Bill Reel Straw Man - 2015 Policy Edition

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

And yet you continue to flail, and flail in, your useless BS (best shot.)

 

"useless BS"?  Come on....and then you try to be funny by changing the meaning of BS?  

One could say the exact same thing about the opposing arguments of course.  At least his views are from someone who has lived and experienced being a member of the church who is gay.  His perspective is an important one and adds much to any conversation here on this topic.  Are they biased?  Of course.  But so are yours....so are mine....and so on....

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

I am sincerely curious if those expressing contempt for this policy are just bothered by this policy or if they are bothered by the deeper Law of Chastity rules around homosexuality.

So for those of you who have expressed that you think this policy is incorrect or wrong, I am curious:

First, I'd just like to note that in your first sentence you refer to "those expressing contempt" and in your second you refer to those who "think this policy is incorrect or wrong".

I consider myself to fall into the latter category but probably not the former.

2 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

For the church to be 'right' and 'correct' in your view with regards to homosexuality, would it need to change the rules associated with the Law of Chastity? For example, do you believe the church should teach it's a sin for:

• Two men or two women to date & kiss?
• Two men or two women to have intercourse?
• Someone to view gay pornography? (or straight pornography in that case - there really is no different between the two in my viewpoint)?
• Two men or two women to co-habitate (i.e., shack-up as everyone seems to call it in this thread)?
• Two men or two women to get married?

So, in your views, how should the church handle the above and why? Especially if you can cite scripture or teachings from the prophets to back up your view (assuming it's from a standpoint of faith) that would be helpful. 

I believe the law of chastity is that sexual relations are only to be between those who are married.  So for me, no change to the law of chastity is required.

However, since the Church has stated that it only recognizes opposite sex marriage,  it is that definition that, for me and my beliefs, should change (and I believe that it will).

I believe that...

...dating and kissing between two same gender homosexual individuals is okay.

...any intercourse outside of marriage is wrong.

...viewing pornography of any type is wrong.

...unmarried cohabitation is wrong.

 

I don't see any problem within our theology of allowing same gender couples to marry or even to be sealed (and I believe someday the Church will allow it).

 

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

And yet you continue to flail, and flail in, your useless BS (best shot.)

 

Inappropriate.

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Do you sincerely believe (a) that the Latter-day Saint ordinance of confirmation literally and in actuality confers the Gift of the Holy Ghost and (b) that this gift is unavailable to the same degree outside of this ordinance?

That is what the church teaches. Or used to at least.  But its a moving target knowing what the Church's position is on all sorts of stuff these days.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

The Law of Chastity is this:

The wording would only have to go back to what it was prior to this last change (if going by what is stated in the temple) and it would include those in a SSM.  Since there have been 2 changes already, it most definitely could change again in the future.

We could keep going around in circles here, let's just agree to disagree on this.  You believe it won't change (again) and I believe it could.

The wording was changed to express what it meant before society, with the acquiescence of the judicial system, redefined marriage. Parsing the wording without taking due cognizance of that redefinition is what I meant by lexical duplicity. 

It would be like taking all instances of the word “gay” that appeared before the word was co-opted to mean homosexual** and then insisting on applying this modern meaning to them. 

** As, for example, the line “don we now our gay apparel” in the Christmas carol “Deck the Halls with Boughs of Holly”. 

Edited to add: For the sake of clarity and truth, and any uninformed observers, I’m going to continue to call you out when you engage in such lexical duplicity. 

Edited March 14, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[PacMan]

54 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Members who are gay can still be the child's parents too.  I'm not sure what your point is here?

Not in the eternities. And that’s the point. 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, PacMan said:

Not in the eternities. And that’s the point. 

What you've stated here is certainly consistent with current Restoration doctrine.  But it gets interesting when you try to flesh it out with an example...

Let's say you've got a child who is raised by two lesbian moms.  They conceived with the use of anonymously donated sperm.  The child grows up knowing only these two moms as his/her parents.  He/she also knows their parents as his grandparents, their siblings as his aunts and uncles, etc.  This is the only family the child knows.

Do we picture this individual somehow being reassigned to another set up parents and sealed for all eternity to them in the next life?  Or perhaps the dissolution of the same gender marriage the child grew up in with the two moms becoming straight and being sealed to men so that now the individual becomes sealed to his two moms and the husbands that they are newly sealed to?

Just theorizing and trying to think through how this doctrine my be applied in the next life.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The wording was changed to express what it meant before society, with the acquiescence of the judicial system, redefined marriage.

I get that (and it also reflects the beliefs of the current leadership). 

And, the first change was made because the original Law of Chastity allowed the living of polygamy.

Time will tell what changes will or may be made in the future.  But, if we are going from our history on this (two changes thus far), there likely could be.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

 

I believe the law of chastity is that sexual relations are only to be between those who are married.  So for me, no change to the law of chastity is required.

 

The law of chastity means what it meant before society redefined marriage. So the above is another instance of lexical duplicity.

In order to be consistent, and to be fair to ALarson, whom I have just called out for it, I must call you out for doing the same thing.

Edited March 14, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, PacMan said:

Not in the eternities. And that’s the point. 

Not all parents will be with their children in the eternities if you're following our doctrines and teachings (I gave some examples).  So your point here isn't relevant (in trying to make this exclusively about gays). 

I have a difficult time believing that God would keep children from their parents if they are righteous.  Of course I know that our definition of what is "righteous" differs....but, what is important is what God defines as "righteous".

 

Edited March 14, 2019 by ALarson

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The law of chastity means what it meant before society redefined marriage. So the above is another instance of lexical duplicity.

In order to be consistent, and to be fair to ALarson, whom I have just called out for, I must call you out for doing the same thing.

It is not lexical duplicity to state what my belief is regarding the law of chastity.  You have no reason to call me out for anything.

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The law of chastity means what it meant before society redefined marriage.

Do you want to go back to the original Law of Chastity then? (It included allowing having sexual relations with those who you were not legally married to and still considered fully living the Law of Chastity.)

Edited March 14, 2019 by ALarson

[rockpond]

Just now, ALarson said:

Do you want to go back to the original Law of Chastity then?

I always chuckle inside when members of the church talk about society redefining marriage.  First, because LDS love to put our own definitions all over marriage.  And second, because marriage is a societal function.  Our first prophet in this dispensation had a section of the original book of commandments explaining that.

Our religious ordinance is sealing, not marriage.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

"useless BS"?  Come on....and then you try to be funny by changing the meaning of BS?  

One could say the exact same thing about the opposing arguments of course.  At least his views are from someone who has lived and experienced being a member of the church who is gay.  His perspective is an important one and adds much to any conversation here on this topic.  Are they biased?  Of course.  But so are yours....so are mine....and so on....

Yes, I'm  referring to caliboy's introduction of it in our minimal exchanges on this thread. I see it really must mean "boring strawman."

[CV75]

54 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Inappropriate.

Let's be fair and look at caliboy's original post and give him the same reply. No double standards or hypocrisy here!

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I always chuckle inside when members of the church talk about society redefining marriage.  First, because LDS love to put our own definitions all over marriage.  And second, because marriage is a societal function.  Our first prophet in this dispensation had a section of the original book of commandments explaining that.

Exactly....and that is the point I'm making  

Edited March 14, 2019 by ALarson

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, I'm  referring to caliboy's introduction of it in our minimal exchanges on this thread. I see it really must mean "boring strawman."

You're being completely out of line and disrespectful here.  If he bothers you this much, just ignore him.  But stop with the insults and rudeness aimed at him, please.

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, sjdawg said:

You believe a non-member parent (whether married or not)believes that they are sinning?  I respectfully disagree.

I do, however, agree that we are setting children up for failure if we are baptizing people without the full support and cooperation of the parents. That is the reason I suggest waiting for until they are adults for all types of non-conforming families not just homosexual parents.  I've lived through the stigma, shame, and worry that comes with having a non-believing parent.  Each lesson on the word of wisdom, law of chastity, eternal families, priesthood was just a reminder that my family didn't fit the mold.  My father was supportive of my mother taking us to church but he certainly didn't believe he was sinning.  The lessons being taught in church were dividing our family every bit as much as anything being taught was bringing us together.

Personally I don't understand why any homosexual parents would want their kids to have anything to do with Mormonism.  It is a recipe for disaster.  I just don't believe that only families of gay people should be singled out.  If it is based on the law of chastity then don't let the children of anyone whose parents aren't living the law of chastity join until the issue is resolved.  Treat all sexual sin (speaking from the perspective of mormonsim, not my own belief) the same way.

 

I was assuming that the parents who are doing those other things (law of chastity violations, etc) are members of the Church. 
 

[CV75]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You're being completely out of line and disrespectful here.  If he bothers you this much, just ignore him.  But stop with the insults and rudeness aimed at him, please.

So you say... I don't see the insult, and he doesn't bother me that much. Does the contraction of his name mean something I'm not aware of?  People call me CV all the time, and I,m sure they call you AL. I am pointing out, consistent with the OP, thatraw,en are being given out like candy and are about as nutritious.

Edited March 14, 2019 by CV75

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Let's be fair and look at caliboy's original post and give him the same reply. No double standards or hypocrisy here!

I'm referring to your use of the common acronym for a curse word.  Let's leave that kind of talk off these boards.

[CA Steve]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm referring to your use of the common acronym for a curse word.  Let's leave that kind of talk off these boards.

There was a great story floating around my mission that, as LeGrand Richards would say, "if it isn't true it ought to be", about Bruce McConkie picking up a copy of one of Cleon Skousen's books and proceeding to make it up thoroughly by writing big red "B.S." throughout. When asked about the meaning of the markups, Elder McConkie replied that he was just noting wherever he thought Brother Skousen was wrong. 

[Anonymous Mormon]

33 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Let's say you've got a child who is raised by two lesbian moms.  They conceived with the use of anonymously donated sperm.  The child grows up knowing only these two moms as his/her parents.  He/she also knows their parents as his grandparents, their siblings as his aunts and uncles, etc.  This is the only family the child knows.

Do we picture this individual somehow being reassigned to another set up parents and sealed for all eternity to them in the next life?  Or perhaps the dissolution of the same gender marriage the child grew up in with the two moms becoming straight and being sealed to men so that now the individual becomes sealed to his two moms and the husbands that they are newly sealed to?

Just theorizing and trying to think through how this doctrine my be applied in the next life.

This isn't really different than an orphan or someone raised by a relative other than a parent or someone from a part member family. 

My understanding is that the Gospel teaches that only those who are righteous enough (according to God's just judgement) to accept and receive their sealing will do so. Everyone else will not be sealed with eternal families. So there will be lots of missing people in the welding eternal link. I've always understood it to be that they will just skip some generations. I don't know of any doctrine that who one considers to be a mother figure (or multiple mother figures if they have multiple mothers) has any bearing on whether someone will be sealed to that person for eternity. That would be pure conjecture and creating new doctrine for the afterlife.

Also, I really believe that when a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife, then that is the most important part of the sealing. I am not entirely sure if/why it matters who they accepted as a mother figure in their lives. I also can't find any sound basis for a man/man or woman/woman having that same promise that they can have eternal increase.

The doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ is pretty unique in that gender matters in our doctrine after this life, because we believe it mattered before hand. The whole idea of a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother presupposes the idea that gender is an eternal characteristic. It's actually a pretty cool concept and doctrine when you stop to consider it, and something else that no other religion I know of has!!!!!

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I get that (and it also reflects the beliefs of the current leadership). 

And, the first change was made because the original Law of Chastity allowed the living of polygamy.

Time will tell what changes will or may be made in the future.  But, if we are going from our history on this (two changes thus far), there likely could be.

The difference is that the Lord ceased to permit or authorize plurality of wives. Thus, entering into plurality of wives on earth ceased to be lawful under the law of the Lord. No one consulted the Lord or the Church before redefining marriage. 

Edited March 14, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

It is not lexical duplicity to state what my belief is regarding the law of chastity.  You have no reason to call me out for anything.

It’s duplicitous to apply your own quirky meaning to the wording used by the Church to express a law of God and then pretend that you are adhering to that law. 

[Calm]

7 hours ago, ALarson said:

What can a child do who is living in a home where the parents are "shacking up"?  Where parents are drinking"  Where parents are doing drugs?

They can hope the parents get married, stop drinking, stop doing drugs.  All of which do not affect their family structure in a bad way, but strengthen it.

The only family structure I see as potentially destroyed if parents were to choose to start living by church standards is one where one parent is actually married to someone else.  A divorce and destruction of another family would have to take place in order to strengthen that family's bonds.  Still while the child might feel bad for the other family, it does not desolve his own as would be required if his parents were gay or in a polygamy situation and then chose to follow church standards of marriage.  This is probably not a common occurrence here, but might be in countries where divorce is not legal or very difficult to get.

Would be interesting to know if there are restrictions on baptism of children in such areas.

Edited March 14, 2019 by Calm