Handbook Update, Gay Marriage, Apostasy, Resignations... (Merged Thread)

[JLHPROF]

The standard narrative idea that homosexuality goes against a "natural order" seems to me to be flawed - homosexual behavior in other animals is quite common. Cacilda Jethá and Christopher Ryan's book Sex At Dawn is informative. 

 

And Christ cursed the fig tree that was unable to bear fruit.

[Mystery Meat]

He cites a number of scriptures as support.

 

I understand that he cites to scriptures. I can cite to scriptures all day, but that doesn't mean the scriptures support the claim I am making. I do not think I am duty bound to agree with his interpretations, and in fact, I think his interpretations are at best misguided, and a worst a gross case of wresting the scriptures.

[Mystery Meat]

He cites a number of scriptures as support.

 

Let me respond to this another way, I believe (and the Spirit seems to accord) that the scriptures teach that homosexuality is a sin when it is acted upon. I think this is a consistent message throughout scripture. Based on what Bill is saying in his post, if the day comes where the Church allows for SSM in the temple, I am duty bound to reject that false doctrine.

[rockpond]

I understand that he cites to scriptures. I can cite to scriptures all day, but that doesn't mean the scriptures support the claim I am making. I do not think I am duty bound to agree with his interpretations, and in fact, I think his interpretations are at best misguided, and a worst a gross case of wresting the scriptures.

 

I agree that you are not duty bound to agree with his interpretations.  But perhaps you could explain which of his interpretations you feel are misguided, and why.

[Mystery Meat]

I agree that you are not duty bound to agree with his interpretations.  But perhaps you could explain which of his interpretations you feel are misguided, and why.

 

That's fair (no pun intended). Give me a minute.

[Ahab]

So here is what Rorty is saying:

We have a bunch of statements.

"There is objective morality"

"There is no objective morality"

"The boiling point of water is 212F".

"Joseph Smith's vision taught that God has a body like ours"

"Evolution is true"

"Evolution is false"

"Evolution proves there was no fall of man"

"The fall of man is conpativle with evolution"

Each of these statements is a "truth candidate"

Each statement can be "jusrified" within an audience because that "audience" - community- has its own system of justification, indpendent of the others.

Scientific statements can by justified by the methods of science.

Statements about Catholicism - objective morality etc- can be justified within that framework

Statements about Mormonism can be justified using what a Mormon audience finds to be "justification"

Some Mormons may have different rules of justification than others because our definition of "dioctrine" is essentially pragmatic (that is my personal opinion) so some may find statements about evolution being compatible with the fall "justified" others may not. And yet others may agree with ssm- to a degree- and others not. When in doubt the church defines what qualifes as a "justified belief" for the community. Members of the community may disagree with that. In the final analysis they either get kicked out or not. The church clearly has a right to define those justification proceedures. (in my opinion)

Rorty then says that the word "truth" is used all the time but no one has defined it in an undisputed manner, for all audiences in all times. That is his belief and that statement is itself another "truth candidate" subject to justification within the philosophy community as a whole.

No one given statement can be said to "correspond" to "reality" better than any other because we cannot define "reality", only the "appearance of reality" because all we have in language are symbolic statements about what appears to us to be "reality", we can never get "down" to reality itself- just appearance

So there are no "facts" that we can get to- just interpretations of someone's description of what they think "reality" is.

So that is Rorty's position. Again- he does not allege that it is more "true" than any other description of "truth" so he is consistent about that.

Either that explanation helps or it doesn't.

I don't see how any of that is disputable. If you don't like it it doesn't work for you, and you get to find something that does.

Discussions like this one, in my opinion, should be about whether or not a given position can be "justified" to the Mormon community as the church defines "Mormon Community" ie- members.

We can talk about atheism here, but we are not atheists. We can talk about EV doctrine here, but ultimately those kinds of discussions which contain statements which are not justifiable within the Mormon community will come down to squabbling about defintions of words.

Within the community we know what we are talking about- (for the most part). So probably if we actually want to nfluence others, we should probably stick to discussions within the community.

I am here to try to influence others to my way of seeing Mormonism. That is my stated purpose, so that is why I do not see arguments justifiying truth candidates outside that community as relevant to my participation here.

So everyone could be right about what they think is true even though there are apparently many contradictions between their beliefs and my beliefs?

Something is apparently wrong with that idea.

[Danzo]

This is the problem, the behavior of another person, a parent, is preventing an individual from entering the waters of baptism.  The Church teaches that baptism is one of the fundamental objectives in this life.  If a child has reached the age of accountability and seeks to be baptized some time before the age of 18 and are denied solely because of the behavior of their parent there is a problem.  This directly, not euphemistically, not slightly, but wholly conflicts with the 2nd Article of Faith.  If an individual is denied a saving ordinance that is being punished for the sins of the another.  If you say that being denied baptism for the actions of another is not a punishment of any kind; that it is inconsequential, then my point could be incorrect.  

 

Do you have a problem with the church not baptizing someone without their parents permission?

[Robert F. Smith]

No one is asking for an explanation of every change - just this one. You can't both (1) refuse to give and answer and (2) complain that misinformation is being circulated. Again, that's a page out of the church's playbook. Either give an answer or expect people to hypothesize and, not surprising, get things wrong.

So the LDS Church complains of misinformation being bandied about, while it refuses (as an institution) to give answers to any and every question -- even irresponsible and ignorant questions.  In fact, the LDS Church and its members are frequently victimized by misinformation (both deliberate and ignorant), and it is not required to answer every silly and tendentious question put to it by media or individuals.  Certainly, no more than any other institution.

 

is helpful to know that this was done months ago. Thanks for that! The question still remains "why"? What purpose does it accomplish to scrub someone's comments from the 2013 Conference?

I don't hold with rewriting history, or purging the content of conferences in order to be politically or religiously correct, etc.  We ought to be mature enough to bear with the need for opposition in all things.

[Mystery Meat]

I agree that you are not duty bound to agree with his interpretations.  But perhaps you could explain which of his interpretations you feel are misguided, and why.

 

Okay, to start he repeats the oft used citation to the 2nd Article of Faith. In order to understand why his interpretation is wrong, we need to understand what the Second Article of Faith actually means. What punishment did Joseph Smith have in mind, when he said that man will be punished for their own sins? I think reason would dictate that the punishment is clearly one of an eternal nature, a punishment from God in other words. There is often collateral damage to every bad choice we make. If a married man cheats on his wife, the wife endures a type of punishment (including the potential loss of a saving ordinance and societal shame). But clearly she will not be "punished" by God as an innocent victim. The same holds true under this policy, whereby a child of gay couple may (but even then I don't think it is a punishment) endure a punishment as a result of one or both of their parents sinful behavior. In fact, I would be more apt to call this new policy a blessing as opposed to a punishment. Even still, if we both agreed that this was a punishment, this still does not contradict the 2nd Article of Faith because it is not the type of punishment referenced therein.

 

Second, he cites Mosiah 18 to support his position that a desire to be baptized and being worthy is all that is required. This is wresting the scriptures. We must read the scripture as a whole, not in isolation. During the Savior's earthly ministry and for a period after, gentiles were not allowed to join the Kingdom of God (the Church). I think of the woman at the well who showed great faith, but was still not allowed to enter sacred covenants. Surely she was desirous and worthy. 

 

EDIT TO ADD: I also think what Alma was teaching in this very chapter is at least part of the "why" behind baptism. It was important that those who desired to enter into the fold of God understood what they were getting themselves into and the covenants they were making. In our day, that includes understanding the nature of good and evil, right and wrong and SSM is evil and wrong. 

 

The last scripture from our Standard Works he cites to is easily where his strongest argument lies. D&C 68:26-27, but I also think he is missing the point on this scripture and that he is severely misunderstanding it. He uses that scripture to show that children, under Church law, must be baptized at age 8. But he fails to include the preceding verses and the verses that follow that provide a significant amount of further light. In fact, these verses when read in their complete context, I think, more than any other verses in the Standard Works actually STRENGTHENS the brethren's position. (EDITED TO BE MORE ACCURATE) Verse 25 of Section 68 instructs parents to teach their children the Gospel (faith, repentance, baptism at eight and Holy Ghost) AND that if they don't, the sin (ie punishment is on their head). Verse 26 says this (the teaching of verse 25, not verse 27 as Bill seems to be claiming) is the law. Verse 28 further teaches other righteous principals that parents are to teach their children. What none of these verses say, is what should happen with the child, when their parent is NOT teaching them these principals. And for all of their good qualities, and they do have good qualities, it is impossible for a gay couple to teach their children repentance in any meaningful way when they themselves are actively rebelling and living in sin, not to mention faith. The sin (and interestingly enough, the punishment according to verse 25) lies with the parents, NOT the children (that is actually pretty cool that we come full circle on the verses that Bill himself chose to use). How can one be prepared for baptism when they are confused on the fundamental difference between right and wrong? 

 

Now, I am sure you will disagree with my interpretations, and that's fine, but I think Bill's selected verses are pretty weak to try and show that the Brethren are wrong here. Maybe there are others that would do the trick, but its not these ones.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Mystery Meat

[Hamba Tuhan]

So, following the admonition in D&C 88 to "seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith," I'd recommend reading the sources I mentioned.

 

I have a PhD in history. I've read a lot of good books. I work in a research school filled with archaeologists, anthropologists, linguists, and other historians who all focus their research on the Asia-Pacific region, and all of them have read -- and written -- good books. Not a single well-read scholar I work with would contend against your assertion that homosexual behaviour is natural, but then neither would King Benjamin.

 

What is demonstrably new and different from the perspective of every single discipline practised in my research school is the construction of 'sexual identity' and the resultant reification of various sexualities within that construct. Consequently, not a single well-read scholar I work with would see the ascendance of 'sexual identity' and the innovation of 'same-sex marriage' as anything but enormously socially transformative and quite possibly socially disruptive (though some of them, obviously, are hoping for this very rending of the social fabric).

 

But on this topic, very, very few people seriously want to consult the 'best books'.

Edited November 21, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan

[SmileyMcGee]

So here is what Rorty is saying:

We have a bunch of statements.

"There is objective morality"

"There is no objective morality"

"The boiling point of water is 212F".

"Joseph Smith's vision taught that God has a body like ours"

"Evolution is true"

"Evolution is false"

"Evolution proves there was no fall of man"

"The fall of man is conpativle with evolution"

Each of these statements is a "truth candidate"

Each statement can be "jusrified" within an audience because that "audience" - community- has its own system of justification, indpendent of the others.

Scientific statements can by justified by the methods of science.

Statements about Catholicism - objective morality etc- can be justified within that framework

Statements about Mormonism can be justified using what a Mormon audience finds to be "justification"

Some Mormons may have different rules of justification than others because our definition of "dioctrine" is essentially pragmatic (that is my personal opinion) so some may find statements about evolution being compatible with the fall "justified" others may not. And yet others may agree with ssm- to a degree- and others not. When in doubt the church defines what qualifes as a "justified belief" for the community. Members of the community may disagree with that. In the final analysis they either get kicked out or not. The church clearly has a right to define those justification proceedures. (in my opinion)

Rorty then says that the word "truth" is used all the time but no one has defined it in an undisputed manner, for all audiences in all times. That is his belief and that statement is itself another "truth candidate" subject to justification within the philosophy community as a whole.

No one given statement can be said to "correspond" to "reality" better than any other because we cannot define "reality", only the "appearance of reality" because all we have in language are symbolic statements about what appears to us to be "reality", we can never get "down" to reality itself- just appearance

So there are no "facts" that we can get to- just interpretations of someone's description of what they think "reality" is.

So that is Rorty's position. Again- he does not allege that it is more "true" than any other description of "truth" so he is consistent about that.

Either that explanation helps or it doesn't.

I don't see how any of that is disputable. If you don't like it it doesn't work for you, and you get to find something that does.

Discussions like this one, in my opinion, should be about whether or not a given position can be "justified" to the Mormon community as the church defines "Mormon Community" ie- members.

We can talk about atheism here, but we are not atheists. We can talk about EV doctrine here, but ultimately those kinds of discussions which contain statements which are not justifiable within the Mormon community will come down to squabbling about defintions of words.

Within the community we know what we are talking about- (for the most part). So probably if we actually want to nfluence others, we should probably stick to discussions within the community.

I am here to try to influence others to my way of seeing Mormonism. That is my stated purpose, so that is why I do not see arguments justifiying truth candidates outside that community as relevant to my participation here.

So, bear with me Mark (I have obviously not given myself to much study of pragmatism), let me check if I'm understanding your posts correctly. Your objection to my request to a catholic that they "justify" their belief that something is objective or intrinsic is a trivial request since our frameworks for justification are likely different, and a framework cannot be "right" or "wrong?" It would be like me asking them to justify a belief in God using a scientific framework? In your opinion, would a more appropriate question for someone asserting a "truth candidate" (I like that term) be, "would you explain the framework by which you arrived at that belief?" Edited November 21, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[mfbukowski]

So everyone could be right about what they think is true even though there are apparently many contradictions between their beliefs and my beliefs?

Something is apparently wrong with that idea.

No they would all just think they were "right" and you could only prove them "wrong" if you converted them to understanding what you think is "right"

 

You can't prove anyone wrong and they can't prove you wrong either.  Most of the time you are talking "apples and oranges".  They are in their reference sphere and you are in yours.  You know, kind of like telling an atheist that God taught you to drive.  That is not likely to be convincing to him.   I think that is an odd way to say it, and I probably would not say it myself, but at least I understand with you on the point and would not say that I disagree with you on that or that you are "wrong"

 

You know- that's the the way it is around here and everywhere else.  This should not be new stuff- it just explicitly states the "way things are" or at least the way I certainly experience them.

[saemo]

The standard narrative idea that homosexuality goes against a "natural order" seems to me to be flawed - homosexual behavior in other animals is quite common. Cacilda Jethá and Christopher Ryan's book Sex At Dawn is informative.

Well, naturally ordered to mating, the producing of offspring and raising them. Obviously, is so for the human species and many others. Edited November 21, 2015 by saemo

[Rivers]

Let's revise/clarify that statement before we go any further. Sex, or sexual relations, perpetuates life in some cases. The word create works too but only as long as everyone understands we're not talking about creating from nothing.

You know what their argument is on that point, don't you? Sexual relations between opposite sex couples doesn't always produce offspring so let's not make this about whether or not children could be produced.

Yes. That's one of the arguments. Especially now that we have birth control.

[Storm Rider]

This is the problem, the behavior of another person, a parent, is preventing an individual from entering the waters of baptism.  The Church teaches that baptism is one of the fundamental objectives in this life.  If a child has reached the age of accountability and seeks to be baptized some time before the age of 18 and are denied solely because of the behavior of their parent there is a problem.  This directly, not euphemistically, not slightly, but wholly conflicts with the 2nd Article of Faith.  If an individual is denied a saving ordinance that is being punished for the sins of the another.  If you say that being denied baptism for the actions of another is not a punishment of any kind; that it is inconsequential, then my point could be incorrect.  

 

Do you have a problem with the church not baptizing someone without their parents permission?

 

Yes.  I think that we must operate transparently and respecting the desires of the parent whose child lives under their roof.  Once a child has left home, is considered an adult, then I don't see a need to seek their permission.  

 

Our policies today observe this - we ask permission of a parent to baptize a child, young person, or minor that seeks to be baptized.  

 

It is obvious that the door to baptism remains open on behalf of the Church.  If someone is going to prevent a baptism, it must not be the Church, but an outside force.  As I understand it, the responsibility of the Church is to fulfill the Great Commission given by Christ in Matt 28:19-20:

 

 19 ¶Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

There is no qualifier to this Commission.  If it is difficult for someone to follow Christ or keep his commandments, then we must succor them, strengthen them, counsel them, to hold to the rod.  The Church must never shirk that responsibility in a direct manner.  The Church will teach everyone to repent, to observe the commandments, and to be baptized.  I believe that we do serious harm any time we hinder this command given by Jesus Christ.  

[Zakuska]

Every body knows the 8th Article of Faith:

 

8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly;

 

So have our KJV interpreters really got things right for us?

 

I'd like to go over something Paul wrote, he gave a list of people who won't inherit the kingdom of heaven.

 

1 Corinthians 9

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?

Be not deceived:

neither fornicators,

nor idolaters,

nor adulterers,

nor effeminate

nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

nor thieves,

nor covetous,

nor drunkards,

nor revilers,

nor extortioners,

shall inherit the kingdom of God.

And such were some of you:

but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

 

Here Paul gives us a list of sins and unabashedly tells us that there were members of the church who lived a gay lifestyle at least up to the point they got baptised.

 

However, Has this list of No-NOs been "translated" correctly?

 

I did some digging in the greek and I think you might be suprised what I have found.

 

There are four things in the list above that have to do with sexual relations and sin.

 

fornicators, (People who have sex outside of Marriage)

idolaters,   (Possible eluding to ritual sex in the temples of Idols [Temple Prostitutes])

adulterers,  (Married People who have sexual relations with someone other than their spouse)

effeminate,  (Gays)

abusers of themselves with mankind (Homosexuals)

 

I thought to my self... if this is a list of deadly sins... why would it be so redundant? When we do bullet lists on web pages at work we tend not to be redundant like that. Why the 2 references to gay relations? Something seems odd here.

 

So I went and looked up those words in the Greek and Strongs... Lexicon:

 

effeminate<3120>

3120 malakos {mal-ak-os'}

of uncertain affinity;; adj

AV - soft 3, effeminate 1; 4

1) soft, soft to the touch

2) metaph. in a bad sense

   2a) effeminate

      2a1) of a catamite [a boy kept by a pederast

      2a2) of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man

      2a3) of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness

      2a4) of a male prostitute

 

Why would Paul be condeming a soft docile "boy" as being a sinner?

 

And then something caught my eye... "pederast" in 2a1. What is that word?

 

So I looked it up on Google...

 

Pederasty or paederasty (US /ˈpɛdəræsti/ or UK /ˈpiːdəræsti/) is a (usually erotic) homosexual relationship between an adult male and a pubescent or adolescent male. The word pederasty derives from Greek (paiderastia) "love of boys",[1] a compound derived from παῖς (pais) "child, boy" and ἐραστής (erastēs) "lover". In French, however, "pédérastie" has been used as a synonym for homosexuality between adult males (see Histoire du mot pédérastie).

 

And sure enough... its talking about gay sex right?

 

You might think that but you would be wrong.  This is talking about a specific type of relationship between Male partners.  Its right in the definition.

 

"relationship between an adult male and a pubescent or adolescent male"

 

I submit that with this information in mind the KJV rendering of "effeminate" is a very poor rendering indeed, considering the context and meaning. I further submit that God wouldn't codemn the "Abused" in such a relationship (ie the pubescent or adolescent boy).

 

This would actually be better rendered as: 

 

  PEDOPHILE

 

In fact Pedastre comes from the same root as the English word PEDOPHILE.

 

This makes what the Savior himself said about child sex abusers of either gender so much more meaningful.

 

Math 18:6

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

 

The next word is...

 

733 arsenokoites {ar-sen-ok-oy'-tace}

from 730 and 2845;; n m

AV - abuser of (one's) self with mankind 1,

     defile (one's) self with mankind 1; 2

1) one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual

 

And its used in this part of what Paul said "abusers of themselves with mankind".

 

I thought to myself... This definately is about gay sex right? It's gotta be. Surely.

 

But then I looked the word up on Google and this was among the definitions.

 

Arsenokoitēs (αρσενοκοίτης) 

...

The context in which it is used in Corinthians suggests that it is the dominant partner of a homosexual relationship"

Here again we have the Older/Dominant Male in a male-male relationship identified.

Could this be talking about Pedofilia again?

But then I thought to myself. "abuser" and "mankind"

"mankind" doesn't necessarily mean Male only... mankind can often include "women" in the definition.

Then I found out that "Arsenokoitēs" has been used through history to also identify a certian type of Male-Female sexual relationship.

So we have a dominant Male in a sexual relationship that could include males and/or females.

I submit that with this in mind the context suggests that "Arsenokoitēs" should be rendered in modern English as:

RAPIST

Thus we come to this conclusion... a better rendering of Pauls lists would be...

fornicators,

idolaters,

adulterers,

pedophiles,

rapists,

thieves,

coveters,

drunkards,

revilers,

extortioners,

That would fit so much better the context in which Paul makes his list of no-nos and nothing is redundant. So its not that homosexual relations are the sin its the ABUSE involved in the act.

This also makes the Sodom and Gamorrah story make SOOOO much more sense. We know the crowd wasn't just Men... who wanted to "Know" the Angels... women were involved too.

Gen 19

 4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

 

So you can't say the story is about a Gay gang that wanted to rape Lot and the Angels.

 

We also know that Lot sent for his sons-in-law to bring their wives and leave the city with him (verse 12).

 

The Whole town of Sodom came and they didn't want to "know" the Angels sexually. They wanted to meet them abusively and rough them up.

 

Lot even says as much...

And Lot said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

 

Lot didn't offer his "virgin" daughters to entice the men sexually ... he offered his 2 remaining prepubescent children to the crowd to get beat up rather than his guests.

 

So Sodom and Gamorrah had nothing what so ever to do with homosexuals!

 

This would mean that a dedicated Gay couple could covenant to each other and no one else, who LOVE each other even though they might be a "Dry fig tree" who cannot reproduce. The master of the Vineyard can still touch their lives and bless them as the other Eunuchs in the Lords house. (Isaiah)

 

The thing I think that makes a "barren couple" whether Gay or Straight so much better than a heterosexual couple like myself, Is the ability they have to love a child who is not flesh of my flesh and bone of my bones.

 

Yes Heteros can adopt too and love a child just as much as a Gay couple.  But a gay couple is unique in that they will never have a child that is both of the parents' genetically. So personally I think they have a little edge over us straight people.

 

So with this information in mind I submit that homosexuality isn't a sin at all when engaged in concentually and with in the bonds of Marriage.

 

Not that I would want to, I'm covenanted to my wife.

It is my prayer that we as a church can rise above the prejudices of our protestant predecessors, who gave us our poor translations of the scriptures, and we can quit acting like a bunch of West Burrow Baptists toward our brothers and sisters of a homosexual nature. That we can eject this bad doctrine just like we did with the protestant imported curse of cain doctrine that caused the priesthood ban, And start loving our fellow men unconditionally of what ever sexual orientation.

Edited November 21, 2015 by Zakuska

[Storm Rider]

This is the danger of getting on a soap box.  I almost always regret doing so, but I still vent at times and at other times I just go too far.  DB goes too far.

 

The Brethren hold the mantle, the keys, of the Kingdom.  God has called them and sustains them.  If they err, who is responsible?  Who will pay the price?  No a member and certainly not a person whose feelings are hurt as a result of the their actions.  As leaders, as the decision makers, the blessings and sins rest on their heads alone.  Think about that for a moment.  

 

We may get together and discuss their actions, historical facts, scriptural references, etc., these individuals are not called to talk about it, but to bear responsibility for the governance of the Kingdom of God on earth.  

 

Our job is to support them.  If we are truly bothered by something, write a letter and send it off to them, and then support them.  At all other times it would serve the Church best if we just shut our mouths.  Whining and kicking against the pricks serves nothing, but destroys our own spirituality.  Or do you think otherwise; that God enjoys and blesses us when we whine and complain about leaders?  

 

Ego and pride are the tools of the evil one and they always lead us down to the fires of damnation.  It is we who create our own hell and most of the time while the fires of hell grow higher we are pointing our fingers at others and complaining that they are wrong. 

[mfbukowski]

So, bear with me Mark (I have obviously not given myself to much study of pragmatism), let me check if I'm understanding your posts correctly. Your objection to my request to a catholic that they "justify" their belief that something is objective or intrinsic is a trivial request since our frameworks for justification are likely different, and a framework cannot be "right" or "wrong?" It would be like me asking them to justify a belief in God using a scientific framework? In your opinion, would a more appropriate question for someone asserting a "truth candidate" (I like that term) be, "would you explain the framework by which you arrived at that belief?"

In a word "yes".

 

But most people have no clue how to respond to that question as we see every day right here.  That actually requires an education in philosophy.

 

Virtually everyone I meet here cannot do that.  The atheists that spout Occam's Razor and that "there is no evidence for religion or God" cannot do that, people who believe that moral objectivity exists cannot do that, people who not believe in moral objectivity cannot do that etc. etc

 

If one would want to argue properly about moral objectivity the argument would revolve around these issues:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism

I haven't seen anyone even familiar with these issues.

 

The most obvious error I see for example is going to scientific evidence for spiritual verification.

 

I recently saw a prominent Mormon thinker present what was alleged to be a presentation on "secular spirituality" which mostly involved arguments based around the location of the earth being perfect for the generation of life, the distance of the moon being fortuitous for the tides, etc etc etc- apparently alleging that scientific evidence shows the possibility that God planned it all that way.

 

That's nice, but it is not a philosophical argument, it is a scientific argument for something outside of science.  The same problem arises in discussions about evolution and the fall.

 

Both of those arguments presume - in both cases- that religion can tell us the way "things really are" and that science can also tell us "the way things really are", so there seems to be a conflict.  Evolution, because it tells us that "animals really did evolve" seems to be in conflict with "God really did make the animals".

 

A philosopher educated in the philosophy of religion might see a statement about God creating animals as a statement about a belief which gives reverence to nature and perhaps tells us how we should treat animals, a statement about how we should feel about animals and how we should see the SIGNIFICANCE of animals to human life, not about something that "really happened"

 

A scientist educated in the philosophy of science would see a statement about evolution as a statement about a useful paradigm expressing the best available EXPLANATION for all the divergent species science studies.  He would understand that it was not about "what really happened", but that it was simply the best explanation- specifically deliberately excluding any statements about purpose or meaning or significance of animals to mankind.

 

One statement is ABOUT significance of animals to mankind and the other is deliberately NOT ABOUT the significance or purpose of animals in relation to mankind.

 

They are talking about different things and so could not possibly be in conflict any more than a statement about the game of bridge could be in conflict with statements about impressionist painting.

 

I happened to speak to a non-Mormon religious philosopher who understands this stuff and attended the same conference, and we both agreed that the presentation was off-base, and that it did not help the cause of religion one iota.  He incidentally believes in moral objectivity and I do not but we both immediately saw the problem with making a scientific case for a religious position.

 

If we really want to get beyond our present parochial views about all this we need to get better educated about these issues.  I believe that will make us better members and less defensive about our beliefs and could lead to us becoming truly a world religion.

 

If we could see how compatible our doctrines are with much in contemporary philosophy we could truly become a cutting edge system of thought and I believe, lead the world back in a religious direction.

 

Our failure to meet this challenge, I am convinced, could be our downfall

[mfbukowski]

The standard narrative idea that homosexuality goes against a "natural order" seems to me to be flawed - homosexual behavior in other animals is quite common. Cacilda Jethá and Christopher Ryan's book Sex At Dawn is informative. 

Hey man I like you and all but I did not mean to give you a rep point on this one.  I goofed.

 

What animals actually do only proves that animals do it.  Remember we are supposed to leave the "natural man" behind?  That means we do not act like animals but in my opinion like "Ideal Humans" living to "fill the measure of our creation?"

 

What is the "measure of the creation" of our bodies?

 

Perhaps using them to the highest use for which they were designed, without carnal considerations?  Like perhaps creating families capable of exaltation?

 

Just a modest proposal that's all.

Edited November 21, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I'd love to see if any catholics (or LDS) can prove that SSM (or any behavior) is intrinsically evil...or at least give their reasoning for why SSM is intrinsically evil...

Intrinsically evil?

 

Heck no.  Sinful? Heck yes.  See above.

[mfbukowski]

Cool. So, following the admonition in D&C 88 to "seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith," I'd recommend reading the sources I mentioned before dismissing them, so that, as Brigham Young said, "our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular."

They can't.  Religion is not about science.

 

Allegedly you know that, so why are you saying that?  Remember Sorenson?  Do you think science OR religion is "TRUE" or "true"?

 

That means homosexuality is how you interpret it, just like everything else.

 

Usually you leave the discussion around now.  I would like to talk it out

Edited November 21, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Deborah]

It seems that there is a confusion about what is intrinsically evil and something that is simply not right where the laws of God and eternity apply. For example an alcoholic is not intrinsically evil but his alcoholism can have very harmful effects on the family and on society. Homosexuality is not intrinsically evil but it is harmful for someone who believes in and looks forward to eternal life. In fact most SS individuals are very good and kind people. But in the eternal nature of the things they are harming their own progression. I think in calling SS relations apostasy the church was not saying the people are evil but rather such behavior cannot be of any benefit to themselves or their children in the eternal perspective and therefore cannot be allowed in a church whose purpose is to teach exaltation. I look at this whole issue from the eternal perspective. Mortality is too short and too imperfect to understand all the ramifications.

[Ahab]

No they would all just think they were "right" and you could only prove them "wrong" if you converted them to understanding what you think is "right"

You can't prove anyone wrong and they can't prove you wrong either. Most of the time you are talking "apples and oranges". They are in their reference sphere and you are in yours. You know, kind of like telling an atheist that God taught you to drive. That is not likely to be convincing to him. I think that is an odd way to say it, and I probably would not say it myself, but at least I understand with you on the point and would not say that I disagree with you on that or that you are "wrong"

You know- that's the the way it is around here and everywhere else. This should not be new stuff- it just explicitly states the "way things are" or at least the way I certainly experience them.

The thing is, though, that I can prove somebody is wrong, when they are wrong, and when I am sure that I understand what they mean and are saying.

I sometimes may not be able to convince them they are wrong when they are wrong, but I can prove they are wrong when I know they are wrong as long as I know what is right.

Proof doesn't require convincing someone of what the proof shows. All that is needed is the proof to prove the point and someone who can see what the proof shows. Just someone. Not everybody agreeing unanimously.

[Rivers]

 

So with this information in mind I submit that homosexuality isn't a sin at all when engaged in concentually and withint the bonds of Marriage.

 

Not that I would want to, I'm covenanted to my wife.

This is why I don't usually like to make an appeal to the Bible when talking about SSM and homosexuality.  Bible passages that appear to be condemning homosexualtiy can be worked around as you have done. I think the best Bible passage for this topic is in Matt. 19 4-5 where Jesus specifically defines marriage as being a union of male and female:

 

 

4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

 

 

 

 

 It mostly comes down to whether or not one accepts The Proclamation on the Family as an inspired document from modern prophets and apostles. 

Edited November 21, 2015 by Rivers

[sjdawg]

 

But take heart, sunstoned and sjdawg and rockpond and gray. Dehlin's 40-year prophecy is just 39 years, 2 months, 3 weeks, 1 day, 6 hours, 8 minutes and 28 seconds away from fulfillment. You might even live to see it.

 

I'm a little confused by my inclusion in this comment.

 

1.  I am not a follower of Dehlin and am not aware of any "prophecy" he has made

2.  I don't have any expectation that the mormon church will accept gay marriage nor do I really care if they do.

3.  I do support gay marriage in general.  Is that why I should breathlessly be waiting for some mysterious Dehlin prediction to be realized?