Orontes
Master of the Horse
A fetish and a person's sexuality are not necessarily the same thing.
A fetish is by definition the eroticization and sexualization of the nonerrogenous. It is therefore inseparable from a person's sexuality.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A fetish and a person's sexuality are not necessarily the same thing.
Hope you don't mind a Jew butting in here, but I couldn't agree more. If convenient, please tell this Bishop that he has my respect.
Thank you, Jay and Terry. for your kind words.A very special person has a special Bishop.
It all comes down to understanding the extent of God's love.
I had an interesting temple recommend interview today. This was one of about a dozen questions that are routinely asked, and this is an abbreviated version of the conversation went when I responded to that question:
Bishop: Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
Me: I'd have to say that I'm quite a bit more liberal than most members of the Church, bishop.
Bishop (looking slightly surprised to hear this response): "Okay? Uh...?"
Me: Well, for starters, I have no objections to same-sex marriage.
Bishop: Uh huh.
Me: Would you like me to elaborate?
Bishop: Would you like to?
Me: Well, having said what I just did, I guess I probably ought to. Um... (pausing to collect my thoughts and decide how I was going to word this). Well, I believe that in God's eyes, marriage to is be between a man and a woman. I don't believe the Church should ever have to start performing same-sex marriages or issue temple recommends to same-sex couples. On the other hand, I am absolutely in favor of the separation of church and state. I believe all individuals are entitled to their civil rights -- including the rights that heterosexual married couples have, simply because they are married. Rights like insurance benefits, end-of-life decisions, etc.
Bishop: I agree!
Me: (wondering if I heard him correctly). What I'm trying to say is that I see marriage from two different perspectives, and I would use the words "holy matrimony" and "civil unions" to describe how I see marriage, depending upon is involved.
Bishop: Uh huh. I agree. I definitely believe we are all entitled to the same civil rights. The problem -- when you use the word "marriage" -- seems to be one of semantics. People can't seem to agree what terminology is acceptable. I do know how you feel about this, Susan (not my real name, as most of you know). I know you and Cheryl marched in last year's Pride Parade with Mormons Building Bridges.
Me: Uh, yes. How did you know that?
Bishop: It was on your Facebook page.
Me: Oh yeah, that's right.
Bishop: It's okay, really. Just make sure people know what it is you're standing for.
Me: Well, I try not to get into it with people. I don't want people judging me.
Bishop: You need to get into it with people. Not everybody thinks as deeply as you do. So many members of the Church don't even know what they believe or why.
Me: Well, when the subject comes up, I'll talk about it. You do understand why I marched, don't you?
Bishop: In support of their civil rights, I assume.
Me: Well, not really. I believe they are entitled to these rights, but if that's why I'd been marching, I'd have marched with Mormons for Equality (which has been actively pushing for same-sex marriage for years). I basically agree with what they're doing, but I didn't march with them. I marched with Mormons Building Bridges to make a different kind of statement. In this group of over 400 LDS marchers, one person was holding up a sign containing the words to a Primary (i.e. Mormon children's group) song: "Jesus turned away from none. He showed His love to everyone." I'm sick and tired of how members of the Church look down on gays and how they treat them. Lots of people were marching because they have a son who is gay or a sister who is lesbian. I was marching for the gay Mormon who has nobody.
Bishop: You're awesome. (or something very similar -- I don't want to put words in his mouth, but it was along those lines). I love you, Susan.
Me: I really appreciate your saying that, bishop. It means a lot to me. I just have a really hard time believing that it's our place to be imposing punishments on people whose moral choices are different from ours. And I can't help feeling the way I do.
Bishop: I know what you're saying. No, we shouldn't be punishing them. We shouldn't even be judging them.
Me: You know, I've marched twice. The first year, on the way down to the parade, I kept thinking, "What would my bishop think?" By the time the parade was half over, I was thinking, "Who cares what my bishop thinks. I know what my Heavenly Father thinks, and he's fine with this."
Bishop: So's your bishop.
Me: I'm really glad to hear that. I was afraid you might tell me to go home and repent. This isn't something I can repent of. It's what's in my heart.
Bishop: You have nothing to repent of.
Note: This interview lasted about 45 minutes. I haven't loved a bishop as much as I love this bishop in a very, very long time.
I'm so happy that you enjoyed my post and especially that you agree with me! (Oh, by the way, I didn't use my real name in the post. My real name is Kathryn.)Sorry Katz, I know this is a very old thread but it was wonderful to read. I agree with you completely, but while I have always thought this in my head I've never known how to say it! It was wonderful to see what I've been thinking written down
Oh and I prefer your real name
I'm so happy that you enjoyed my post and especially that you agree with me! (Oh, by the way, I didn't use my real name in the post. My real name is Kathryn.)
I don't think so. As a matter of fact, after we concluded the interview, I said, "Now, what I want to know is do I have to go through this whole conversation again with someone from the stake presidency?" He said, "No, not if you don't want to. If it will make you feel better, then you certainly may, but it's not necessary. I would suggest, though, that if you do want to hear another voice of support, you make an appointment specifically with President Peterson (not his real name) as opposed to one of his counselors. I'm not sure how they feel, but I'm pretty sure that President Peterson (the stake president) would feel the same way I do."Glad to hear about this progressive bishop, but I can't help but wonder if Salt Lake knew what was going on they'd crack down on both of you.
I don't think so. As a matter of fact, after we concluded the interview, I said, "Now, what I want to know is do I have to go through this whole conversation again with someone from the stake presidency?" He said, "No, not if you don't want to. If it will make you feel better, then you certainly may, but it's not necessary. I would suggest, though, that if you do want to hear another voice of support, you make an appointment specifically with President Peterson (not his real name) as opposed to one of his counselors. I'm not sure how they feel, but I'm pretty sure that President Peterson (the stake president) would feel the same way I do."
So you think that both my bishop and my stake president have just been good at flying under Salt Lake's radar, and that it's only a matter of time before they're find themselves in a church court? I suspect that neither of them is really sweating it.President Peterson is not "Salt Lake," if you know what I mean.
So you think that both my bishop and my stake president have just been good at flying under Salt Lake's radar, and that it's only a matter of time before they're find themselves in a church court? I suspect that neither of them is really sweating it.
Actually, I have a feeling Salt Lake doesn't really particularly care. The fact that both my bishop and my stake president are both on the same page tells me that they're not the only ones. I doubt Salt Lake is really that clueless or that concerned.I think Salt Lake is none the wiser, but that they wouldn't approve.
Actually, I have a feeling Salt Lake doesn't really particularly care. The fact that both my bishop and my stake president are both on the same page tells me that they're not the only ones. I doubt Salt Lake is really that clueless or that concerned.
Yeah, it does. What you do say we stop (since we're friends and all)?It sounds like we're both speculating.