Life after the LC

Seems like people dont read their bible the LC doesnt have rules about dating the bible does.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Seems like people dont read their bible the LC doesnt have rules about dating the bible does.

The LC doesn't have rules because the LC doesn't need them. The LC has something they call "fellowship", where you get to hear the will of the Maximum Brothers for your life. You don't want to do anything apart from the fellowship, do you?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Seems like people dont read their bible the LC doesnt have rules about dating the bible does.

LC rules aren't necessarily spoken, unless it's in regards to something like the FTTA (no unnecessary contact with the opposite sex). Like aron said, rules come mainly through "fellowship". There was a situation in the LC that I'm from where an elder didn't like a couple dating each other, because he though they weren't a good match. I will spare you the details, but he tried to break up the relationship (unsuccessfully). This is called manipulation, like it or not.

It's not that leaders shouldn't give reasonable advice in regards to relationships, but when they step it, it can be very problematic. Every wonder why there are so many outsiders that attribute certain undesirable labels to the LC? This is why. There are many situations where those in the LC could learn to be a bit more "normal" about things. This means not being so "legalistic" about getting everyone to try to fit a certain standard.

[Freedom]

As a bit of a side note, I've seen an unintended side effect of restrictions on dating. In the LC I'm from (a smaller LC), I know of at least 3 "church kids" who turned out to be gay. Interestingly, contact with the opposite sex was virtually prohibited, so the reasonable conclusion is that some probably felt that due to the lack of experience in opposite-sex relationships, same-sex relationships were more of their thing. Obviously this isn't what leaders were quite intending when they applied such rules on relationships. Please note that I'm not trying to make any particular statement about the decisions of these young people, I just wanted to point out that there is a lot more going on than meets the eye.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Freedom

As a bit of a side note, I've seen an unintended side effect of restrictions on dating. In the LC I'm from (a smaller LC), I know of at least 3 "church kids" who turned out to be gay. Interestingly, contact with the opposite sex was virtually prohibited, so the reasonable conclusion is that some probably felt that due to the lack of experience in opposite-sex relationships, same-sex relationships were more of their thing. Obviously this isn't what leaders were quite intending when they applied such rules on relationships. Please note that I'm not trying to make any particular statement about the decisions of these young people, I just wanted to point out that there is a lot more going on than meets the eye.

Well maybe so, but I know brothers, and sisters, that left the LC and admitted they were gay -- and a couple that are gay, that are still in the LC, and deep in the closet (including an elder that was slipping out for tricks with boys) -- that I learned from, that being gay is not a choice.

We're born with our sexual orientation, like the color of our skin, eyes, hair, and height. So I doubt that the dating rules caused them to be attracted to the same sex. But like the RCC the environment may have provided a convenience for it to happen.

From what I've seen close up, like with Christian family members, Jesus has no affect on our sexual orientation, no more than He does to our height, skin, eyes, etc.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well maybe so, but I know brothers, and sisters, that left the LC and admitted they were gay -- and a couple that are gay, that are still in the LC, and deep in the closet (including an elder that was slipping out for tricks with boys) -- that I learned from, that being gay is not a choice.

We're born with our sexual orientation, like the color of our skin, eyes, hair, and height. So I doubt that the dating rules caused them to be attracted to the same sex. But like the RCC the environment may have provided a convenience for it to happen.

From what I've seen close up, like with Christian family members, Jesus has no affect on our sexual orientation, no more than He does to our height, skin, eyes, etc.

Harold, seriously? So if you are born with a bad temper, or a tendency to lie, or a weakness for too much alcohol, or a mean streak, then that makes those things okay as well?

Nature doesn't determine morality. Nature is supposed to submit to morality. The whole principle of being spiritual is that we rise above our animal instincts.

Jesus came to save us. What did he come to save us from if not our fallen nature? Jesus has no affect on our sexual orientation? He can affect anything he wants to.

Homosexual behavior is just one more sin, like lying, stealing, pride or being mean to people. The fact that you are born with a predisposition towards it is evidence of the fall, not that it's okay. If our tendencies were indication of what is permissible then that would mean men could have affairs with every attractive woman we lay our eyes on, since that is what we tend to want.

Let's stop falling for the cheesy, half-baked philosophies of the world.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Harold, seriously? So if you are born with a bad temper, or a tendency to lie, or a weakness for too much alcohol, or a mean streak, then that makes those things okay as well?

Nature doesn't determine morality. Nature is supposed to submit to morality. The whole principle of being spiritual is that we rise above our animal instincts.

Jesus came to save us. What did he come to save us from if not our fallen nature? Jesus has no affect on our sexual orientation? He can affect anything he wants to.

Homosexual behavior is just one more sin, like lying, stealing, pride or being mean to people. The fact that you are born with a predisposition towards it is evidence of the fall, not that it's okay. If our tendencies were indication of what is permissible then that would mean men could have affairs with every attractive woman we lay our eyes on, since that is what we tend to want.

Let's stop falling for the cheesy, half-baked philosophies of the world.

Bro Igzy I suppose we could get into a Bible battle about sex. But I don't think we should soil the forum by airing Bible laundry.

But I think we all get your point. Thanks for your correction.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro Igzy I suppose we could get into a Bible battle about sex. But I don't think we should soil the forum by airing Bible laundry.

But I think we all get your point. Thanks for your correction.

Your restraint is clear indication of your allowing your spiritual nature to prevail.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

As a bit of a side note, I've seen an unintended side effect of restrictions on dating. In the LC I'm from (a smaller LC), I know of at least 3 "church kids" who turned out to be gay. Interestingly, contact with the opposite sex was virtually prohibited, so the reasonable conclusion is that some probably felt that due to the lack of experience in opposite-sex relationships, same-sex relationships were more of their thing. Obviously this isn't what leaders were quite intending when they applied such rules on relationships. Please note that I'm not trying to make any particular statement about the decisions of these young people, I just wanted to point out that there is a lot more going on than meets the eye.

On the restrictions of dating, in my own youth I witnessed double-standards at play. Yet generally, those who submit to restrictions of dating (which includes any social interactions with the opposite gender), though the intentions of restrictions is noted, the result is young people becoming socially inept in relating to the opposite gender.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Terry

On the restrictions of dating, in my own youth I witnessed double-standards at play. Yet generally, those who submit to restrictions of dating (which includes any social interactions with the opposite gender), though the intentions of restrictions is noted, the result is young people becoming socially inept in relating to the opposite gender.

My restrictions of dating were taught to me as on the job training; learn as you go, sort of thing. The whole thing was a closely watched setup.

We weren't allowed alone together. We always had to be chaperoned.

Even back then I wondered, "If two devoted Christians can't be trusted to go to the movies together then what does that say about the Church they belong to?" (Like the flesh is so strong the Spirit doesn't stand a chance, and, we'd jump each other if left alone for a single little minute.) It was funny to me, but I was young and dumb, and very head in the clouds spiritual, and the whole meeting at one point prayed for it to be God's will. What was I to do? It had to be God's will -- even the dating restrictions -- romance (and love) had nothing to do with it.

But the restrictions were a very far cry from making me gay. I wasn't made like that, thank God, I conjecture. In those days I roomed with a gay brother in the basement of an elders house. He would have liked to make me gay. But just the idea of it grosses me out, and always has. I can be friends with with guys, but not romantically, or otherwise.

Come to think of it, maybe that's one reason I was able to be moved by the elder -- 'elders' on both ends, her end and mine - and an elder's wife in the middle -- to marry a sister I didn't even know.

That marriage began with LC support and required the same support to keep it going, unfortunately.

Dating restrictions? What a joke? And they don't clam to be a cult. Don't make me laugh. I may be dumb but I'm not stupid ... nor blind.

But apparently, not so back then.