Church Statement - LBGTQ concert - is this sincere?

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

So what's your point?

Just that the corrections stands and that is still the current "Law of Chastity".

It honestly was not a huge issue, I was just initially pointing out the different wording that you used vs. the actual wording in the law.

Edited August 17, 2017 by ALarson

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Nice try. Are you not the one who responded to Ksfisher by saying "NO, here is the law of chastity"? And did you not quote the definition of the law of chastity to ksfisher in order to prove to him that the definition might very well include gay marriage? And is it not true that as you continue to use the definition of the law of chastity to support the propriety of gay marriage even though the leaders of the Church have consistently said the definition pertains only to marriage between men and women? 

Nice try?  I was the one who was accurate, you are the one who had me mixed up with another poster (actually TWO other posters )!

Answers in order to your questions:

Yes.

No.

And, no.

I've explained above.  Now please move on....

Edited August 17, 2017 by ALarson

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Why do you think I am assuming the church's policies are justified?

Do I ever accept anything without me justifying it myself?

We do not have to agree on every point you know.  This is my world I am building and you should be building your own.  They do not have to be identical.

Fair enough, and I assumed your position on the LGBT issue was uniformed, which probably isn't fair, but my dander is up a little at the moment.  Consider this an apology for making that assumption.  But I do wonder how much time you've tried to understand the LGBT issue, and whether you've met with these people and educated yourself about their experiences.  Doing so has been paradigm altering for me personally.  

[hope_for_things]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  Meanwhile, consider this: If I were to come to this board, accuse you of being bigot, and then refuse to explain or substantiate such a serious and offensive charge, and if I instead proceeded to attempt "dialogue" with you being a bigot as a foregone conclusion, would you respond favorably to that?

I think . . . not.

And no, I'm not looking for laser-sharp precision in terms.  I am looking for a discussion that does not assume as a given a very debateable proposition.

Thanks,

-Smac

Fair enough, these are charged discussions and its easy to get a little triggered by them.  I'll try to approach your question with more patience in the morning.  

This is your last warning to tone it down.

[Nofear]

I skipped reading pages 2 - 6, but apparently "mistreatment" was still a topic. But, I guess God's disciples have been "mistreating" others, even family members, for millennia.

"And now it came to pass that after I, Nephi, had made an end of speaking to my brethren, behold they said unto me: Thou hast declared unto us hard things, more than we are able to bear." (1 Nephi 16:1)
Worse, sometimes these disciples do it knowingly (v2) and then victim blame (v3)!

[Bobbieaware]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Nice try?  I was the one who was accurate, you are the one who had me mixed up with another poster (actually TWO other posters )!

Answers in order to your questions:

Yes.

No.

And, no.

I've explained above.  Now please move on....

What does it matter who said what to whom when it's the ideas you expressed that really matter? It's the words in your posts and and their intended meaning that were the focus of my attention. You are the one who responded to ksfisher with the word "no" and that's what prompted my remarks. Thanks for your answers

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

And I'm just as tired about people ignoring and justifying bigotry and mistreatment.  This is REAL bigotry as real as any other that we've seen in the history of this religion.  

Again, not condoning someone's lifestyle is not bigotry.  It's not pretend bigotry and it's definitely not real bigotry.  

 

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

What does it matter who said what to whom when it's the ideas you expressed that really matter? 

Well, I expressed no "ideas" other than correctly posting the Law of Chastity.  And it matters "who said what to whom" because you were attributing words to me that I had not posted.

I'm truly done now (and you might want to try in the future to not assume "intended meaning" as you have here....just a suggestion).

[ksfisher]

22 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Just that the corrections stands and that is still the current "Law of Chastity".

It honestly was not a huge issue, I was just initially pointing out the different wording that you used vs. the actual wording in the law.

If we're looking for the actual "Law" and not quoting temple language, then this is probably as close as we'll get:

17.3.5
Chastity and Fidelity

The Lord’s law of chastity is abstinence from sexual relations outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. Adultery, fornication, homosexual or lesbian relations, and every other unholy, unnatural, or impure practice are sinful. Members who violate the Lord’s law of chastity or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.

(Handbook 1)

It could be argued that this is more policy than law.  It is however based on the doctrine of the church and provides guidance for bishops and stake presidents in dealing with those who have sinned.  In that regard it could be said to be law. 

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Let's not argue for a new gender-free definition of husband or wife.

Like spouse?

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

If we're looking for the actual "Law" and not quoting temple language, then this is probably as close as we'll get:

17.3.5
Chastity and Fidelity

The Lord’s law of chastity is abstinence from sexual relations outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. Adultery, fornication, homosexual or lesbian relations, and every other unholy, unnatural, or impure practice are sinful. Members who violate the Lord’s law of chastity or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.

(Handbook 1)

It could be argued that this is more policy than law.  It is however based on the doctrine of the church and provides guidance for bishops and stake presidents in dealing with those who have sinned.  In that regard it could be said to be law. 

I'd recommend doing a search for the "Law of Chastity" for the actual wording of the law (what we were specifically discussing).  Not just "chasity and fidelity" which I agree opens up a broader discussion and different wordings.

Edited August 17, 2017 by ALarson

[kllindley]

34 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Fair enough, and I assumed your position on the LGBT issue was uniformed, which probably isn't fair, but my dander is up a little at the moment.  Consider this an apology for making that assumption.  But I do wonder how much time you've tried to understand the LGBT issue, and whether you've met with these people and educated yourself about their experiences.  Doing so has been paradigm altering for me personally.  

And how much time have you spent with LGBT Members still active in the Church?  Have you spent time with people affiliated with North Star?  Do our experiences not count to inform your paradigm? 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

I think that is one, isn't it?  Someone in a SSM is a "husband OR wife" too.  I think it's the use of "husband AND wife" that's not correct when stating the actual law.  (Not arguing for or against SSM being ok with the LofC, just following the discussion).

I think it would be a stretch to argue that the law of chastity as taught in the temple could apply to a female husband or a male wife. 

[Bobbieaware]

42 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, I expressed no "ideas" other than correctly posting the Law of Chastity.  And it matters "who said what to whom" because you were attributing words to me that I had not posted.

I'm truly done now (and you might want to try in the future to not assume "intended meaning" as you have here....just a suggestion).

One last question and I promise I'll back out for now. Would you like to see the day when gay marriages will be sealed in the LDS temples?

[Bernard Gui]

On 8/16/2017 at 6:09 PM, kllindley said:

And how much time have you spent with LGBT Members still active in the Church?  Have you spent time with people affiliated with North Star?  Do our experiences not count to inform your paradigm? 

Would you happen to know ******? He is a good friend and a participant in Evergreen/North Star, and until illness made him drop out, was pretty involved in seminars and conferences. 

Edited August 21, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

48 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Like spouse?

No.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

If we're looking for the actual "Law" and not quoting temple language, then this is probably as close as we'll get:

17.3.5
Chastity and Fidelity

The Lord’s law of chastity is abstinence from sexual relations outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. Adultery, fornication, homosexual or lesbian relations, and every other unholy, unnatural, or impure practice are sinful. Members who violate the Lord’s law of chastity or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.

(Handbook 1)

It could be argued that this is more policy than law.  It is however based on the doctrine of the church and provides guidance for bishops and stake presidents in dealing with those who have sinned.  In that regard it could be said to be law. 

Would you consider the temple covenants policies or laws?

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

Would you consider the temple covenants policies or laws?

I would consider the temple covenants to be neither policies or laws.  They are covenants.

[Bernard Gui]

Just now, ksfisher said:

I would consider the temple covenants to be neither policies or laws.  They are covenants.

Are they not referred to as laws in the temple?

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Are they not referred to as laws in the temple?

Laws are part of covenants.  When a person obeys a law they are blessed according the promises given in the covenant.  

True to the Faith defines a covenant in this way:

"A covenant is a sacred agreement between God and a person or group of people. God sets specific conditions, and He promises to bless us as we obey those conditions. When we choose not to keep covenants, we cannot receive the blessings, and in some instances we suffer a penalty as a consequence of our disobedience.

All the saving ordinances of the priesthood are accompanied by covenants. For example, you made a covenant when you were baptized, and you renew that covenant each time you partake of the sacrament (see Mosiah 18:8–10; D&C 20:37, 77, 79). If you have received the Melchizedek Priesthood, you have entered into the oath and covenant of the priesthood (see D&C 84:33–44). The temple endowment and the sealing ordinance also include sacred covenants."

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Again, not condoning someone's lifestyle is not bigotry.  It's not pretend bigotry and it's definitely not real bigotry.  

 

It's not their lifestyle the church is discriminating against their identity.  I identify as heterosexual, it's not a lifestyle choice it's a core part of my identity.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

And how much time have you spent with LGBT Members still active in the Church?  Have you spent time with people affiliated with North Star?  Do our experiences not count to inform your paradigm? 

I'm fairly new to the LGBT community, and I'm trying to be an ally the best I know how.  I've listened to a bunch of talks from Northstar conferences and read some of their materials, but I haven't personally attended a conference.  

From my limited exposure I'm leary of their overarching approach, but I also recognize they are providing a service that is attempting to help people and I have at least one family member who finds help there and so I try not to be too critical of them, but I wouldn't point someone in their direction.  

Your experiences are a part of the tapestry of experience and I value and validate them.  Please share your impressions about this topic, I think we would all benefit from hearing it.  

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

It's not their lifestyle the church is discriminating against their identity.  I identify as heterosexual, it's not a lifestyle choice it's a core part of my identity.  

While you may identify as a heterosexual it is your choice whether you act based on that identity or not.  The chuch has stated that if a member who identifies as homosexual obeys the law of chastity that that individual is eligable to receive all the ordinances and blessings that are made available to us today.  

I am aware that this is difficult for many, but the Lord promises that as we are humble and obedient to His commands that His spirit will be with us.

Each of us has our own personal crosses to bear. 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

Laws are part of covenants.  When a person obeys a law they are blessed according the promises given in the covenant.  

True to the Faith defines a covenant in this way:

"A covenant is a sacred agreement between God and a person or group of people. God sets specific conditions, and He promises to bless us as we obey those conditions. When we choose not to keep covenants, we cannot receive the blessings, and in some instances we suffer a penalty as a consequence of our disobedience.

All the saving ordinances of the priesthood are accompanied by covenants. For example, you made a covenant when you were baptized, and you renew that covenant each time you partake of the sacrament (see Mosiah 18:8–10; D&C 20:37, 77, 79). If you have received the Melchizedek Priesthood, you have entered into the oath and covenant of the priesthood (see D&C 84:33–44). The temple endowment and the sealing ordinance also include sacred covenants."

 

I'm not sure what we are debating here. The covenants are called by the names of the laws assigned to them. We covenant to keep the laws. For example, the law of sacrifice and the law of chastity. In any case, they are not policies as was suggested by one commenter.

Edited August 17, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm fairly new to the LGBT community, and I'm trying to be an ally the best I know how.  I've listened to a bunch of talks from Northstar conferences and read some of their materials, but I haven't personally attended a conference.  

From my limited exposure I'm leary of their overarching approach, but I also recognize they are providing a service that is attempting to help people and I have at least one family member who finds help there and so I try not to be too critical of them, but I wouldn't point someone in their direction.  

Your experiences are a part of the tapestry of experience and I value and validate them.  Please share your impressions about this topic, I think we would all benefit from hearing it.  

How do you presume to criticize a free-will organization created by and with the purpose to help the very people you are appear to be championing....faithful LDS members who have sexual identity issues?

Edited August 17, 2017 by Bernard Gui