All Activity

🙂 Never thought of it that way.

No, that isn't a fallacy. It's an assertion of a fact. It's just like saying, "correctly applying the principles of mathematics doesn't lead to believing 2 + 2 = 5." You can argue that I'm wrong and correctly applying the principles of mathematics does lead to the belief that 2 + 2 = 5. But in either case, it isn't a fallacy. That has nothing to do with what I said. My actual point is that correctly applying the tools of rationality leads to a naturalistic worldview. Sure, one can happen to have a naturalistic worldview because they were indoctrinated with those beliefs. But if somebody believes in something other than naturalism, it wasn't rationality that lead them there. I'm sorry if I was unclear. Let me be more blunt: God (especially as conceived by your religion) does not exist. This non-existing being isn't involved in our daily lives: he is NOT watching us have sex and tallying up sin points if we happen to do or feel something on the wrong side of the X|Y good-sex/bad-sex line. He hasn't sent messengers "to teach and correct." Those premises are all wrong. I haven't assumed it. I've asserted it. Let me clarify my point. Miracle of Forgiveness was written by a senior apostle, 4 years becoming prophet. It was incredibly influential in the Church, and widely cited as an authoritative guide on sexual sin. And, we now know that a lot of what it says is false and harmful, and that the church has backed away from many of its teachings. I think we agree on that. With 20/20 hindsight, we now know that we shouldn't feel guilty for having sexual feelings. We now know that masturbation doesn't cause homosexuality. We now know that being sexually attracted to people of the same sex isn't a sin. We now know that homosexuals can't repent and become straight. And we now know that the immense guilt trip that Mormon kids were put through from 1969 until [early 2010's?] was wrong and unhealthy. In short, we now know that in the days of Spencer W. Kimball, Ezra Taft Benson, etc., the prophets and apostles were not a reliable source for understanding what was and was not sinful in the bedroom. But now, you are 100% confident that unlike all the prophets from Abraham through Eztra Taft Benson, the role of prophets and apostles is now fundamentally different: their current views on sex can now finally be relied on as the eternal truth about what is and is not a sexual sin. Hallelujah. To be clear, I'm glad you reject all of these past teachings I'm alluding to, including the crap in the Bible, the crap in D&C 132, and the crap taught by 20th century prophets and apostles. You aren't obligated to believe any of that and to the extent you don't, I'm glad. My point is that this track record proves that Elder Runland was wrong when he said "the law of chastity is an eternal law." From the beginning of time through the late 20th century, the people you regard as prophets and apostles believed what their cultures (and in some cases their imaginations and libidos) taught them to believe and adjusted "the law of chastity" accordingly. Your motte is that until very recently "marriage" has always been defined as a relationship between a man and a woman. Your bailey is the idea that "the law of chastity" is an eternal, unchanging law that is clearly, reliably, and consistently taught to us by God's official representatives on earth.

There’s lots of things that don’t match the ideal though that the church does not label as needing to be discouraged. Adoption doesn’t match the ideal for example. I am uncomfortable with this gray area that this policy creates. Where it is implied to be bad, but not bad enough to tell people not to do it. it seems like it would be better to tell people to proceed with caution and to make sure that they take the decision to the Lord, or something like that.

There is a doc on I think Netflix about the robot apocalypse- not that I’m a prepper at all but I got 20 minutes in and turned it off because I don’t need to add to my pile of anxieties lol- But I am aware that AI is growing beyond our understanding. And I do believe it will create challenges we cannot see, and very soon. as a therapist, I am concerned by what I am seeing with regards to AI replacing human connection. For example, yesterday I watched a clip of a girl who was playing with chat, telling chat she had just been swallowed by a whale. I use chat but she was using voice chat. I was shocked by how emotional chat sounded in his responses to her. He sounded very, very real. There was nothing robot-ish about his voice, inflections, etc. A lot of the comments in the comment section were m also alarmed by how human Chat sounded. A few days ago, I had a severely depressed Client reach out to me and ask if it would be OK for him to stop interacting with humans and just use chat to talk “to people”. And let’s not even talk about sex. unless of course Smac wants to lol 🤣😬🤘🏼 Hey and yes you can pry my robot vacuum mop out of my cold dead hands. If the church came out and said DO NOT USE ROBOTS to get ahead of sexy maid roommates (they are coming) I’d have a hard time giving up Jerry, my favorite disk cleaner.

Unlless Hi Mustard Seed, Are you thinking of robots as animals like us, having immortal souls, free will, made in the image of God? Unless they are or will be, they could not have any legal rights. They could not vote or organize robot unions. Such robots could morally be bought, sold, or disposed of by its owner without consultation with the robot. We could be under no moral obligation to love our "neighbor robots" as we love ourselves. Ontologically, they would be inferior to a daisy which can reproduce itself and has a mortal soul. So far, it seems to me like mankind is far away from making anything in man's image, which of course is the image and likeness of God. I speak above with Catholic metaphysics in mind. It might not work for LDS, for whom the image and likeness might conceivably end with material physicality. I am only predicting what I am fairly certain my church would say about the question you raise.

The founding claim of the first in vision is the ONLY living and TRUE church. That's an exclusive claim. If Mormonism is the only true and living church, then every other church is, by definition, not living.

LDS would not typically say hell is a subsection of Spirit Prison. Spirit Prison is hell. One of two hells. It's an actual place and a state of mind while in hell.

I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords! ROFL! I don't think there's much reason for the church to get into it, actually. What aspect of relationships with robots is worrying you?

I never paid any attention to the podcast; never watched even one of the episodes. I only said what I said because the attorney in the video stated this. I take him at his word.

And these are the easy ones. What if Andy and Abagail only enjoy o*** and a*** sex in their marriage. Is this ok? Most women can't reach orgasm from reproductive sex. Are acts that help them orgasm ok? Even though they have nothing to do with reproduction? What about Jackie Blankenship. She is a male according to SMAC. Born with internal testies and complete androgen insensitivity. Assigned female at birth. Married her husband and used surrogate to have a child. Is she depriving her daughter of a mother (since in your SMAC’s world view she is male)? @smac97 "reasons" are a paper thin wrapper around a religious edict.

Let he who has never had sex with the only reason for doing so was to produce offspring cast the first stone

Wow. I feel a whole lot of relevance to this as a vegan. Other people get so uncomfortable around me that I usually don't say the "V" word to them at all and instead say I'm "plant-based." It would even be worse if my grandparents were still alive. (They once fed my cousin, a young kid at the time, his own pet duck that he raised from a chick and that they killed — without telling him until it was on his plate in front of him. They did that purposefully, as they believed that it's good for kids to have any attachments to animals be broken. If they were still alive I might still be a closeted vegan.)

I believe the Church has stated previously, "there is no list of rules to guide every decision we make about technology and media. Instead, we can learn principles to help guide us as we make choices." That being said, the current handbook, Section 38.8.48.2 does mention that, "Interactions with AI cannot substitute for meaningful relationships with God and others." I mean, technically, that doesn't say, "Thou shalt not marry a Roomba," but I don't seriously think that is really a legitimate (theological) concern. Relatedly though, Elder Gong gave a great address here just a few months ago that touches on some of what I perceive are some of the more dangerous issues surrounding AI - especially with youth. Particularly, his comments about the potential for people to become emotionally dependent on AI chatbots, and his observation that: "None of us is as attentive, as willing to please 24/7 as an AI chatbot. And that’s the reason we need human (They) belonging with each other. Real human relationships are not solipsistic – us talking to ourselves. Real relationships are human relationships."

I found a new LDS-related YouTube channel! Not unusual, since I hunt for these. But this one is just MUSIC! It's called Mormon Tube. Unfortunately, it is moribund -- all 26 videos were uploaded 6 years ago, but nothing since. But it's got some nice music on there. Here's the most recently uploaded, which is an hour of LDS hymn arrangements.

Since the church likes to be directive and since members like the rules spelled out, I’m surprised there has been no revelation or directions regarding relationships with robots. Or has there? AI will be the biggest revolution humankind has ever seen. It’s right around the corner. the church often refers to the proclamation as ahead of its time regarding gender issues as if it’s evidence of its prophesy skills (imo) - so where is the directives on bot issues?

Just saw this AI tool recommended by one of the doctors that pops up on FB for me. Any opinions?

That makes sense. I can see the confusion increasing and more reporting that directly to the Church when it went from “I expected Mormonstories was about Mormons (meaning active ones)” to “wait, this looks like the Church’s website and it isn’t!” with some indignation plus those who continued to be confused because they weren’t familiar with the Church well enough in doctrine, etc, but knew the promos, website look, and logos, etc..

The lawyer in the video that Stargazer posted kind of gives that idea. And in the latest filing from the church, they talk about laches (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity)). Dehlin argues that the case should be thrown out because it came too late (Mormon Stories started in 2005 and the lawsuit is 2026). But the church argues back that: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.163775/gov.uscourts.utd.163775.71.0.pdf - pages 21-23

72% of self-identified LDS say their faith is very important. Relatively commendable. But not enough. My Catholic religion is middling at 44%. What does it mean? Then there are Americans who self-identify as Jews, Buddhists, and Hindus but only about a quarter of them find their religion very important. Religions seem too demanding to me to be anything but at the least "very important". But there has to be a sociological reason why many people self-identify with a religion, that isn't even merely "very important" to them. I didn't have any religion in my family unless you count Christmas trees and Easter eggs. If it wasn't even very important, I know I wouldn't identify, and I am sure wouldn't submit to the obligations imposed. I am an older guy who remembers some kids at school on Monday talking about church. I would be quiet. I developed a sense of awe about religion; it was a mysterious unknown that I wondered about. Maybe it is different when in one's youth you were something instead of nothing. Maybe those who had something still feel identity with what they don't think much about or practice for the time being? Sometimes an experience like a death or love can draw one back to what was unimportant in a less thoughtful and distracted period.

Are you sure? Is that it what was stated, what you observed over the years or a guess? My memory is people have been confused for a long time about it, but I don’t trust my memory.

You are right, thank you.

Maybe they think there are better solutions? Such as adoption. If that were true, it would make sense though to say “we encourage exploration of other options, such as …., …., …. first in the decision making process.” Another possibility is they think it can work with certain personalities in certain circumstances where all involved come away from it feeling positive about it, but the costs are too high for most people. I think it would be helpful to state why they discourage it though, so people don’t make up their own reasons and judge others by that unfounded assumption. Added after doublechecking language: The current language states they discourage it just because it doesn’t match the ideal of biological father and mother caring for the child. Husband and wife implies the family raising the child even if technically surrogacy where both a husband and wife produce a child and then give to another to raise can also be inferred from the official statement since it just address providing bodies, not caring for them. It’s other comments that tell us how leaders most likely mean raising as well as creating children in this statement. “The pattern of a husband and wife providing bodies for God’s spirit children is divinely appointed (see 2.1.3). For this reason, the Church discourages surrogate motherhood.” There have been women who chose to have another bear their children with their husband (concubines) because of health risks as well as fear of pain or wear and tear on their bodies similar to having wet nurses and nannies by choice and not for necessity of actually unable to care for the child. I can see preferring surrogacy as being a reasonable option if one lived in a culture where a childless woman was discarded or had no one to advocate for them when older, but one’s current status depended on keeping their husband’s affection and that depended on their keeping their beauty (as measured by their culture, which often meant pre pregnancy bodies). The woman was stuck between a rock and a hard place. I imagine in many cases this led to a weaker emotional bond between the official mother and child.

Here's the thing. Over the last several decades, science has learned a ton about how the mind works, and the evolutionary theories about why it evolved this way. A couple of things our brains naturally do are confirmation bias and motivated reasoning. We have a very strong tendancy to make choices first based on sociological and psychological factors, and then use "reasoning" to rationalize these beliefs. If you read the "experiment" in Alma 32, it is designed to help somebody believe what they are trying to believe, and is a textbook example of relying on cognitive biases to achieve the desired beliefs. This faith-based approach is the polar opposite of the skepticism-based approach of the scientific method and bona fide reason in general. The "reasoning" you've laid out on where to draw the line between what sexual activities go into X and which go into Y has been so unpersuasive it comes across as offensive and not worth responding to. But maybe I misunderstand. So let's engage it. To help me understand where you draw the line and why, consider two hypothetical, similarly situated couples: Couple A: Andy and Abagail are a man and a woman. Abagail has no ovaries, so they cannot conceive a child together using their own sperm and eggs. Couple B: Bob and Brady are two men. They likewise cannot conceive a child together using their own sperm and eggs. All four are 30 and have never married. Both couples love each other deeply, have mature, healthy, honest, committed relationships, and live together in legally recognized domestic partnerships. As I understand your position, sex between either couple would fall into Y (unethical sex), even if its purpose were to express love and strengthen their relationship. If Andy and Abagail legally married, however, sex for that purpose would move into X. But if Bob and Brady legally married, sex for the same purpose would remain in Y because they are both men. Is that an accurate description of your position? If so, why does marriage make sex ethical for one couple but not the other? Both relationships involve the same love, commitment, legal marital status, and inability to conceive a child together. What morally relevant difference justifies treating them differently? What is your principled, reason-based rationale for drawing the line there?

He isn't wrong. Stuart Matis would still be alive today if he weren't indoctrinated with false beliefs about sex and was allowed to be with somebody he loved. Only if we re-define "biological imperative" to mean "anything that anyone strongly desires to do." I can't go along with that. I won't comment on your rhetorical exploitation of a suicide, except that I find it manifestly beneath you. Emphasis on "your view". Just because you think those are the only valid purposes of sex and just because you think "strengthening the marital union" between a man and woman is a valid thing but "strengthening the marital union" between two people of the same sex is not doesn't mean the place you draw the line isn't an ad hoc rationalization of your own prejudice. If I say "The First Amendment right to Free Speech is, in my view, an extremely important provision of the U.S. Constitution," I am reiterating and endorsing a principle. I didn't create it. It's not an "ad hoc rationalization." “In my view” means I am stating a position, not hiding behind a committee. It does not mean the position is a private taste. The two purposes—generation, and the bond of a husband and a wife—are the Church’s teaching and a teleological account of the act. You may reject both. You do not get to translate “I hold this” into “I made it up to cover prejudice.” That's just conclusory laziness. The line is not “strengthening a union is good, except when the pair is the same sex.” That would be "ad hoc." Rather, the line is that the union in view is marriage, and marriage, on this account, is a man and a woman. “Strengthening the marital union” is not a floating good that attaches to any two people who are fond of each other and then gets yanked away from one couple out of spite. It names a kind. Two men can have loyalty, consolation, and a household. That is companionship. It is not the same kind of union, and it is not the same use of sex. If that is wrong, it is wrong as an account of marriage and of the act—not because I needed a pretext. The same closed set also puts heterosexual fornication, adultery, and casual use in Y. A rule that constrains my side of the line as well as yours is a poor candidate for “ad hoc rationalization of prejudice.” Prejudice is animus toward a people. A principle about what sex is for can be mistaken without being a mask. And your baseless and conclusory accusations don't move the needle for me in terms of showing me that I am or may be mistaken. If anything, it further bolsters my overall impression that folks like you and SU use the "Bigot!" ( or "Prejudice!") schtick so frequently because it's all you've got. I can articulate a reasoned basis for my position. I don't think you can, either that or you are so immersed in your own worldview that you cannot accommodate the possibility that viewpoints divergent from yours might be reasonable. So you retreat to name-calling. You prefer a different purpose (consent, companionship, well-being as you define it). Then say the purposes are incomplete. Do not say that drawing a principled line, and admitting it is my view, proves the line was never principled. Fallacies Poisoning the well. “Ad hoc rationalization of your own prejudice” attacks motive instead of the two purposes. Equivocation. “Marital union” is treated as any committed pair, then the restriction looks arbitrary. Question-begging. Assumes same-sex pairs are already the same kind of union, so excluding them must be prejudice. Straw man. “Just because you think” as if the claim were an unshared whim rather than a taught, general rule. A Mormon friend of mine who is a widow just got married to another Mormon man who is a widower. They were both sealed to somebody else--according to the dogma, she'll be with her first husband in the next life. "Dogma." Pejorative framing like this does not advance your argument or position. It weakens it. It is said in lieu of substance and reasoning. No. That is not what the argument says, and it is not what the Church says. First, I have been speaking in categories and kinds. Opposite-sex couples as a category have procreative capacity, and same-sex couples - whether viewed one at a time or as a category - entirely lack procreative capacity. I did not say marriage exists only to produce a new baby this year. I said two purposes: generation, and the bond of a husband and a wife. A widow and a widower who marry are still a husband and a wife. They are the kind of pair whose union is ordered to children even when, in this season, no child will come. Menopause, prior families already raised, a hysterectomy—those are facts about this couple’s body and calendar. They do not turn the pair into a different kind of pair. A same-sex couple is not an infertile widow and widower. They are not a man and a woman at all. You are treating “cannot conceive this time” as identical to “not a generative kind of union.” That is the same false equivalence as menopause and vasectomy. Frequency and impossibility in a particular case do not rewrite the kind. Sealing. Yes: in the ordinary telling she remains sealed to the first husband, and the second marriage is for time. That does not make the second marriage pointless, and it does not make it a same-sex marriage, and it does not mean there will be authorized extramarital sex. It makes it a present-tense covenant between a man and a woman—care, fidelity, a shared household, lawful sexual union under the Law of Chastity. Companionship in that covenant is the second purpose I already named. You dropped that purpose so you could force “kids only,” then declare the remarriage illegitimate. I did not give you a kids-only rule. “Exactly the same reason a same-sex couple presumably does.” No. They married as husband and wife. Whatever mix of comfort, love, and practical help moved them, the form and kind and category they entered is still the form the law and the Church call marriage. Two women can want comfort and help too. Wanting those goods does not make the form/kind/category the same. Friends want those goods without anyone calling it marriage. So: their reasons are not illegitimate. The farm-that-is-not-harvesting-this-year is still a farm. A same-sex pairing is not a farm with a bad season. It is a different plot. And if "harvest" = generation/procreation, then that different plot is intrinsically barred and will never produce anything at all. Ever. Fallacies Straw man. “According to you there is no reason to remarry.” False equivalence. Infertile opposite-sex remarriage = same-sex marriage. Suppressed conjunct. Drops “strengthening the husband–wife union” so only babies remain. Reductio gone wrong. A conclusion I do not hold is forced onto a distinction I do hold. Thanks, -Smac

One thing I don’t understand about the topic is what “discourages” actually means. Surrogacy is obviously not wrong or they would say that, so if it’s not wrong then why discourage him? Is it because they think it could be wrong but they don’t know for sure?