ALarson Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) 8 hours ago, JulieM said: Well, the law of chastity states to keep sexual relations within a "legally and lawfully" bound marriage, correct? Why doesn't this apply equally to gays who are married? I have read on here that some interpret this to mean "laws of God" (lawfully), but is that doctrine? And what about the "legally" part? Certainly this applies to gays who are married now. Or is there a different Law of Chastity for gays to obey? JLHPROF has stated that the Law of Chastity was worded differently back when polygamy was practiced in the church. But that's the only time I've heard that it was different. Gays should be bound by the same Law of Chastity that we are all to follow. So, if they are married, it seems they are complying (unless like you say, the "legally and lawfully" wed part is interpreted by some to mean laws of the gospel/God....but they'd have the "legally" part met). . Edited March 9, 2016 by ALarson
The Nehor Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 1 hour ago, Monster said: Its about control. When the church loses control over the sexual habits of its believers it has lost much of its leverage. Uhhhhh.....no. 1
JLHPROF Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 18 minutes ago, ALarson said: JLHPROF has stated that the Law of Chastity was worded differently back when polygamy was practiced in the church. But that's the only time I've heard that it was different, I'd post it but we cannot post or link to temple content. It used to specify that those endowed only have relations with those given them by priesthood authority - which sheds new light on the Zina story in the other thread. When was she placed under that covenant?
ALarson Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I'd post it but we cannot post or link to temple content. It used to specify that those endowed only have relations with those given them by priesthood authority - which sheds new light on the Zina story in the other thread. When was she placed under that covenant? Interesting, thanks. She was placed under covenant with Joseph, correct? Is that what you are referring to? I'd have to look up the date, but iirc, it was 1841.
Tacenda Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 7 hours ago, The Nehor said: As someone who is al tnne I can testify that there is a good reason. I have been single all this time and look at what has happened to me. Do not look for an extended period..... "And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze unto thee." Are you doing enough to alleviate that? It might be the same question gays have been asked.
Duncan Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 29 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: It has no purpose. It is an inborn weakness to be overcome like any other. The problem is we have made it one that is societally acceptable to embrace. Do you think though that it like any other weakness is culturally acceptable in the Church? Do we hear how people who eat too much or don't exercise or smoke or drink are sodomites and "should be put on an island", "apostate", or they are an "abomination" or whatever stuff we hear at church, somehow in my mind whatever our weaknesses are being at church, living the gospel and trying to live a Christ like life need to be heard by everyone and not shown the door for being in mortality. We need to help each other not culturally be judgy and snide remarks and not accepting 1
Nofear Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I'd post it but we cannot post or link to temple content. It used to specify that those endowed only have relations with those given them by priesthood authority - which sheds new light on the Zina story in the other thread. When was she placed under that covenant? I've asked before when the change to "legally and lawfully wedded" occurred but nobody seemed to know for sure. I quite suspected the language change was post-Manifesto. Would you mind private messaging me some of the information you have?
thesometimesaint Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 9 hours ago, JulieM said: Well, the law of chastity states to keep sexual relations within a "legally and lawfully" bound marriage, correct? Why doesn't this apply equally to gays who are married? I have read on here that some interpret this to mean "laws of God" (lawfully), but is that doctrine? And what about the "legally" part? Certainly this applies to gays who are married now. Or is there a different Law of Chastity for gays to obey? There is no law requiring that the Church recognize any marriage.
The Nehor Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 35 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Are you doing enough to alleviate that? It might be the same question gays have been asked. Alleviate it how?
Tacenda Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 8 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Alleviate it how? Dating the opposite sex? Just comparing situations.
The Nehor Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 1 minute ago, Tacenda said: Dating the opposite sex? Just comparing situations. Tried that and am still trying that. Hasn't worked so far. I just seem completely unattracted to those attracted to me and those I find attractive are not attracted to me. Not sure why this is. 4
longview Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 16 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Tried that and am still trying that. Hasn't worked so far. I just seem completely unattracted to those attracted to me and those I find attractive are not attracted to me. Not sure why this is. <teasing> <insult> Maybe I can explain that - - - The ones you are attracted to are in the upper tiers - - - While you are stuck in the lower tiers - - - </insult> </teasing>
JLHPROF Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 1 hour ago, ALarson said: Interesting, thanks. She was placed under covenant with Joseph, correct? Is that what you are referring to? I'd have to look up the date, but iirc, it was 1841. No actually - follow the timeline. March 1841 - Zina marries Henry in civil marriage October 1841 - Zina marries Joseph for time and eternity June 1844 - Joseph dies June 1845 - Zina conceives her last child with Henry Probable late 1845 - Zina admitted to anointed quorum and placed under covenant of chastity (no relations except with priesthood husband) January 1846 - Zina is reendowed in Nauvoo temple and placed under covenant of chastity a second time (no relations except with priesthood husband) February 1846 - Zina is resealed to Joseph for eternity in Nauvoo temple and Brigham for time in a Levirate marriage March 1846 - Zina and Henry have their last child I do not know if Zina and Joseph ever had relations, but I do believe that once she was placed under the covenant of chastity her relations with Henry (her civil husband only) ended. To really understand what appear to be polyandrous marriages, we have to understand how the early saints at this time viewed civil marriage vs priesthood marriage. As long as we apply modern concepts and weight civil marriage and priesthood marriage equally we will never understand how the relationships worked.
ALarson Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: No actually - follow the timeline. March 1841 - Zina marries Henry in civil marriage October 1841 - Zina marries Joseph for time and eternity June 1844 - Joseph dies June 1845 - Zina conceives her last child with Henry Probable late 1845 - Zina admitted to anointed quorum and placed under covenant of chastity (no relations except with priesthood husband) January 1846 - Zina is reendowed in Nauvoo temple and placed under covenant of chastity a second time (no relations except with priesthood husband) February 1846 - Zina is resealed to Joseph for eternity in Nauvoo temple and Brigham for time in a Levirate marriage March 1846 - Zina and Henry have their last child I do not know if Zina and Joseph ever had relations, but I do believe that once she was placed under the covenant of chastity her relations with Henry (her civil husband only) ended. To really understand what appear to be polyandrous marriages, we have to understand how the early saints at this time viewed civil marriage vs priesthood marriage. As long as we apply modern concepts and weight civil marriage and priesthood marriage equally we will never understand how the relationships worked. Thanks, interesting to read through and see the actual dates.
Calm Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) 10 hours ago, mtomm said: Sincere question: Do we know that homosexuality is caused by major problems in utero? Is there a chance that it's a normal variation in human sexuality? The studies do seem to indicate there is a contribution from the utero environment. And if one would suggest such is trivial, than one needs to explain why many identical twins of those who have homosexual attractions are heterosexually attracted since genetics between them would be the same. "Normal" generally depends on how we choose to define it. There is not a set standard deviation from the mean beyond which behavour is abnormal across the board, so we would have to agree what is "normal" first. For example, there are probably significantly more individuals who commit adultery out there than those who engage in homosexual acts, but our current American culture would label the first as abnormal and the second as normal (I am not in any way equating the two, just using them as sexual behaviours). In the past, it might have been reversed in many countries (it was seen as typical behaviour for a man to have a mistress in some cultures, for example). Edited March 9, 2016 by Calm 1
Rivers Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 Chastity is not having sex outside of marriage. Marriage(in a gospel sense) is the union of man and woman. Its really that simple.
Popular Post Analytics Posted March 9, 2016 Popular Post Posted March 9, 2016 13 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: Holland said it was all about chastity. So, if a same-sex married couple promises that they won't have sex, they'll be welcome in the church with full fellowship, right? 8
VideoGameJunkie Posted March 9, 2016 Author Posted March 9, 2016 3 hours ago, The Nehor said: Tried that and am still trying that. Hasn't worked so far. I just seem completely unattracted to those attracted to me and those I find attractive are not attracted to me. Not sure why this is. That's how it is with me too. The ones I like don't like me and the ones that do like me I have no interest in. It's different with non mormon girls though, ive had a lot of success dating attractive non members but I want a temple marriage and those non mormon girls can't give me that and they don't want to convert.
Popular Post rockpond Posted March 9, 2016 Popular Post Posted March 9, 2016 16 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: Just watched Jeffrey Holland do the YSA face to face and the last question was about same sex attraction, and Elder Holland said he wishes people would talk less about the attraction and more about chastity. He kept repeating chastity is the issue as it is with heterosexual singles. It was a great session. Church leaders like to make that claim. The reality is, however, that chastity is the law for straight members of the church while celibacy is the law of gay members of the church. There is a big difference and he's being either disingenuous or ignorant in pretending that there isn't. 5
Rivers Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 2 hours ago, Analytics said: So, if a same-sex married couple promises that they won't have sex, they'll be welcome in the church with full fellowship, right? No because the very act of entering into a sane-sex marriage is an act of apostasy. Two gay roommates not having sex might be a different story.
ALarson Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 4 minutes ago, Rivers said: No because the very act of entering into a sane-sex marriage is an act of apostasy. Two gay roommates not having sex might be a different story. Or a gay person having several different sexual partners is also not as serious as entering into a committed SSM. Sure doesn't make a lot of sense, but it's true. Of course, there could still be disciplinary actions brought, but no automatic label of apostate. 1
JLHPROF Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 3 minutes ago, ALarson said: Or a gay person having several different sexual partners is also not as serious as entering into a committed SSM. Did I miss that teaching? I don't think a scale of homosexual sex seriousness was ever established. Any homosexual activity is sinful and worthy of disciplinary action isn't it? The apostasy part does apply more to marriage than to the sexual act, because the marriage is promoting a family system that goes against Church beliefs. So I suppose SSM marriage which includes homosexual acts features both immorality AND apostasy. Uncommitted SS relations would just be immorality. Maybe there is a scale of seriousness...
ALarson Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 1 minute ago, JLHPROF said: Did I miss that teaching? I don't think a scale of homosexual sex seriousness was ever established. Any homosexual activity is sinful and worthy of disciplinary action isn't it? The apostasy part does apply more to marriage than to the sexual act, because the marriage is promoting a family system that goes against Church beliefs. So I suppose SSM marriage which includes homosexual acts features both immorality AND apostasy. Uncommitted SS relations would just be immorality. Maybe there is a scale of seriousness... It appears this is the case. (And, I also stated above that there could be disciplinary actions brought for any promiscuity.) 9 minutes ago, ALarson said: Of course, there could still be disciplinary actions brought, but no automatic label of apostate.
Rivers Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) 10 minutes ago, ALarson said: Or a gay person having several different sexual partners is also not as serious as entering into a committed SSM. Sure doesn't make a lot of sense, but it's true. Of course, there could still be disciplinary actions brought, but no automatic label of apostate. Any person having one or more sexual partners outside of marriage is fornicating. Gay or straight. Fornication is a sin but not apostasy. Maybe the the question of the difference between sin and apostasy deserves its own thread. Edited March 9, 2016 by Rivers 1
ALarson Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 Just now, Rivers said: Any person having one or more sexual partners outside of marriage is fornicating. Gay or straight. Fornication is a sin but not apostasy. Maybe the difference between sin and apostasy deserves its own thread. I agree (with all 3 of your sentences).
Recommended Posts