Sunslight Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 10 minutes ago, rockpond said: Second bullet of the handbook’s law of chastity definition: Fidelity within marriage. I noticed it doesn't say anything about relations with animals or children either. Those relations must be acceptable then, right? Just because every scenario isn't spelled out doesn't mean it's acceptable. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 3 hours ago, Calm said: Can anyone see pictures on this site? https://mormonandgay.churchofjesuschrist.org/ I can.
Calm Posted March 4, 2020 Author Posted March 4, 2020 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: I can. Thanks, since I found out when the change occurred, I am thinking I don't need to know what they are, but if you see a difference or something that might be useful, please share.
rockpond Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 56 minutes ago, Sunslight said: I noticed it doesn't say anything about relations with animals or children either. Those relations must be acceptable then, right? No. Although sexual relations (not sure what you mean when you simply say "relations") with anyone outside of a man/woman marriage is a violation of the law of chastity. 56 minutes ago, Sunslight said: Just because every scenario isn't spelled out doesn't mean it's acceptable. Does every scenario need to be either a law of chastity violation or acceptable? I believe that something can be a sin without needing to also be a law of chastity violation.
rockpond Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I think you’re more interested in trying to best me in an argument than trying to grasp my position. Nah... there really wouldn't be any point in that. 5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: But I’m done now. That's fine. I'll say that, like you, I was surprised by this change. It's an odd thing for BYU to begin allowing gay dating, etc. when our teachings and policies still prohibit those relationships from going much beyond that. I would welcome an explanation that helps put it all into a context that makes sense. If this change does play out to be what it appears to be now, I imagine that's going to be tough for you and many other church members. It points the church in a direction that you don't believe it should go and I certainly understand how tough that can be to deal with! 1
Sunslight Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 27 minutes ago, rockpond said: No. Although sexual relations (not sure what you mean when you simply say "relations") with anyone outside of a man/woman marriage is a violation of the law of chastity. Does every scenario need to be either a law of chastity violation or acceptable? I believe that something can be a sin without needing to also be a law of chastity violation. The point is that romantic relations between a man and a woman are The only relations acceptable under the law of chastity. And even then, only some behavior is acceptable both before and after marriage for the man and woman. Romantic relations on any level between same sex couples is a complete violation of the law of chastity. 1
Sunslight Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 6 minutes ago, rockpond said: Nah... there really wouldn't be any point in that. That's fine. I'll say that, like you, I was surprised by this change. It's an odd thing for BYU to begin allowing gay dating, etc. when our teachings and policies still prohibit those relationships from going much beyond that. I would welcome an explanation that helps put it all into a context that makes sense. If this change does play out to be what it appears to be now, I imagine that's going to be tough for you and many other church members. It points the church in a direction that you don't believe it should go and I certainly understand how tough that can be to deal with! BYU isn't allowing gay romantic dating. Some people think so but BYU never said they would allow such practices. 1
rockpond Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 Just now, Sunslight said: The point is that romantic relations between a man and a woman are The only relations acceptable under the law of chastity. And even then, only some behavior is acceptable both before and after marriage for the man and woman. Romantic relations on any level between same sex couples is a complete violation of the law of chastity. That's your opinion and your interpretation of the law of chastity but that is not how the Church has defined the law of chastity (and I've provided sources to show that). 2
smac97 Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 30 minutes ago, rockpond said: Does every scenario need to be either a law of chastity violation or acceptable? I believe that something can be a sin without needing to also be a law of chastity violation. That's a fair question. You seem to construe the Law of Chastity quite narrowly (see here). I have always considered matters of sexuality to be broadly governed by the Law of Chastity. Do you? For example, is using pornography a violation of that law? Thanks, -Smac 1
rockpond Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 1 minute ago, Sunslight said: BYU isn't allowing gay romantic dating. Some people think so but BYU never said they would allow such practices. You are correct that BYU officials have not said that they would allow gay romantic dating. But there is now nothing that prohibits it either. 1
Nacho2dope Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 3 minutes ago, Sunslight said: BYU isn't allowing gay romantic dating. Some people think so but BYU never said they would allow such practices. I completely agree. I think some people hear what they want to in order to justify their own beliefs.
rockpond Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 Just now, smac97 said: That's a fair question. You seem to construe the Law of Chastity quite narrowly (see here). I have always considered matters of sexuality to be broadly governed by the Law of Chastity. Do you? For example, is using pornography a violation of that law? Thanks, -Smac I consider the law of chastity to be defined the way I have quoted it from the handbook and how it is defined in the temple (those two definitions match). If that's a narrow definition, you can take it up with those who wrote and published the definition. I don't consider the use of pornography as a violation of the law of chastity (since it doesn't fit the Church's definition). But, I do consider using pornography to be an unholy and impure practice. 1
Sunslight Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, rockpond said: That's your opinion and your interpretation of the law of chastity but that is not how the Church has defined the law of chastity (and I've provided sources to show that). You didn't even read the post where I cited the church doctrine on chastity did you? It spells it out. I can post it again. Edited March 4, 2020 by Sunslight
Sunslight Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 4 minutes ago, rockpond said: You are correct that BYU officials have not said that they would allow gay romantic dating. But there is now nothing that prohibits it either. What? They don't say anything about entering a relationship with your horse either. Are you suggesting that romance with a horse isn't prohibited now?
rockpond Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 2 minutes ago, Sunslight said: You didn't even read the post where I cited the church doctrine on charity did you? It spells it out. I can post it again. This one: Quote "Like other violations of the law of chastity, homosexual activity is a serious sin. It is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality (see Romans 1:24–32). It distorts loving relationships and prevents people from receiving the blessings that can be found in family life and the saving ordinances of the gospel." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/chastity?lang=eng Yes, I read it.
rockpond Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 1 minute ago, Sunslight said: What? They don't say anything about entering a relationship with your horse either. Are you suggesting that romance with a horse isn't prohibited now? If there had been a statement in the honor code prohibiting romance with a horse and then they deleted it, you might have a point.
Sunslight Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 1 minute ago, rockpond said: If there had been a statement in the honor code prohibiting romance with a horse and then they deleted it, you might have a point. I'm actually glad that this has become am issue because it will force the hand of God to spell out in clear detail the abominations he cannot allow. Same sex relationships are an abomination and completely unacceptable before God and His Holy Angels. 1
Sunslight Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 5 minutes ago, rockpond said: This one: Yes, I read it. It says homosexual activity is a violation of the law of chastity. The "activity" inferred means any kind of same sex relations which includes holding hands and kissing.
hope_for_things Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 11 hours ago, Calm said: The section of the Handbook dealing with youth interviews that mentions referring to the FTSOY booklet appears to be one that is updated already. They could have easily removed referring to those standards if they were out of date. They could have, and probably in hind sight should have, but they didn't. I guess the speculation is whether or not the fact that the FTSOY pamphlet wasn't updated, reflects a clear signal that the church still officially considers certain same sex romantic behavior to be violations of the LoC. I think the removal of similar language in the BYU HC shows the church has changed its position on this behavior. You're saying that inaction on the FTSOY pamphlet signals that the church hasn't changed its position on this behavior. I think the stronger evidence is found in the changed language as a deliberate action in a direction, rather than unchanged language or inaction. Perhaps both of us are wrong and this change does represent a move somewhere in-between. Maybe the church wants to continue to send a message to youth that certain behaviors are immoral (out of a desire to discourage experimentation), but then when these youth reach the young adult years they expect that people will have determined their paths more solidly so they take a more neutral position with respect to how behaviors are categorized at this stage of life. I don't like the idea of multiple different messages, but it wouldn't be the first time we've seen a haphazard and confusing approach to things. 1
hope_for_things Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: More folk doctrine! Agreed, not only folk doctrine, but also a misreading of scripture.
smac97 Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 30 minutes ago, rockpond said: Quote You seem to construe the Law of Chastity quite narrowly (see here). I have always considered matters of sexuality to be broadly governed by the Law of Chastity. Do you? For example, is using pornography a violation of that law? I consider the law of chastity to be defined the way I have quoted it from the handbook and how it is defined in the temple (those two definitions match). If that's a narrow definition, you can take it up with those who wrote and published the definition. That's how I define the Law of Chastity, as well. But you'll note that I didn't ask how you define the Law of Chastity, but how you construe it. By "construe" I mean: Quote verb (used with object), con·strued, con·stru·ing. to give the meaning or intention of; explain; interpret. to deduce by inference or interpretation; infer: With that in mind, let me refine my question a bit: You seem to construe and apply the Law of Chastity quite narrowly (see here). I have always considered matters of sexuality to be broadly governed by the Law of Chastity. Do you? For example, in your view, is using pornography a violation of that law? Quote I don't consider the use of pornography as a violation of the law of chastity (since it doesn't fit the Church's definition). Okay. That being the case, I am curious what you think of the Church's inclusion of pornography in its Gospel Topics entry on "Chastity": Quote Stay away from pornography. We must not view, read, or listen to anything that depicts or describes the human body or sexual conduct in a way that can arouse sexual feelings. Pornographic materials are addictive and destructive. They can rob us of our self-respect and of a sense of the beauties of life. They can tear us down and lead to evil thoughts and abusive conduct. 1
smac97 Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 And the Church's inclusion of pornography in Chapter 39 ("Law of Chastity") of the Gospel Principles manual: Quote Satan Wants Us to Break the Law of Chastity What are some ways Satan tempts people to break the law of chastity? Satan’s plan is to deceive as many of us as he can to prevent us from returning to live with our Heavenly Father. One of the most damaging things he can do is entice us to break the law of chastity. He is cunning and powerful. He would like us to believe it is no sin to break this law. Many people have been deceived. We must guard ourselves against evil influences. ... President Gordon B. Hinckley warned: “You live in a world of terrible temptations. Pornography, with its sleazy filth, sweeps over the earth like a horrible, engulfing tide. It is poison. Do not watch it or read it. It will destroy you if you do. It will take from you your self-respect. It will rob you of a sense of the beauties of life. It will tear you down and pull you into a slough of evil thoughts and possibly of evil actions. Stay away from it. Shun it as you would a foul disease, for it is just as deadly. Be virtuous in thought and in deed. God has planted in you, for a purpose, a divine urge which may be easily subverted to evil and destructive ends. When you are young, do not get involved in steady dating. When you reach an age where you think of marriage, then is the time to become so involved. But you boys who are in high school don’t need this, and neither do the girls” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1997, 71–72; or Ensign, Nov. 1997, 51).
smac97 Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 (edited) And the Church's inclusion of pornography in chapter 17 ("The Law of Chastity") in the Spencer W. Kimball manual: Quote We must shun pornography and other forms of immorality. We are the spiritual children of God, and … we are his supreme creation. In each of us there is the potentiality to become a God—pure, holy, true, influential, powerful, independent of earthly forces. We learn from the scriptures that we each have eternal existence, that we were in the beginning with God (see Abr. 3:22). That understanding gives to us a unique sense of man’s dignity. But there are false teachers everywhere, using speech and pornographic literature, magazines, radio, TV, street talk—spreading damnable heresies which break down moral standards, and this to gratify the lust of the flesh. We abhor pornography that seems to be flooding the land. Legislation makes an effort to curb it, but the best way to stop it is to have men and women, with their families, build barriers against it. We ask you, “Do you good people of your community want this ugly vice to corrupt your families and your neighbors?” When we see the depravity of numerous people of our own society in their determination to force upon people vulgar presentations, filthy communications, unnatural practices, we wonder, has Satan reached forth with his wicked, evil hand to pull into his forces the people of this earth? Do we not have enough good people left to stamp out the evil which threatens our world? Why do we continue to compromise with evil and why do we continue to tolerate sin? We hope that our parents and leaders will not tolerate pornography. It is really garbage, but today is peddled as normal and satisfactory food. … There is a link between pornography and the low, sexual drives and perversions. Sins spawned by pornography unfortunately perpetuate other serious transgressions, including abortion. It is ridiculous to imply that pornography has no effect. There is a definite relationship to crime. Murder, robbery, rape, prostitution, and commercialized vice are fed on this immorality. Sex crime statistics seem to reflect a relationship between crime and pornography. It is utterly without redeeming social value. We urge our families to protect their children in every way possible. We live in a permissive world, but we must make certain we do not become a part of that permissive world, that degenerate world. Members of the Church everywhere are urged to not only resist the widespread plague of pornography, but as citizens to become actively and relentlessly engaged in the fight against this insidious enemy of humanity around the world. … More in the next post. Edited March 4, 2020 by smac97
rockpond Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 21 minutes ago, Sunslight said: It says homosexual activity is a violation of the law of chastity. The "activity" inferred means any kind of same sex relations which includes holding hands and kissing. Please provide a reference for your interpretation of activity to include holding hands and kissing.
rockpond Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 24 minutes ago, Sunslight said: I'm actually glad that this has become am issue because it will force the hand of God to spell out in clear detail the abominations he cannot allow. Same sex relationships are an abomination and completely unacceptable before God and His Holy Angels. So do you believe that this honor code change was made without the approval of BYU's Board of Trustees?
Recommended Posts