Jump to content
PacMan

Bill Reel Straw Man - 2015 Policy Edition

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

I am not being duplicitous Scott and I take offense at your continued insistence that I am being deceitful in any way.  As a matter of integrity you ought to retract this statement.  I stated quite clearly that this was my belief and I also acknowledged, in the very same post, that the Church further defines marriage as only between man and woman. 

Let's recall that I was responding to @Anonymous Mormon's question about how those of us who oppose the Nov 2015 policy understand the law of chastity.  That is the context of my answer.

If you do a search for "law of chastity" on the church's website and then click on "topics" in the results the top search result states:  "Chastity is sexual purity. Those who are chaste are morally clean in their thoughts, words, and actions. Chastity means not having any sexual relations before marriage. It also means complete fidelity to husband or wife during marriage."

In response to @Anonymous Mormon, I explain that while I acknowledge the Church's definition of marriage, my personal belief includes same gender couples within that definition.  You are more than welcome to disagree but you are not entitled to accuse me of duplicity when I have not been.

So, to boil this down, then, there is <the> law of chastity as given by God and as taught by the Church, and there is <your> law of chastity with your own provisos and definitions.  I suppose I can live with that, so long as you are careful to make the differentiation clear. 

By the way, I’ve never endorsed the use of foul language on this or any board. Do not drag my name into a discussion about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So, to boil this down, then, there is <the> law of chastity as given by God and as taught by the Church, and there is <your> law of chastity with your own provisos and definitions.  I suppose I can live with that, so long as you are careful to make the differentiation clear. 

What each of us believe is revealed by God is a matter of individual faith and spiritual confirmation.   What is taught by the Church is a matter of record and one which I plainly acknowledged and then cited.

 

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

By the way, I’ve never endorsed the use of foul language on this or any board. Do not drag my name into a discussion about it. 

I didn’t claim that you had.  But you did call me duplicitous without basis and have not retracted the statement nor apologized. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

What each of us believe is revealed by God is a matter of individual faith and spiritual confirmation.   What is taught by the Church is a matter of record and one which I plainly acknowledged and then cited.

 

Or, to put it another way, each of us can choose to believe or disbelieve the Church of Jesus Christ when it attributes a particular doctrine or commandment or teaching to God. Clearly, in this instance, you choose to disbelieve the Church. That is your right. What is not your right is to imply -- through omission or redefinition of terms or in whatever way -- that you fully embrace the law of chastity as taught by the Church when you do not.

Quote

I didn’t claim that you had.  But you did call me duplicitous without basis and have not retracted the statement nor apologized

And, as punishment, you are dragging my name into a discussion of which I have not been a party. But even though I do not consent to it, I will drop the matter here.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Or, to put it another way, each of us can choose to believe or disbelieve the Church of Jesus Christ when it attributes a particular doctrine or commandment or teaching to God. Clearly, in this instance, you choose to disbelieve the Church.

And, as punishment, you are dragging my name into a discussion of which I have not been a party. 

Scott, you unfairly accused him from what I saw.  What is wrong with his belief of what the law of chastity is?

We do have to have faith in our leaders, but we also pray for confirmation for ourselves.  We can disagree with our leaders at times.  After all, they’ve been wrong in the past and have even taught false doctrine at times (even according to later Prophets).  Many disagree with the current policy.  But that does not mean that we’re not faithful followers of Christ.  We know our leaders are not infallible.  No one advocates for blind faith.  So if we pray and get an answer for ourselves, we may disagree with our leaders at times.  

Do you disagree?

Edited by JulieM
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, JulieM said:

Scott, you unfairly accused him from what I saw.  What is wrong with his belief of what the law of chastity is?

We do have to have faith in our leaders, but we also pray for confirmation for ourselves.  We can disagree with our leaders at times.  After all, they’ve been wrong in the past and have even taught false doctrine at times (even according to later Prophets).  Many disagree with the current policy.  But that does not mean that we’re not faithful followers of Christ.  We know our leaders are infallible.  No one advocates for blind faith.  So if we pray and get an answer for ourselves, we may disagree with our leaders at times.  

Do you disagree?

One can believe what one wants about what chastity is or is not. But one ought not imply that one is in accord with what is taught by the Church if one is not. As I said before, there is the law of chastity and there is Rockpond's (or someone else's) law of chastity. I don't know how I can be any clearer than that.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

One can believe what one wants about what chastity is or is not. But one ought  imply that one is in accord with what is taught by the Church if one is not. As I said before, there is the law of chastity and there Rockpond's (or someone else's) law of chastity. I don't know how I can be any clearer than that.

What is different about Rockpond’s and the one on the church website?

From lds.org:

“What is the law of chastity?

We are to have sexual relations only with our spouse to whom we are legally married. No one, male or female, is to have sexual relations before marriage. After marriage, sexual relations are permitted only with our spouse.”

Rockpond’s:

“I believe the law of chastity is that sexual relations are only to be between those who are married.

Edited by JulieM
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, JulieM said:

What is different about Rockpond’s and the one on the church website?

From lds.org:

“What is the law of chastity?

We are to have sexual relations only with our spouse to whom we are legally married. No one, male or female, is to have sexual relations before marriage. After marriage, sexual relations are permitted only with our spouse.”

Rockpond’s:

“I believe the law of chastity is that sexual relations are only to be between those who are married.

The difference is that the definition on the Church website presupposes the definition of matrimony under God’s law, which only recognizes marriage as being between partners of the opposite sex. That, I understand, conflicts with Rockpond’s view. 

This discussion has grown far too Orwellian for my taste, so unless you have some fresh or astute insight, I think I will extracate myself from it. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The difference is that the definition on the Church website presupposes the definition of matrimony under God’s law, which only recognizes marriage as being between partners of the opposite sex. That, I understand, conflicts with Rockpond’s view. 

This discussion has grown far too Orwellian for my taste, so unless you have some fresh or astute insight, I think I will extracate myself from it. 

I think you were very unfair with your accusations against him.

But I agree, it’s time to stop and move on.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Or, to put it another way, each of us can choose to believe or disbelieve the Church of Jesus Christ when it attributes a particular doctrine or commandment or teaching to God. Clearly, in this instance, you choose to disbelieve the Church. That is your right. What is not your right is to imply -- through omission or redefinition of terms or in whatever way -- that you fully embrace the law of chastity as taught by the Church when you do not.

And, as punishment, you are dragging my name into a discussion of which I have not been a party. But even though I do not consent to it, I will drop the matter here.

I'll leave it at what @JulieM has said, she has accurately represented my position above.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I think you were very unfair with your accusations against him.

But I agree, it’s time to stop and move on.

I have expressed it accurately. 

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have expressed it accurately. 

I thought we all agreed to drop it.  I was going to let it go but you keep on...

What have you expressed accurately?

CFR that I was duplicitous in expressing my personal belief about the law of chastity while confirming the difference with the Church’s doctrinal position.  You made an accusation — support it or retract it. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/13/2019 at 4:49 PM, PacMan said:

Bill Reel relies on unfounded assumptions and straw man arguments in his debate with Jim Bennett.  Jim even notes as much.  As much as there is another thread, I've been encouraged to start a new one on a particular topic.  So here it is.

Concerning the 2015 policy that prohibits children of gay parents from getting baptized until they are adults, Bill and Jim seem to struggle with the policy on a logical basis--but they completely miss the purpose of the policy.

In 2015, the Church interviewed Elder Christofferson:

He continues:

In essence, Elder Christofferson explains that the family unit -- even a sinful one -- needs to be respected during a child's youth.  And, where a child would effectively need to renounce their own family structure, that's not a fair thing to require the child.  For a church based on family, this makes sense. 

My question is, why is this so problematic?  Why can't the church put the family -- even an alternative family -- ahead of baptism for a time where "[n]othing is lost to them in the end?"  How is this bad?  In fact, how could the church require anything else?

It made sense to me.  Terrible for PR but I saw the rationale for it.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, ALarson said:

So what was once moral (having sex with someone who was not your legal spouse) and was considered to be living within the bounds of the Law of Chastity is now a sin and is breaking the Law of Chastity.

None of know what the Lord will permit or authorize in the future or what changes may take place.    We know what the law is today (just as polygamists knew it in their day), but there have been changes made to the law and there may be more.  Time will tell....

Some here are saying that the law has never changed, only the wording.

So, what is The Law?  

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, rockpond said:

All I said to you was “inappropriate” and I used the exact same word with CB. 

No, you said more than that to me and withheld the same from CB. But I understand where you are coming from in order to do that and consider it "equal" treatment though to me (I would say "others as well" but that might be misconstrued as "gas lighting") it clearly is not. 

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

Oh brother. 

First, I said “to be fair” to you.  That is acknowledging that I was being unfair. 

As for Scott, he has twice called me duplicitous without cause.  Will you call him out on that?

You don't have to explain or defend yourself on the point of fairness to me; my request had to do with the more significant issue of bias resulting in not treating cb the same way as you did me on the same perceived offense. Note that I did not jump on him for using the offending (to some people) term.

Since I have not called you (or anyone else) out for being duplicitous, I have no comment singling out Scott. I have not been following your exchange with I'm and I lack sufficient facts and perceptions to form an opinion and work up a need to censure.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Some here are saying that the law has never changed, only the wording.

So, what is The Law?  

If the actual "law" has not changed regarding the Law of Chastity", then it must be that we are not to have sexual relations with anyone that is not our legal spouse or at times, a spouse we are sealed to, but not legally married to (that covers polygamy too).  The rest is just how the current church leaders choose to interpret it or add to it (if the "law" never changes).  I'll try to look up what the first wording or definition is that we have recorded for the "Law of Chastity" or if Joseph wrote about it (other than what was put into the temple endowment).

Or maybe it's just that we are not to have sexual relations with our legal spouse (and different words added or removed by the leaders can alter that....ie. for the living of polygamy and the recent change)?

Maybe @JLHPROF can help us here?  

ETA:

I think I remember that JLHPROF believes that one must be sealed in order to be truly married (ie. in the eyes of the Lord).  But I'd still love to hear if he knows any quotes on the Law of Chastity as defined by Joseph Smith or other early church leaders.

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, CV75 said:

No, you said more than that to me and withheld the same from CB.

My response to your use of the term was one word:  Inappropriate.

How could I possibly have said more to you than I did to CB?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Some here are saying that the law has never changed, only the wording.

So, what is The Law?  

The law has changed as part of the temple covenant.  It used to require endowed members could only have relations with those they were sealed to.  It is why there used to be a ban on receiving endowments if one spouse was a member and the other was not.

This probably didn't start till Brigham's administration.  And it has long been dropped.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The law has changed as part of the temple covenant.  It used to require endowed members could only have relations with those they were sealed to.  It is why there used to be a ban on receiving endowments if one spouse was a member and the other was not.

This probably didn't start till Brigham's administration.  And it has long been dropped.

That is really interesting. I had never heard of that before.

That said, @ALarson and @JulieM I don't see this being a real change to the Law of Chastity, as much as a difference in allowing who goes to the temple. The rules for entering the temple have changed lots of times - requiring Word of Wisdom,  not sympathizing with competing groups, paying child support, etc. This is not strange or uncommon.  

 I don't see any justification for a change in who can go to the temple or the wording of the Law of Chastity in the temple to allow sealings of same sex marriage. The Law of Chastity has pretty much been the same since the beginning of time, only sexual activity between those married in God's eyes.

As a parable, I told my kids no candy before dinner because it will spoil their appetite. I then found them eating cookies and they said, "You only said candy." So I had to change (really just clarify) the rule to make it more clear and it's now "No treats before dinner." The rule didn't change, just my explanation because my kids can't live the spirit of the law.

This clarity has had to happen throughout time with God's Law of Chastity as well. Originally listed as "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" Christ had to clarify it to not "Lust after a women in your heart." I don't think that during judgement God will accept it as a valid excuse from those during Moses' times if they went to ancient strip-clubs because "You never said anything about strip-clubs until Jesus."

Then it was changed to be "legally and lawfully wedded." I heard an urban legend about a group of BYU students who would go to Vegas every weekend to get married, have sex, and then get it annulled because it was within the Law of Chasity. I also don't think God would buy that, even though it technically fit in the wording.

If you look up the definition of Marriage on Wikipedia you will see that up until the 1950s society defined marriage as "a union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the recognized legitimate offspring of both partners." The whole point of marriage was offspring. It wasn't until the cultural revolution of the 60s and modern technology that allowed people to conceive kids without two adults having intercourse that the definition of marriage changed, because it separated the idea of having children and families from the institution. 

So because man changed the definition of marriage, God had to recently update the Law of Chastity wording in the temple to clarify what He means (i.e., making sure it said 'No Treats' as opposed to 'No Candy').

I just don't see this change of current or past wording for the Law of Chastity covenant as being any justification for changing the Law of Chastity to allow same-sex marriage. Same-Sex relations has always been banned in Old and New Testament times. There is no precedence for it being accepted. It's just fine if you believe God will change this, just like I believe he won't. But if He did in my view this would be a sea-change on the Law of Chasity, not just some minor wording clarification or a different in temple recommend standards. I just don't see it being apples to apples at all and that this past wording is any kind of precedence for a change to allow this.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

That is really interesting. I had never heard of that before.

That said, @ALarson and @JulieM I don't see this being a real change to the Law of Chastity, as much as a difference in allowing who goes to the temple.

So what is the law of chastity if it’s not the wording of this law or the rules (or qualifications) given by our leaders which need to be lived in order to be living this law?

Those have changed (wording and rules).  But you believe the actual law hasn’t changed?

Can you post exactly what you specifically believe the law is then?

I’m just trying to understand you here!

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, JulieM said:

So what is the law of chastity if it’s not the wording of this law or the rules (or qualifications) given by our leaders which need to be lived in order to be living this law?

Those have changed (wording and rules).  But you believe the actual law hasn’t changed?

Can you post exactly what you specifically believe the law is then?

I’m just trying to understand you here!

The law would be something like: "No sexual activity except for those married in the eyes of God"

Living the spirit of this law would include:

  • not lusting (i.e., imagining sexual activity), viewing others commit sexual activity, etc. )
  • only those married in God's eyes (man & women - like he said at the beginning, those who intend to stay married not just for a weekend romp, etc.)
  • no sexual activity when dating 
  • Etc.

For people who can't understand the concept of the Spirit of the Law, God could likely write a codified 10,000 page rule-book in the same way he had to codify a bunch of rules in the past.

But no matter how well you write out rules, people will always find ways to skirt around them (i..e., you never mentioned cookies). So he prefers to just say it simply and let us not be a "slothful servant who has to be commanded in all things."

When you look at the Law of Chastity, it is really pretty basic. I think people trying to live the Spirit of the Law can easily do so without difficulty. 

@JulieM - If you don't agree with my understanding of the Law of Chastity, then I'd love to know yours. What is it now? What was it previously? How has God changed it? And how do you think God should explain it without loopholes?

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, rockpond said:

My response to your use of the term was one word:  Inappropriate.

How could I possibly have said more to you than I did to CB?

You did say more to me when you consider the exchanges we had about your initial reaction to me. Plus you softened the message qualitatively to him by prefacing it with the explanation that you were doing it for my sake and to defend yourself from another poster's charge. Changes things significantly. Don't take this as an expectation that you do anything about it at this point; I'm just showing how bias and double standards play out in practical circumstances.

Regarding the OP, I think cohabitation and other sins do not alter the marriage covenant as designed. Same-sex marriage does alter it, which is why I think it is defined as apostate for formal disciplinary purposes.

As far as the policy and sinful people (and we all are sinful people) raising or otherwise influencing/affecting children together, in the eyes of the child, the adult couple in their lives is "married" no matter how sinfully (co-habitation/fornication) or apostate (formal marriage) their arrangement may be. The less legalistic and formal marriage mores and laws of yesteryear may seem simple and childlike to us today, but a child's perspective must be taken into account when working with offending parent-couples in a parent-child (family)-Church partnership in getting her the ordinances. One set of sinners (the same sex couple) changes the covenant at the incipient level; the other set of sinners (male and female couple) does not.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

That is really interesting. I had never heard of that before.

That said, @ALarson and @JulieM I don't see this being a real change to the Law of Chastity, as much as a difference in allowing who goes to the temple. The rules for entering the temple have changed lots of times - requiring Word of Wisdom,  not sympathizing with competing groups, paying child support, etc. This is not strange or uncommon.  

 I don't see any justification for a change in who can go to the temple or the wording of the Law of Chastity in the temple to allow sealings of same sex marriage.

Then you aren't paying attention.

Previously it violated the covenant to have relations with someone you weren't sealed to by priesthood authority.

Currently it only violates the covenant if you have relations with someone other than your legal spouse.

What is the current legal status of same sex spouses in the United States?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, rockpond said:

I thought we all agreed to drop it.  I was going to let it go but you keep on...

What have you expressed accurately?

CFR that I was duplicitous in expressing my personal belief about the law of chastity while confirming the difference with the Church’s doctrinal position.  You made an accusation — support it or retract it. 

Scott needs to withdraw both of his accusations (against you and Alarson) since your posts just honestly reflected your opinions and feelings. But if he attempts to support them, this could he interesting to watch.

Duplicity:

deceitfulness, deceit, deception, deviousness, two-facedness, double-dealing, underhandedness, dishonesty, falseness, falsity, fraud, fraudulence, sharp practice, swindling, cheating, chicanery, trickery, craft, guile, artifice, subterfuge, skulduggery, treachery, unfairness, unjustness, perfidy, improbity.

 

 

Edited by JulieM
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Then you aren't paying attention.

Previously it violated the covenant to have relations with someone you weren't sealed to by priesthood authority.

Currently it only violates the covenant if you have relations with someone other than your legal spouse.

What is the current legal status of same sex spouses in the United States?

Thanks for your posts and additional information!  All very interesting to read.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...