Freedom Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: I understand your thought process but how would one define "dwelling on the sin"? Thinking about it for a full minute? Five minutes? Planning ways to commit the sin? I don't believe temptations are sins. Maybe the person who is dwelling on it is doing the absolute best they can not to give in to action? Remember, Christ was tempted. Were His temptations sins? How long did he consider turning a rock into bread? Did he consider giving up in the garden? If so, how long did he think about it? Ultimately He didn't turn the rock into bread and He didn't give up in the garden, therefore he didn't sin. The sin is the action. Focusing ones thoughts and trying not to dwell on the temptation is an attempt at placing a safety barrier between the individual and the sin, but is not sin in and of itself. There is, of course, no definitive answer. How many cigarettes do you smoke before you become addicted, how many curse words to you say before it becomes a habit. Thought leads to action so the issue is, if you dwell on it eventually you give in and commit the sin. You are not doing your self any good if you dwell on a temptation and then expend a tremendous amount of discipline to prevent yourself from indulging. I don't care how close I can get to the edge of the cliff with my wagon, I am going to stay as far away from it as possible. As I said, you will be judged on the thoughts and intents of your heart. Haggling over when an impulse becomes a thought and when a thought becomes a sin is pointless. 2
mfbukowski Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 2 hours ago, california boy said: So if I live with my boyfriend and do not have sexual relations, I am still living the law of chastity? That is what the words say, yes.
mfbukowski Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, JulieM said: Not at all. There was only 1 wife that was considered legal when living polygamy (whether it was back then or today). So using the "only having sexual relations with your legally and lawfully" wedded spouse as a definition for the law of chastity is not as simple as you try to portray it. Those living plural marriage had sexual relations with someone they were not legally married to. Also, those entering a SSM are legally wed. Again, not simple when just using the church's law of chastity as it is written or stated in the temple. Of course there's more to it (one can believe that lawfully means the laws of God). But it's not simple. You give no evidence for any of this. But as I said the whole argument doesn't matter anyway. The church has been known to have made mistakes. Your whole argument, if you had one, is moot. It's smoke and mirrors. It does not speak to the OP In a temple recommend interview the bishop does not ask about kissing or petting or whom you are living with or whether or not it was legal in Utah to have more than one wife. He asks if you are living the law of chastity- yes or no You are your own judge- and God help you if you are not honest with yourself. The temple defines it- and that is the end of the story- there can be no other earthly way to judge it. Orthopraxis. Edited July 16, 2016 by mfbukowski 1
Calm Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 How about church members are to live the Laws of God as they have been given to the Church to the best of their ability (all mankind is judged by the Law they have received, not by the Law they do not know)...thus appropriate behaviours are to be measured against the LoC as it was/is stated by the Church during their lives? 1
JulieM Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 (edited) 44 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: You give no evidence for any of this. No evidence that when living plural marriage there was only one legal wife? You can't be serious. Or do you mean I have no evidence that there were sexual relations between the plural spouses who were not legally wed (who lived polygamy)? If you need evidence for this, look up all the children who were born to men living polygamy and their plural wives to whom they were not legally wed. If you are speaking of neither of these, what are you referring to here? Do you need evidence that SSM are legal marriages? Edited July 16, 2016 by JulieM
VideoGameJunkie Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 26 minutes ago, JulieM said: No evidence that when living plural marriage there was only one legal wife? You can't be serious. Or do you mean I have no evidence that there were sexual relations between the plural spouses who were not legally wed (who lived polygamy). If so, again, you can't be serious. If you are speaking of neither of these, what are you referring to here? I agree with you. They were breaking temple covenants.
Calm Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 You are assuming the Law of Chasity was given to them with the same words. 1
VideoGameJunkie Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 2 minutes ago, Calm said: You are assuming the Law of Chasity was given to them with the same words. You mean temple Covenants meant for our eternal salvation change over the years?
ALarson Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 3 minutes ago, Calm said: You are assuming the Law of Chasity was given to them with the same words. I would post it, but it has been altered some (temple content). JLHPROF has posted about this too. I think the point that JulieM was trying to make is that things are not as simple as mfbukowski stated (she can correct me if I'm wrong). Laws change over time and this is a good example of that. 1
Calm Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 (edited) Language changes from time to time. Language impacts understanding. Understanding impacts language. A 1990 change would seem to have expanded what type of sexual behaviours were covered by the change of one word (intercourse to relations), but more likely it was keeping it consistent. I believe that the former understanding of intercourse is closer to the new word than the current usage is, so the change is appropriate. http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Intercourse Edited July 16, 2016 by Calm 2
Calm Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 If you have a problem with change, the Gospel with its doctrine of eternal progression and continuing revelation is likely to be very uncomfortable for you. The scriptures have many examples of God changing the commandments of his laws as understanding grows and diminishes and as conditions change. He did not require a Tabernacle of Abraham, but only an altar, he required a Tabernacle of the Israelites but softened the laws because of their weaknesses, he required a temple once they were settled and strong enough to build one, he allowed for divorce because of the weakness of the people, etc.
JulieM Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Calm said: If you have a problem with change, the Gospel with its doctrine of eternal progression and continuing revelation is likely to be very uncomfortable for you. Exactly. That's why I objected to the post stating "done". Laws change or have evolved from the past to the present as been shown here. Edited July 16, 2016 by JulieM
Calm Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 However, we are expected to live according to the law we have, not the ones we think may come innthe future. 1
JulieM Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Calm said: However, we are expected to live according to the law we have, not the ones we think may come innthe future. Yes, I agree. But we should not state that a law is "done" or can't change. The past has proven that is not the case. Edited July 16, 2016 by JulieM
UtahTexan Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 12 minutes ago, JulieM said: Yes, I agree. But we should not state that a law is "done" or can't change. The past has proven that is not the case. Sorta.... the law cannot be changed or undone by MAN Should Heavenly Father see the need for change, I am certain He will let us know
JulieM Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 8 minutes ago, CountryBoy said: Sorta... No, not "sorta". It did change. That you believe it came from God, doesn't mean that it didn't change and that God can't change laws in the future.
Calm Posted July 17, 2016 Posted July 17, 2016 45 minutes ago, JulieM said: Yes, I agree. But we should not state that a law is "done" or can't change. The past has proven that is not the case. I am not certain that was what mfb was referring to. I got the idea he was talking about what we need to discuss about it in the here and now.
JulieM Posted July 17, 2016 Posted July 17, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Calm said: I am not certain that was what mfb was referring to. I got the idea he was talking about what we need to discuss about it in the here and now. Maybe I misunderstood. I'll read what he wrote again. Thanks ETA: I read what he posted again and I don't see that I misunderstood. He seems to state that the law of chastity is "done". I know he can have his opinion, but history has shown us that this law has already been altered. So to say it's "done" is assuming it can't change again in the future. I disagree. Edited July 17, 2016 by JulieM
UtahTexan Posted July 17, 2016 Posted July 17, 2016 4 hours ago, JulieM said: No, not "sorta". It did change. That you believe it came from God, doesn't mean that it didn't change and that God can't change laws in the future. You missed my point. I meant Man cannot change it. Only God can
JulieM Posted July 17, 2016 Posted July 17, 2016 (edited) 17 minutes ago, CountryBoy said: You missed my point. I meant Man cannot change it. Only God can Nope, I didn't miss your point. It appears that you missed mine, though. We know the law of chastity was altered. If it was changed by God, He may change it again. We know it's already happened once and could possibly happen again, Edited July 17, 2016 by JulieM 1
mfbukowski Posted July 17, 2016 Posted July 17, 2016 3 hours ago, JulieM said: Maybe I misunderstood. I'll read what he wrote again. Thanks ETA: I read what he posted again and I don't see that I misunderstood. He seems to state that the law of chastity is "done". I know he can have his opinion, but history has shown us that this law has already been altered. So to say it's "done" is assuming it can't change again in the future. I disagree. Your understanding is far too black and white, rigidly authoritarian, and fundamentalistic. The present definition of the l of c is clearly the temple one- no sexual relations with anyone with whom you are not legally married. As I have said several times, we are not talking about polygamy here, we are talking about the PRESENT DEFINITION of the law of chastity. It is clear and consise. "Done" does not mean "unchangable", it means a task is finished. You mow the lawn, you are "done". I suspect that lawn mowing will have to be revised. HOW you could possibly equate "done" with the implication that it is unchangeable ?? Where do you get this stuff? The bishop does not count kisses to find out that if you kiss 99 times you are not violating the Lof C but the 100th you are. All the other suppositions about the present definition of the L of C are irrelevant. The statement is clear and "DONE". THAT is the definition. If you have another authoritative source conflicting with that, say so. You look up a word in the dictionary and then you get the definition. Your task at that point is "done"! THAT is the definition. You may argue it, you may disagree, it may change- or whatever but THAT is the working definition of the word. The definition itself is ambiguous- define "sexual relations"! It could be anything. BUT that is the definition. Bill Clinton comes to mind. Ultimately it is between the individual and the Lord, and the bishop if the individual chooses to reveal specific behaviors to the bishop. As I have also said now for the third time and last time, this is totally irrelevant to the OP. The OP is about gays and the plan of salvation, so this whole argument about polygamy is irrelevant. I am "done". Drone on all you like about it, make up your strawmen and have fun, but I am DONE. 2
california boy Posted July 17, 2016 Author Posted July 17, 2016 8 hours ago, mfbukowski said: That is what the words say, yes. So if I have no sexual relations and keep all the commandments just like everyone else, can I spend eternity with him in the celestial kingdom?
Thinking Posted July 17, 2016 Posted July 17, 2016 If a gay member does not marry and remains celibate, will he/she be given the opportunity in the next life to marry and achieve exaltation?
california boy Posted July 17, 2016 Author Posted July 17, 2016 3 hours ago, Thinking said: If a gay member does not marry and remains celibate, will he/she be given the opportunity in the next life to marry and achieve exaltation? So I can still be with my loved one throughout eternity, just like the same promise given to everyone else?
Storm Rider Posted July 17, 2016 Posted July 17, 2016 3 hours ago, Thinking said: If a gay member does not marry and remains celibate, will he/she be given the opportunity in the next life to marry and achieve exaltation? If a member with SSA lives a life with a purpose single to the glory of God; filled the desire to please God in all ways, then that individual will be an heir with Jesus Christ in the same manner that every other member will. The blessing of becoming an joint-heir with Christ is not limited to those with a specific subset of sins - it is open to all sinners. 1
Recommended Posts