A Ward's Embrace to a Gay Couple

[Damien the Leper]

I'm asking that this thread not be derailed by discussing morality and sin. This thread is not for those who like to grandstand on the morality soapbox. If it gets too much out of hand I'll shut it down. No egos, no arguments, please.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, rpn said:

I don't see why any gay couple could not be in any ward.  Excommunicated people are urged to continue attending.  They can't pray or have a VT/HT route or give a talk (which isn't exactly the end of the world for most).   But they can sing in the choir and volunteer with service projects and the like.  So I would wonder how any ward could act in ways that shut out gay couples or gay people who wish to attend, and be consistent with their faith.

I am bewildered that so many find love and Christian love, odd or non-existent. Simply put, it is the norm of Mormons, Christians and those filled with the love of Christ to extend that same love. 

 

[waveslider]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I wonder if you see the irony in your first sentence.

One thing to note, in response, is that Nick & Spencer are deemed apostate and excommunication is required by their priesthood leaders.  The other (hetero) situations that you described do not fall under that same definition and requirement.

Okay, I can see why some people might treat the LGBTQ people different, but that would only be because they are forcing acceptance upon everyone. So I guess it is kind of ironic in a way, but I meant anyone truly following Christ instead of trying to be politically correct.

As far as excommunication of people in this situation I described would be a matter for the court of love to decide:

3 hours ago, waveslider said:

If this story were of a boy friend and girl friend, who didn't want to marry yet still wanted to be as intimate as if they were.....

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Valentinus said:

I'm asking that this thread not be derailed by discussing morality and sin. This thread is not for those who like to grandstand on the morality soapbox. If it gets too much out of hand I'll shut it down. No egos, no arguments, please.

What exactly do you want us to discuss?  You didn't provide any direction to discuss in the OP.  This is a discussion board, which means there will be disagreement.  Do you see disagreements and arguments as two different things?

Edited September 1, 2016 by bluebell

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Aside from what the light of Christ teaches to all men about the law of chastity,

I don't know that the light of Christ teaches that much about the specifics of the law of chastity.  Culture and the teachings of parents seems to greatly determine what a young boy or girl grows up believing is acceptable about sexual relations.

Quote

don't you think that will be different in the Millennium, though? Christ will reign personally over the earth, and the 2nd Coming will have happened, there will be a new political/governmental order, etc. I don't think ignorance of the underpinnings behind the LoC will be an issue then. 

The Millennium lasts for a thousand years. I'm guessing that how people feel about Christ, His commandments, and obedience to His doctrines will be vastly different at the beginning of the Millennium than further into it.  We've been taught, for example, that not everyone will be Mormon.  That means there will be people who will have Christ in their midst and still not choose right away (or maybe ever) to accept all the ordinances necessary for salvation.  People's understanding of the gospel and all that goes with that is fluid in the Millennium.

Quote

Can you think of other areas besides chastity that may include serious sin during the Millennium?

Sure.  There are probably cultures that accept behavior we would consider serious sin (such as violence and different laws governing life and death perhaps) but where the people are pure in heart enough that they will repent when their sins are shown to them.  In my belief, God's not going to send people to hell because they never had the chance to learn the gospel, have faith, and repent.  

Do you believe He will send such people (those who have lived without the law) to hell for a thousand years?

[halconero]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

Agreed on this point. Word of Wisdom, for instance.

CFR that idolatry "in the Old Testament sense" will exist during the Millenium?

As stated above, there are certain laws and commandments that covenant Mormons follow that, outside of that covenant, aren't a sin on their face (coffee drinking, not paying tithing or consecration, etc.). But the subject that emerged in this thread is homosexual behavior, specifically, and the same would apply to fornication or adultery in any form. It has been clearly taught in the Church that all people, LDS and otherwise (and there will be non-LDS people) during the Millennium will be terrestrial. Telestial people (blatant sinners, which includes sexual sins) won't be on the earth during the Millennium, be definition.

True in some cases, but not in others. It depends on which "Gospel ones" we're talking about.

I'm out right now, but there's a Joseph Smith quote about the Millennium wherein he states religions of all types will remain. To use his words, he said that even "heathen" religions and the worship of animals such as "the white dog" will remain until they are instructed otherwise and choose for themselves. I don't know what your definition of idolatry includes, but the worship of dog statues falls in that category for me.

[rockpond]

18 minutes ago, waveslider said:

Okay, I can see why some people might treat the LGBTQ people different, but that would only be because they are forcing acceptance upon everyone. So I guess it is kind of ironic in a way, but I meant anyone truly following Christ instead of trying to be politically correct.

As far as excommunication of people in this situation I described would be a matter for the court of love to decide:

 

How are LGBTQ people "forcing acceptance upon everyone"?

Yes, excommunication in the case of a boyfriend/girlfriend living today is something under the discretion of their bishop or stake president.  However, excommunication in the case of Nick & Spencer is required as a matter of Church policy.  That's the distinction I was trying to make.

[waveslider]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

How are LGBTQ people "forcing acceptance upon everyone"?

I'm sure that not all of them are forcing it. That said I don't feel like listing each and every way, but here's a start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_social_movements

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, excommunication in the case of a boyfriend/girlfriend living today is something under the discretion of their bishop or stake president.  However, excommunication in the case of Nick & Spencer is required as a matter of Church policy.  That's the distinction I was trying to make

I wouldn't know enough about church policy, but I have seen people who refuse to repent of hetero misdeeds get exed before, so I just thought it would be the same, since it is the law of chastity that says that those types of relationships are reserved only for a legally married husband and wife and either circumstance breaks that law. But what do I know? Perhaps the church policies are different, but I would be willing to bet that if Nick and Spencer had been willing to break up and repent of their wrongs perhaps they wouldn't have been exed. Just my two cents worth anyway.

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, waveslider said:

I'm sure that not all of them are forcing it. That said I don't feel like listing each and every way, but here's a start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_social_movements

I wouldn't know enough about church policy, but I have seen people who refuse to repent of hetero misdeeds get exed before, so I just thought it would be the same, since it is the law of chastity that says that those types of relationships are reserved only for a legally married husband and wife and either circumstance breaks that law. But what do I know? Perhaps the church policies are different, but I would be willing to bet that if Nick and Spencer had been willing to break up and repent of their wrongs perhaps they wouldn't have been exed. Just my two cents worth anyway.

So LGBTQ persons are forcing everyone to accept them by fighting for the same rights that heterosexual persons have?  Got it.

Under current church policy, you are correct that those who refuse to repent of heterosexual law of chastity violations MAY be excommunicated.  Nick and Spencer, on the other hand, were required to be excommunicated by current church policy.  But, yes, if they had divorced they might have been able to avoid it.

[Storm Rider]

23 hours ago, Valentinus said:

This is a wonderful post. I'm glad the couple's experience was positive. I will say that Natasha's "toxic" cheap shot could have ruined it for me.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormontherapist/2016/08/a-wards-embrace-to-a-gay-lds-couple.html

Agreed.  Yes, and Natasha is the last person I would ever want to provide any degree of counseling service to anyone - Mormon or not.  She talks like the kind of person that immediately turns me off.  Yet, in spite of her, a great story.  Thanks for sharing. 

[waveslider]

24 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So LGBTQ persons are forcing everyone to accept them by fighting for the same rights that heterosexual persons have?  Got it.

Under current church policy, you are correct that those who refuse to repent of heterosexual law of chastity violations MAY be excommunicated.  Nick and Spencer, on the other hand, were required to be excommunicated by current church policy.  But, yes, if they had divorced they might have been able to avoid it.

Rights, assuming that the these people truly aren't able to choose a different lifestyle, but that is a topic for a completely different discussion board.

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, waveslider said:

Rights, assuming that the these people truly aren't able to choose a different lifestyle, but that is a topic for a completely different discussion board.

We can leave that for a different thread, but I gather from your comments that you wouldn't support equal rights for LGBT persons even when it is shown to you that they cannot change their orientation.

For now, I'll just say that I agree with this sentiment that you wrote in your first post on the thread:  "It isn't about ousting people, but bringing people in so we can all help each other in our own set of weaknesses."  I just wish our Church policy reflected the same.

[waveslider]

25 minutes ago, rockpond said:

We can leave that for a different thread, but I gather from your comments that you wouldn't support equal rights for LGBT persons even when it is shown to you that they cannot change their orientation.

For now, I'll just say that I agree with this sentiment that you wrote in your first post on the thread:  "It isn't about ousting people, but bringing people in so we can all help each other in our own set of weaknesses."  I just wish our Church policy reflected the same.

As far as equal rights for lifestyle choices, where do we draw the line? Should we allow child molesters to marry children? People to marry animals? and be forced to recognize these things as equal in rights, changing our church policies to conform, even though we have issued a proclamation as to what exactly is recognized as marriage? Our church policy isn't about ousting people, it is about upholding God's laws and allowing us to repent when we don't follow them. If we refuse then excommunication can often result even if the world view doesn't see the breaches in God's laws for what they are. As is shown in this article Nick and Spencer weren't ousted, and they can always choose to follow God's laws, repent and again reap the benefits of the fullness of the gospel, just like any of us who also want to follow God's laws and continue to repent of our own sins. I'm quite certain that Nick and Spencer are welcomed to come to church in whatever ward they now currently reside in.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, cinepro said:

Sadly, my reaction to the pictures was "Wow...sweet looking lawn!"

I don't think that is a problem, sometimes conformity is useful, comforting, and even quite beautiful.  If all the grass in the world was the home of pretty little flowers, it would be hard to have garden parties and games of tag.  And if all yards and landscapes were stunningly gorgeous endless visions of green, they would soon cease to stun and instead be hohum.

What is needed is both conformity and diversity to make a healthy, enjoyable, working community, imo.  Each contributing their unique qualities when needed, even for each being willing to take a back seat so the other can do best it does best when they are needed to do so.

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, waveslider said:

As far as equal rights for lifestyle choices, where do we draw the line? Should we allow child molesters to marry children? People to marry animals? 

It is not persuasive to use extreme examples which the vast majority of people accept as unacceptable as if somehow they are relevant to the discussion of where to draw the line for consensual relations between consenting, informed adults.  What you are doing intentionally or not is implying that those who see the line needing to be drawn to include homosexual sexual behavior are instead intent on removing the line completely just so they can get what they want.  It is however, very easy to draw the line very strongly with the one side of criminal, abusive, nonconsensual and coercive behavior and then focus on the other side and discuss whether the varied forms of adult consensual sexual relations are equal or not (polyamory in all its version, adult familial relationships as well as the more typical hetero/homosexual and no strings attached/friends with benefits/cohabitating/marriage and all other variations of those).

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, waveslider said:

As far as equal rights for lifestyle choices, where do we draw the line? Should we allow child molesters to marry children? People to marry animals? and be forced to recognize these things as equal in rights, changing our church policies to conform, even though we have issued a proclamation as to what exactly is recognized as marriage? Our church policy isn't about ousting people, it is about upholding God's laws and allowing us to repent when we don't follow them. If we refuse then excommunication can often result even if the world view doesn't see the breaches in God's laws for what they are. As is shown in this article Nick and Spencer weren't ousted, and they can always choose to follow God's laws, repent and again reap the benefits of the fullness of the gospel, just like any of us who also want to follow God's laws and continue to repent of our own sins. I'm quite certain that Nick and Spencer are welcomed to come to church in whatever ward they now currently reside in.

Excommunication is "ousting". That's basically the definition.  Beyond that I won't respond to your reprehensible comparisons. 

[rongo]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't know that the light of Christ teaches that much about the specifics of the law of chastity.  Culture and the teachings of parents seems to greatly determine what a young boy or girl grows up believing is acceptable about sexual relations.

I think that it very much does. Despite cultural and family environmental factors (as you point out), good people everywhere know through the light of Christ the principles expounded in the scriptures, the PotF, etc., even if they don't think in those words, necessarily. I have known men and women who follow the law of chastity, despite their environment, culture, or upbringing, because what is accepted and embraced in their environment seems bad to them, and they don't want it. They follow God's law, guided by the light of Christ, without knowing concretely in words that that's what they are doing. 

I believe that the principles behind the law of chastity are eternal --- not just a modern construct, a result of our narrow heritage as 21st century conservatives of European ancestry. The eternal (past, present, and future) importance of living the law of chastity is, I believe, such that the light of Christ teaches all people what is good and what is bad --- and many in our telestial world choose against the light.

The Millennium lasts for a thousand years. I'm guessing that how people feel about Christ, His commandments, and obedience to His doctrines will be vastly different at the beginning of the Millennium than further into it.

Why do you assume that the full results of the Millennium will only be at the end, after people's attitudes and experiences have had 1000 years of experience? The scriptural message is that the 2nd Coming will sweep off the earth telestial people and purify the earth, leaving terrestrial and celestial people for Christ's personal reign.

We've been taught, for example, that not everyone will be Mormon.  That means there will be people who will have Christ in their midst and still not choose right away (or maybe ever) to accept all the ordinances necessary for salvation.

Yes. Interestingly, most of the quotes about the Millennium center around 1) temple work and genealogy, 2) the fact that while all who remain will accept Christ's reign, there will be different churches and 3) that the righteous who remain will differ in philosophies and approaches, while sharing a common minimum standard (terrestrial) of morality and righteousness. 

This means that, while some will never choose the ordinances of the gospel, even those will be righteous people worthy of inheriting the terrestrial kingdom. I think it's clear that this excludes those who violate the law of chastity.

People's understanding of the gospel and all that goes with that is fluid in the Millennium.

I'm not sure where you're getting this from. It is perfectly possible for people to understand the gospel and choose not to accept it. I have known people like that --- good people, people who I think would be Millennial people --- but who don't choose the ordinances of the celestial kingdom. And they do so knowingly, which is in line with D&C 76's definitions of the kingdoms.

There are probably cultures that accept behavior we would consider serious sin (such as violence and different laws governing life and death perhaps) but where the people are pure in heart enough that they will repent when their sins are shown to them.

We agree on this, but the question here is: what kind of people will be on the earth during the Millennium? I don't think it will include people who ignorantly commit serious sins of violence or depravity; I think it will be those among these cultures who inherently, in tune with the light of Christ, naturally reject these pernicious practices in their own cultures. 

In my belief, God's not going to send people to hell because they never had the chance to learn the gospel, have faith, and repent.  Do you believe He will send such people (those who have lived without the law) to hell for a thousand years?

I believe that they will have the full opportunity to accept the gospel, including in the spirit world. I'm not sure that they will get to live during the Millennium to "hammer these things out." And, I don't think this constitutes "sending them to hell" for 1000 years. If so, then this isn't a millennial problem. It's been going on for, well, thousands of years. 

[Calm]

Quote

Why do you assume that the full results of the Millennium will only be at the end, after people's attitudes and experiences have had 1000 years of experience? The scriptural message is that the 2nd Coming will sweep off the earth telestial people and purify the earth, leaving terrestrial and celestial people for Christ's personal reign.

So in the Millennium a couple of teenage kids get together for a make out and end up having sex.  They decide they like it and continue to do so.  What happens then?

[rongo]

3 hours ago, halconero said:

I'm out right now, but there's a Joseph Smith quote about the Millennium wherein he states religions of all types will remain. To use his words, he said that even "heathen" religions and the worship of animals such as "the white dog" will remain until they are instructed otherwise and choose for themselves. I don't know what your definition of idolatry includes, but the worship of dog statues falls in that category for me.

He worded it a lot differently than that, and I can't find any mention of animal worship, such as a white dog. I think you're conflating that with other "white" or "yellow" dog quotes . . .

What Joseph Smith said was "The heathen nations who will not come up to worship will be visited with the judgments of God, and must eventually be destroyed from the earth" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 268-269). Elder McConkie said that this isolated quote needs to be contextualized with everything else that Joseph Smith and others taught about the Millennium:

"Taken together, these concepts mean that wickedness that is telestial in nature . . . carnal, sensual, and devilish by nature --- all such shall cease [at the 2nd Coming]. Those who so live must be destroyed" (The Millennial Messiah, 651-652). He goes on to say that "wicked" and "heathen" must be understood to mean "non-celestial" but still acceptable --- not what those words normally connote for us. Then he discusses how those who remain but refrain from the ordinances of the gospel can be considered to be "wicked" and "heathen" in that sense.

Joseph Fielding Smith said about this in particular, in the footnote for this passage in TPJS: "The prophet's statement that there will be wicked men on the earth during the Millennium has caused considerable confusion in the minds of many who have read in the scriptures in many places that when Christ comes the earth shall be cleansed from its wickedness and that the wicked shall not stand, but shall be consumed . . . in using the term 'wicked men' . . . the prophet did so in the same sense in which the Lord uses it in the eighty-forth section of the Doctrine and Covenants, 49-53. The Lord in this scripture speaks of those who have not received the gospel as being under the bondage of sin, and hence, 'wicked.' However, many of these people are honorable, clean living men . . . The inhabitants of the terrestrial order will remain on the earth during the Millennium, and this class are without the gospel ordinances. See D&C 76:73-76."

[rongo]

Here's my attempt to answer my own CFR . . .

 If I were to ask what the Millennium—the Latter-day glory so often spoken of, is, I should find numerous opinions among this people, and many in and out of this congregation. I have learned long ago that the thoughts and expressions of men are very diversified; if, indeed, their thoughts or ideas are similar, I know their words differ widely; so should I find a great many different opinions among this people, with regard to the real essence and effect of the Millennium. The Millennium consists in this—every heart in the Church and Kingdom of God being united in one; the Kingdom increasing to the overcoming of everything opposed to the economy of heaven, and Satan. being bound, and having a seal set upon him. All things else will be as they are now, we shall eat, drink, and wear clothing. Let the people be holy, and the earth under their feet will be holy. Let the people be holy, and filled with the Spirit of God, and every animal and creeping thing will be filled with peace; the soil of the earth will bring forth in its strength, and the fruits thereof will be meat for man. The more purity that exists, the less is the strife; the more kind we are to our animals, the more will peace increase, and the savage nature of the brute creation vanish away. If the people will not serve the devil another moment whilst they live, if this congregation is possessed of that spirit and resolution, here in this house is the Millennium. Let the inhabitants of this city be possessed of that spirit, let the people of the territory be possessed of that spirit, and here is the Millennium. Let the whole people of the United States be possessed of that spirit, and here is the Millennium, and so will it spread over all the world. (Brigham Young, April 6, 1852. Journal of Discourses 1:203)

 

Because of the destruction of the wicked at the Savior’s Second Coming, only righteous people will live on the earth at the beginning of the Millennium. They will be those who have lived virtuous and honest lives. These people will inherit either the terrestrial or celestial kingdom . . .  During the Millennium, Satan will be bound. This means he will not have power to tempt those who are living at that time (see D&C 101:28). The “children shall grow up without sin unto salvation” (D&C 45:58). “Because of the righteousness of [the Lord’s] people, Satan has no power; wherefore, he cannot be loosed for the space of many years; for he hath no power over the hearts of the people, for they dwell in righteousness, and the Holy One of Israel reigneth” (1 Nephi 22:26).  (Gospel Principles, chapter 45: "The Millennium")

This one supports both that there is a possibility of sin during the Millennium, but also that this level of sin won't rise to the level of serious sin.

So, when the Lord comes, will the elements melt and the mountains flow down at his presence with fervent heat. This will cleanse the earth as it was cleansed in the days of Noah, only by another element called fire. This is typical of the cleansing of those who embrace the plan of salvation. After you have been immersed, as this earth was, in the water, and been cleansed and received the remission of your sins, you also have the promise of baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost, by which you are purified, as well justified and sanctified from all your evil affections . . . So must this earth be baptised by fire, it must be cleansed from all sin and impurity. Will it be filled with the Holy Ghost? Yes. These elements that melt like wax before the presence of the Lord will again be filled with his Spirit and will be renewed, and the earth itself will be full of the knowledge of God as the waters cover the channels of the great deep. It will enter into the elements of creation, so that the curse which came in consequence of the fall of man will be removed from the earth, and the elements will be cleansed, not only by fire but by the Spirit of the living God, which will mingle with and purify them. Satan, that arch-deceiver, will be bound, and a seal will be set upon him . . . Now, then, all the inhabitants who are spared from this fire . . . will be cleansed more fully and filled with the glory of God. A partial change will be wrought upon them, not a change to immortality, like that which all the Saints will undergo when they are changed in the twinkling of an eye, from mortality to immortality; but so great will be the change then wrought that the children who are born into the world will grow up without sin unto salvation. Why will this be so? Because that fallen nature, introduced by the fall, and transferred from parents to children, from generation to generation, will be, in a measure, eradicated by this change. Then the righteous will go forth, and grow up like calves of the stall; and one revelation says, their children shall grow up without sin unto salvation. Satan having no power to tempt them, these children will not sin. The question may arise here—"Will it be possible for men to sin during the Millennium?" Yes. Why? Because they have not lost their agency. Agency always continues wherever intelligent beings are, whether in heaven, on the earth, or among any of the creations that God has made; wherever you find intelligent beings, there you will find an agency, not to the same extent perhaps, under all circumstances, but yet there is always the exercise of agency where there is intelligence. For instance, when Satan is bound and a seal set upon him in this lowermost pit, his agency is partially destroyed in some things. He will not have power to come out of that pit; now he has that power; then he will not have power to tempt the children of men, now he has that power; consequently his agency then will be measurably destroyed or taken away, but not in full. The Lord will not destroy the agency of the people during the Millennium, therefore there will be a possibility of their sinning during that time. But if they who live then do sin it will not be because of the power of the devil to tempt them, for he will have no power over them, and they will sin merely because they choose to do so of their own free will. (Orson Pratt, November 22, 1873. Journal of Discourses 16:319-320)

 

This great change will be when the earth is cleansed of its iniquity and becomes a terrestrial body . . . [Elder Franklin D. Richards has said] 'The earth will go through a purifying process to fit it for the residence of its millennial inhabitants.' (Joseph Fielding Smith, "A Compendium of Doctrines of the Gospel," [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1925], pp. 185-186).

And it came to pass that Enoch looked upon the earth; and he heard a voice from the bowels thereof, saying: Wo, wo is me, the mother of men; I am pained, I am weary, because of the wickedness of my children. When shall I rest, and be cleansed from the filthiness which is gone forth out of me? When will my Creator sanctify me, that I may rest, and righteousness for a season abide upon my face? . . . And there shall be mine abode, and it shall be Zion, which shall come forth out of all the creations which I have made; and for the space of a thousand years the earth shall rest. And it came to pass that Enoch saw the day of the coming of the Son of Man, in the last days, to dwell on the earth in righteousness for the space of a thousand years; (Moses 7:48, 64-65).

 

[waveslider]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

It is not persuasive to use extreme examples which the vast majority of people accept as unacceptable as if somehow they are relevant to the discussion of where to draw the line for consensual relations between consenting, informed adults.  What you are doing intentionally or not is implying that those who see the line needing to be drawn to include homosexual sexual behavior are instead intent on removing the line completely just so they can get what they want.  It is however, very easy to draw the line very strongly with the one side of criminal, abusive, nonconsensual and coercive behavior and then focus on the other side and discuss whether the varied forms of adult consensual sexual relations are equal or not (polyamory in all its version, adult familial relationships as well as the more typical hetero/homosexual and no strings attached/friends with benefits/cohabitating/marriage and all other variations of those).

There was once a time when the vast majority of people didn't accept SSM either, and that used to be an extreme example. Unfortunately not everyone believes as you do:
http://www.b4uact.org/

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, waveslider said:

There was once a time when the vast majority of people didn't accept SSM either, and that used to be an extreme example. Unfortunately not everyone believes as you do:
http://www.b4uact.org/

But this is not once a time and it is here and now.  Discussions to be meaningful, productive and longterm persuasive needs to deal with how things are now.

And it would appear that your link is evidence of a recognition that those who are attracted to children need emotional and cognitive counseling, ie. their expression of sexuality if acted upon is unhealthy so it certainly supports my claim that society recognizes that the drawn line needs to be with acting on "minor attracted" feelings on the outside of the accepted behavior zone in order to protect children.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Calm

[waveslider]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

But this is not once a time and it is here and now.  Discussions to be meaningful, productive and longterm persuasive needs to deal with how things are now.

And it would appear that your link is evidence of a recognition that those who are attracted to children need emotional and cognitive counseling, ie. their expression of sexuality if acted upon is unhealthy so it certainly supports my claim that society recognizes that the drawn line needs to be with acting on "minor attracted" feelings on the outside of the accepted behavior zone in order to protect children.

Well I remember a time when there weren't that many gay, mental health professionals and being gay was actually considered a mental disorder. Now that we have enough gay mental health professionals, it is considered absolutely normal, if not programmed into the their DNA and therefore not a lifestyle choice anymore, but some kind of robotic pre-programmed instinct that can't even be changed by choice. The people who run this particular site are, in their own words, " B4U-ACT is a collaborative effort of mental health professionals and people who are attracted to children or adolescents....." So what happens when enough mental health professionals are those who are attracted to children? The here and now is dynamic, and never stays the same here and now as before, but instead becomes once upon a time.

[rongo]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

So in the Millennium a couple of teenage kids get together for a make out and end up having sex.  They decide they like it and continue to do so.  What happens then?

Why do you assume that "a couple of teenage kids" in the Millennium will act like "a couple of teenage kids" in our day with respect to casually breaking the law of chastity? It will be a whole new order of things (lion lying down with the lamb, etc.). 

Even teenage sexual activity, which we tend as a people now to soft-pedal, would fall under the "adulterers and whoremongers" of D&C 76 who will not be partakers of the Millennium, wouldn't it? As what has been taught has shown, not that people are incapable of sinning (they can and have agency), but the kind of people left won't have a tendency towards it. I take this to include those who have weaknesses and lack of strength and will to resist avoidable sexual temptation.

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, rongo said:

I think that it very much does. Despite cultural and family environmental factors (as you point out), good people everywhere know through the light of Christ the principles expounded in the scriptures, the PotF, etc., even if they don't think in those words, necessarily. I have known men and women who follow the law of chastity, despite their environment, culture, or upbringing, because what is accepted and embraced in their environment seems bad to them, and they don't want it. They follow God's law, guided by the light of Christ, without knowing concretely in words that that's what they are doing. 

I believe that the principles behind the law of chastity are eternal --- not just a modern construct, a result of our narrow heritage as 21st century conservatives of European ancestry. The eternal (past, present, and future) importance of living the law of chastity is, I believe, such that the light of Christ teaches all people what is good and what is bad --- and many in our telestial world choose against the light.

 

 

Why do you assume that the full results of the Millennium will only be at the end, after people's attitudes and experiences have had 1000 years of experience? The scriptural message is that the 2nd Coming will sweep off the earth telestial people and purify the earth, leaving terrestrial and celestial people for Christ's personal reign.

 

 

Yes. Interestingly, most of the quotes about the Millennium center around 1) temple work and genealogy, 2) the fact that while all who remain will accept Christ's reign, there will be different churches and 3) that the righteous who remain will differ in philosophies and approaches, while sharing a common minimum standard (terrestrial) of morality and righteousness. 

This means that, while some will never choose the ordinances of the gospel, even those will be righteous people worthy of inheriting the terrestrial kingdom. I think it's clear that this excludes those who violate the law of chastity.

 

 

I'm not sure where you're getting this from. It is perfectly possible for people to understand the gospel and choose not to accept it. I have known people like that --- good people, people who I think would be Millennial people --- but who don't choose the ordinances of the celestial kingdom. And they do so knowingly, which is in line with D&C 76's definitions of the kingdoms.

 

We agree on this, but the question here is: what kind of people will be on the earth during the Millennium? I don't think it will include people who ignorantly commit serious sins of violence or depravity; I think it will be those among these cultures who inherently, in tune with the light of Christ, naturally reject these pernicious practices in their own cultures. 

 

I believe that they will have the full opportunity to accept the gospel, including in the spirit world. I'm not sure that they will get to live during the Millennium to "hammer these things out." And, I don't think this constitutes "sending them to hell" for 1000 years. If so, then this isn't a millennial problem. It's been going on for, well, thousands of years. 

We'll just have to agree to disagree.  Were you able to find the quote you were looking for, per your self-made CFR?