .

  8. I don't ask... I just do what feels right... which includes a lot of hugging! Damn the cultural stigma of the "don't touch" policy.

  9. I just find that sad and weird that men have to be so concerned about touching--- what will others think, does this make me look gay? Stupid. Women don't have this barrier to affection, in fact I think it's seen as perfectly normal - maybe not the kissing part but the affection part for sure. Most people think nothing of women locked in arms, or holding hands.
    When I was growing up there were two "spinsters" who lived in our ward- probably lived together for 40 years- no one batted an eye- I was convinced then that they were a couple.

  10. I like the scripture refference. I always thought the relationship between David and John to be a rightious one that I aspire to myself. Good Blog.

  11. The man may have been referring to the General Handbook of Instructions. Formal Church discipline, including probation, disfellowshipment, or excommunication, must be preceded by a disciplinary council. And disciplinary councils may be called only for members who have committed a "serious transgression", which is listed as including "homosexual ... See Morerelations". But I doubt that homosexual relations would be interpreted as including holding hands or kissing (It's not specified in the handbook; so it looks like this was just the interpretation of the blog commenter or someone else). Otherwise, Spencer W. Kimball would have had to have been excommunicated.

  12. all i know is i HATE the line. gives me so much unneeded greif.