hope_for_things Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 7 minutes ago, smac97 said: Very well put. I think what we are discussing is the parts of the Law of Chastity that are in the "penumbra." In legal parlance: Adultery, fornication, and same-sex relations are unquestionably and squarely within the Law of Chastity. That said, what behaviors are within the "penumbra" of the Law of Chastity? Here are a few: Pornography Masturbation A married person dating / kissing / holding hands with / cuddling / etc. a person other than his/her spouse Is an unmarried person dating / kissing / holding hands with / cuddling / etc. an unmarried person of the same sex also within the "penumbra" of the Law of Chastity? Thanks, -Smac No offense to you Smac, but this kind of prescriptive and simplistic prohibition of behaviors is exactly what I'm talking about not being a well reasoned ethic for sexual relationships. This is what gets me so disappointed with when it comes to the gospel. The gospel is not a check marks list of behaviors to promote on one side and behaviors to avoid on another.
CV75 Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: The point being that strict guidelines are given for BYU and in our manuals, even though the nebulous Law of Chastity isn't clearly defined anywhere authoritatively speaking. Even if it were clearly defined by an authority figure that wouldn't make it well reasoned. This is point I'm trying to make with SMAC that an appeal to authority whether a church leader or scripture, does not make a well reasoned argument. I don't agree with that definition for the LoC. Its an anonymous author's interpretation captured in a snapshot in time. The dominant church definition has evolved throughout time. This online summary isn't a well developed and reasoned ethic for sexual relationships. Its written for an elementary school level of comprehension. We need a much more adult and robust approach to a very complicated issue. Irrespective of the authoritativeness or rationality of its source, I think what I posted clearly defines the Law of Chastity. I haven't seen from you a "strict" or stricter definition from the manuals, or any conflicting, contradictory or inconsistent definitions either. I don't consider the Honor Code a manual, and it doesn't serve an ecclesiastical purpose in my opinion, but those of the academic community. Both children and adults who feel they can sustain it will process the online summary at their respective level of development, interest and capacity as suited to their needs. If you want to make improvements in their behalf, I recommend you avail and qualify yourself to participate in the councils that perform that function.
smac97 Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 (edited) 43 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: One key point it seems many of your comments are hinging on is this idea of revelation. Yes. I hew to the Church's teachings about it. I'm not sure what you believe. Quote We both seem to have different opinions on what revelation is, how it is defined and how it relates to the people and environments (context) through which it is viewed. All my study of history and religion have clearly shaped my perspective on this issue. I don't think its possible to view revelation as somehow above history, somehow outside of context, somehow external to the lens by which people view things. I am not sure what this means. I am not saying revelation can be severed from history/context. I am saying that the Law of Chastity did not arise from, as you put it, "history and tradition." It was communicated by God to His servants through revelation. Quote I do think the Brethren are just making it up as they go along. I don't. I think they are working very hard to be guided by revelation, past and present. Quote I think all of us humans are making this up as we go along, and I don't see anything negative about that characterization. I do. There is a substantial difference between the Brethren seeking to fulfill their responsibilities by adhering to and seeking revelation versus "making it up as they go along." The Brethren have considerable amounts of discretion and latitude in their duties. But they are trying very hard to follow scriptural mandates, while also seeking revelation. Their actions are not ad hoc. They aren't just making things up as they go along. Quote I believe that we're all entitled to inspiration, but that doesn't mean our inspiration is supernatural in origin or that it somehow is elevated above other kinds of knowledge. First, I reject the term "supernatural." Second, I have no idea what you mean by "that doesn't mean our inspiration is supernatural in origin." Third, I very much subordinate "other kinds of knowledge" to revelation. Quote Also, and I think we've disagreed on this point before, I think all our doctrines are evolving just like the culture and church are evolving. My idea of this "evolution" is grounded in AoF 1:9 - "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." In other words, I think God is guiding that evolution by providing further light and knowledge. "Line upon line" and all that. I'm not sure what you believe. Quote Back to the authority point again, at the end of your comment here. I recognize that authority seems higher on your list of priorities, however, I asked the questions I did to try and stimulate some thought about how its not so simple. Your perspective about what is authoritative, about how you interpret statements from others including scripture, will all vary based on your personal lens through which you view things. And this differs from person to person. The sense that you're interpreting things the same way as others is a self deceptive illusion (albeit a very common one that all of us including myself are frequently guilty of.) Meh. I'm not interesting playing around with armchair analysis / pop psychology. Quote Yes, I very much think that we all ought to define the gospel for ourselves. I think we should understand and apply the Gospel the way the Lord wants us to. Consequently, if and when my personal understanding/application of a given issue (such as the Law of Chastity) is at odds with the scriptures, or with the clear and plain counsel from living prophets and apostles, then that should give me serious pause. The Lord has given us multiple tools to use in such efforts: our native intellect and observations and experiences, our individual accumulated wisdom and learning (the "best books," as it were), our right to personal revelation, the scriptures, and counsel from prophets and apostles. I think it unlikely that the Lord will guide me to a conclusion that is at odds with the cumulative light and knowledge He has given to His servants, both past and present. So if and when I encounter an issue where my opinion is at odds with the cumulative weight of prophetic counsel, I'm going to give that issue a lot of thought. A lot. I'm not sure what you believe. Quote I also think people already do this to some extent whether they realize it or not (see my earlier comment about the fish in water.) But the goal of the gospel is to get transformed humans who are becoming more like the divine. Yep. And obedience to the laws of God is a big part of that transformation. "We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel." (AoF 1:3) "There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated — And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated." (D&C 130:21-21) "If ye love me, keep my commandments." (John 14:15) See, I don't think we get to just make things up as we go along. I think the Lord has given us commandments. And He wants us to obey them. I really don't think He wants us to evade or ignore those commandments, or use sophistry to rationalize disobedience to them. Quote In that sense, it is imperative for personal and collective growth that people break out of placing their locus of authority on external figures/texts and develop an internal authority. I don't. I think God is the ultimate authority. I think He has given us prophets and apostles for a variety of reasons, one of the most important of which is to help us discern and follow the Lord's will. I think these prophets and apostles have authority from God, and that we are supposed to listen to and follow their inspired counsel. Now, I also believe that we should seek out our own personal revelation from God. But none of this amounts to what I would call "an internal authority." I am not a law unto myself. I have agency. I can choose to discern and submit to the will of God. I can choose to study it and find ways to improve my understand of and obedience to the Lord's commandments. Quote This is what it means to learn to act instead of merely being acted upon. This is the core concept of what it means to be born again and this is what salvation means from a metaphorical perspective. A central principle of the gospel message is about a transformation. And that transformation is brought about via obedience to the laws and commandments of God. And I don't think we are at liberty to ignore or evade or re-define or flat-out disobey those laws and commandments when and if they become socially unpopular or difficult. We are under covenant to not do such things. Thanks, -Smac Edited February 21, 2020 by smac97 4
hope_for_things Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 15 minutes ago, CV75 said: Irrespective of the authoritativeness or rationality of its source, I think what I posted clearly defines the Law of Chastity. I haven't seen from you a "strict" or stricter definition from the manuals, or any conflicting, contradictory or inconsistent definitions either. I don't consider the Honor Code a manual, and it doesn't serve an ecclesiastical purpose in my opinion, but those of the academic community. Both children and adults who feel they can sustain it will process the online summary at their respective level of development, interest and capacity as suited to their needs. If you want to make improvements in their behalf, I recommend you avail and qualify yourself to participate in the councils that perform that function. Your approach also sounds like a retreat into an appeal from authority, in this case a two paragraph long spinet from the church web site. Many of these discussions I participate in eventually boil down to this approach, despite all the holes I point out with respect to it. Oh well...
CV75 Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 25 minutes ago, smac97 said: Very well put. I think what we are discussing is the parts of the Law of Chastity that are in the "penumbra." In legal parlance: Adultery, fornication, and same-sex relations are unquestionably and squarely within the Law of Chastity. That said, what behaviors are within the "penumbra" of the Law of Chastity? Here are a few: Pornography Masturbation A married person dating / kissing / holding hands with / cuddling / etc. a person other than his/her spouse Is an unmarried person dating / kissing / holding hands with / cuddling / etc. an unmarried person of the same sex also within the "penumbra" of the Law of Chastity? Thanks, -Smac I'm not a lawyer, but I would say "It depends." The subject certainly falls under the Law of Chastity. I think for a Church member, it warrants a discussion with a bishop if they are facing a moral dilemma, and given the peer / media / political pressure surrounding same-sex matters, wisdom would dictate that occur sooner than later. Many facing this dilemma (I'm thinking students and student-age) are emotionally and sexually inexperienced and operating with undeveloped frontal lobes, so a spiritual foundation is essential if they are going to honor the covenants irrespective of thinking through and rationalizing the relevancy of the doctrine as a justification for obedience (in other words, faith comes first). Loving guidance can make all the difference as they decide or are properly persuaded on how they will keep the Law of Chastity.
smac97 Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 (edited) 30 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: No offense to you Smac, but this kind of prescriptive and simplistic prohibition of behaviors is exactly what I'm talking about not being a well reasoned ethic for sexual relationships. I think the sexual ethics espoused in the Law of Chastity are very well reasoned. To summarize the law is to reduce it to its most basic terms, but that does not make the law "simplistic." I think the Judeo-Christian ethic governing sexual behavior is far superior to the licentious, ad hoc, do-whatever-you-want libertinism that the world offers. In fact, I'd say this is an empirically testable and provable proposition. Quote This is what gets me so disappointed with when it comes to the gospel. The gospel is not a check marks list of behaviors to promote on one side and behaviors to avoid on another. I agree. But that's not what the Law of Chastity is about. Hence my "penumbra" remarks above (frankly, I don't think you understand my point about that). I think the Law of Chastity has both "letter of the law" and "spirit of the law" components to it. So I quite agree that it is "not a check marks list of behaviors to promote on one side and behaviors to avoid on another." Thanks, -Smac Edited February 21, 2020 by smac97
smac97 Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 32 minutes ago, Analytics said: Is an unmarried person dating / kissing / holding hands with / cuddling / etc. an unmarried person of the opposite sex also within the "penumbra" of the Law of Chastity? Yes. 32 minutes ago, Analytics said: It would seem that the authorities at BYU are coming to the conclusion that both questions have the same answer. Or perhaps they are transitioning such inquiries to the individual and the individual's bishop, rather than the Honor Code Office. Thanks, -Smac 1
CV75 Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 (edited) 13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Your approach also sounds like a retreat into an appeal from authority, in this case a two paragraph long spinet from the church web site. Many of these discussions I participate in eventually boil down to this approach, despite all the holes I point out with respect to it. Oh well... What other source would you suggest I use to provide you a Church definition of the Law of Chastity? It is evident to me you are not reading for comprehension, or to understand, or discuss: Posted 29 minutes ago Edited February 21, 2020 by CV75 1
smac97 Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 3 minutes ago, CV75 said: Quote Is an unmarried person dating / kissing / holding hands with / cuddling / etc. an unmarried person of the same sex also within the "penumbra" of the Law of Chastity? I'm not a lawyer, but I would say "It depends." I can respect that. 3 minutes ago, CV75 said: The subject certainly falls under the Law of Chastity. I think for a Church member, it warrants a discussion with a bishop if they are facing a moral dilemma, and given the peer / media / political pressure surrounding same-sex matters, wisdom would dictate that occur sooner than later. Yep. I find it hard to justify engaging in any part of everything-right-up-to-but-not-quite-including-penetrative-sex sorts of romantic same-sex behaviors. However, if BYU - with the approval of the Brethren - are going to allow (as in "not expressly and categorically prohibit in the Honor Code") same-sex dating, etc. by BYU students, and to transition examination of such matters away from the Honor Code Office and to the individual and his/her bishop, I will go along with that. It's not my stewardship, after all. And if BYU's course of action is misguided or wrong, I trust its administrators and the Brethren will sort such things out. 3 minutes ago, CV75 said: Many facing this dilemma (I'm thinking students and student-age) are emotionally and sexually inexperienced and operating with undeveloped frontal lobes, so a spiritual foundation is essential if they are going to honor the covenants irrespective of thinking through and rationalizing the relevancy of the doctrine as a justification for obedience (in other words, faith comes first). Loving guidance can make all the difference as they decide or are properly persuaded on how they will keep the Law of Chastity. Good thoughts. Thanks, -Smac 1
CV75 Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 6 minutes ago, smac97 said: Yep. I find it hard to justify engaging in any part of everything-right-up-to-but-not-quite-including-penetrative-sex sorts of romantic same-sex behaviors In a society where it has become routine to weaponize identity, relationships and emotions, I would add the promulgation of false doctrine as well. 1
hope_for_things Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 5 minutes ago, smac97 said: 48 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: One key point it seems many of your comments are hinging on is this idea of revelation. Yes. I hew to the Church's teachings about it. I'm not sure what you believe. It seems to me like you either can't comprehend by perspective on this topic, which is possible, or you're refusing to acknowledge it for arguments sake. Either way, this comment that you are in alignment with "the church's teachings" while apparently I believe something different, is emblematic of why its difficult to have mutually respectful and fair exchanges. The premise being that your opinion is aligned with authority while mine clearly isn't, puts us on a very uneven playing field. 9 minutes ago, smac97 said: I am not sure what this means. I am not saying revelation can be severed from history/context. I am saying that the Law of Chastity did not arise from, as you put it, "history and tradition." It was communicated by God to His servants through revelation. You agree that revelation can't be sever from history/context, yet you are placing revelation above history and context. You can't do both. It is either filtered through and influenced by the context of environmental factors, or it is somehow acting independently from those factors. 12 minutes ago, smac97 said: Quote I do think the Brethren are just making it up as they go along. I don't. I think they are working very hard to be guided by revelation, past and present. I don't see my statement in conflict with yours. I too think they are working very hard and attempting to be guided by revelation, which stated another way includes making it up as they go along, or as Nephi says being guided by the spirit not knowing beforehand. 18 minutes ago, smac97 said: I do. There is a substantial difference between the Brethren seeking to fulfill their responsibilities by adhering to and seeking revelation versus "making it up as they go along." The Brethren have considerable amounts of discretion and latitude in their duties. But they are trying very hard to follow scriptural mandates, while also seeking revelation. Their actions are not ad hoc. They aren't just making things up as they go along. I think the differences lie in how we both define revelation, but other than that I agree with your assessment, they are attempting to do their best and to honor scripture and tradition from their perspectives. Doesn't mean their decisions are any less prone to error than anyone else who's honestly attempting to do the same. We're all human. 21 minutes ago, smac97 said: First, I reject the term "supernatural." Second, I have no idea what you mean by "that doesn't mean our inspiration is supernatural in origin." Third, I very much subordinate "other kinds of knowledge" to revelation. When I said supernatural in this context I was speaking about an idea that inspiration is somehow received unfiltered from an external source. That it is a pure representation of divine will and that it is 100% accurate and infallible. This is what I meant by supernatural, probably not the best word choice. As for other kinds of knowledge, since I don't think revelation comes independently and outside of other types of knowledge, I don't think its possible to separate the revelation from the other knowledge, they are intertwined fundamentally, so I don't see it as possible to pick out which parts are revelation. Again, it comes down to our definitions and assumptions. 34 minutes ago, smac97 said: Quote Also, and I think we've disagreed on this point before, I think all our doctrines are evolving just like the culture and church are evolving. My idea of this "evolution" is grounded in AoF 1:9 - "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." In other words, I think God is guiding that evolution by providing further light and knowledge. "Line upon line" and all that. I'm not sure what you believe. I also think this is an iterative process, no disagreement here. Sometimes we go the wrong direction though, its not always a line progressing closer to the divine, there are fits and starts as we attempt to move in the correct direction, hopefully getting closer and more enlightened knowledge over long periods of time. This is an article of faith for me personally as well, because evidence doesn't always support this view, but I choose to have faith we're making good progress in spite of the evidence to the contrary at times. 37 minutes ago, smac97 said: Meh. I'm not interesting playing around with armchair analysis / pop psychology. Its not pop psychology as if the whole discipline can be dismissed through a stereotype. If you're interested in learning more, I can point to studies and books if you'd like. 42 minutes ago, smac97 said: Quote Yes, I very much think that we all ought to define the gospel for ourselves. I think we should understand and apply the Gospel the way the Lord wants us to. Consequently, if and when my personal understanding/application of a given issue (such as the Law of Chastity) is at odds with the scriptures, or with the clear and plain counsel from living prophets and apostles, then that should give me serious pause. The Lord has given us multiple tools to use in such efforts: our native intellect and observations and experiences, our individual accumulated wisdom and learning (the "best books," as it were), our right to personal revelation, the scriptures, and counsel from prophets and apostles. I think it unlikely that the Lord will guide me to a conclusion that is at odds with the cumulative light and knowledge He has given to His servants, both past and present. So if and when I encounter an issue where my opinion is at odds with the cumulative weight of prophetic counsel, I'm going to give that issue a lot of thought. A lot. I'm not sure what you believe. Quote I also think people already do this to some extent whether they realize it or not (see my earlier comment about the fish in water.) But the goal of the gospel is to get transformed humans who are becoming more like the divine. Yep. And obedience to the laws of God is a big part of that transformation. "We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel." (AoF 1:3) "There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated — And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated." (D&C 130:21-21) "If ye love me, keep my commandments." (John 14:15) See, I don't think we get to just make things up as we go along. I think the Lord has given us commandments. And He wants us to obey them. I really don't think He wants us to evade or ignore those commandments, or use sophistry to rationalize disobedience to them. Quote In that sense, it is imperative for personal and collective growth that people break out of placing their locus of authority on external figures/texts and develop an internal authority. I don't. I think God is the ultimate authority. I think He has given us prophets and apostles for a variety of reasons, one of the most important of which is to help us discern and follow the Lord's will. I think these prophets and apostles have authority from God, and that we are supposed to listen to and follow their inspired counsel. Now, I also believe that we should seek out our own personal revelation from God. But none of this amounts to what I would call "an internal authority." I am not a law unto myself. I have agency. I can choose to discern and submit to the will of God. I can choose to study it and find ways to improve my understand of and obedience to the Lord's commandments. Quote This is what it means to learn to act instead of merely being acted upon. This is the core concept of what it means to be born again and this is what salvation means from a metaphorical perspective. A central principle of the gospel message is about a transformation. And that transformation is brought about via obedience to the laws and commandments of God. And I don't think we are at liberty to ignore or evade or re-define or flat-out disobey those laws and commandments when and if they become socially unpopular or difficult. We are under covenant to not do such things. Probably not enough in common to really try and built on any of these points unfortunately. I definitely don't agree on the obedience emphasis in recent years in the church. Its not part of the core gospel transformational experience that I'm explaining. God doesn't want a bunch of obedience soldiers, God wants self actualized people creating good independently for goodness sake. The gospel I'm talking about is not at all about prescriptive behavioral observance, I don't see anything inspirational about that. The obedience emphasis does have some utility from a practical standpoint, but I'm talking about the gospel in very different terms.
hope_for_things Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 42 minutes ago, smac97 said: I think the sexual ethics espoused in the Law of Chastity are very well reasoned. To summarize the law is to reduce it to its most basic terms, but that does not make the law "simplistic." I think the Judeo-Christian ethic governing sexual behavior is far superior to the licentious, ad hoc, do-whatever-you-want libertinism that the world offers. In fact, I'd say this is an empirically testable and provable proposition. I agree. But that's not what the Law of Chastity is about. Hence my "penumbra" remarks above (frankly, I don't think you understand my point about that). I think the Law of Chastity has both "letter of the law" and "spirit of the law" components to it. So I quite agree that it is "not a check marks list of behaviors to promote on one side and behaviors to avoid on another." Thanks, -Smac I don't understand your point, because I haven't seen you present any evidence for well reasoning. Reasoning has to talk about WHY, and I haven't seen you talk about any of that. Its not why, because revelation says so, or God says so, or Joe or Russ says so. You're still quoting scriptures (your personal interpretation included) and church leaders. Thats isn't reasoning, its just appeals to authority all over again.
hope_for_things Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 36 minutes ago, CV75 said: What other source would you suggest I use to provide you a Church definition of the Law of Chastity? It is evident to me you are not reading for comprehension, or to understand, or discuss: Posted 29 minutes ago I don't think the church has a clearly defined Law of Chastity, and I thought we both agreed on that from earlier comments. I don't think we're getting anywhere either unfortunately, not for a lack of effort on my part though.
Analytics Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 56 minutes ago, smac97 said: Yes. Or perhaps they are transitioning such inquiries to the individual and the individual's bishop, rather than the Honor Code Office. Thanks, -Smac That doesn't explain why they removed the special section on homosexual behavior from the honor code. For years and years, apologists have been claiming that the law of chastity applies equally to everyone and doesn't single out gays. Now that the actual text of the honor code reflects this understanding, conservative apologists seem to be backtracking and claiming that non-marital homosexual behavior is intrinsically much more sinful than the exact same behavior in a heterosexual context. Or so it seems to me. 2
smac97 Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 1 minute ago, hope_for_things said: It seems to me like you either can't comprehend by perspective on this topic, I'm not stupid. 1 minute ago, hope_for_things said: which is possible, or you're refusing to acknowledge it for arguments sake. No, I'm not doing that. A third option: You're not explaining yourself very well. 1 minute ago, hope_for_things said: Either way, this comment that you are in alignment with "the church's teachings" while apparently I believe something different, is emblematic of why its difficult to have mutually respectful and fair exchanges. I said I don't know what you believe. I also explained what I believe. If what you believe is congruent with what the Church teaches, then just say so. If not, then explain your position. I'll listen. 1 minute ago, hope_for_things said: The premise being that your opinion is aligned with authority while mine clearly isn't, puts us on a very uneven playing field. Again, I said I don't know what you believe. Not because I'm stupid. And not because I am arguing for the sake of argument. But because you just don't seem to be explaining yourself very well. 1 minute ago, hope_for_things said: You agree that revelation can't be sever from history/context, yet you are placing revelation above history and context. You can't do both. Yes, I can. 1 minute ago, hope_for_things said: It is either filtered through and influenced by the context of environmental factors, or it is somehow acting independently from those factors. I agree with these. But the source is what is at issue. I believe the Law of Chastity came to us through revelation from God. I'm not sure what you believe. 1 minute ago, hope_for_things said: I don't see my statement in conflict with yours. I too think they are working very hard and attempting to be guided by revelation, which stated another way includes making it up as they go along, Well, no. "Guided by revelation" is not reasonably re-stated as "making it up as they go along." 1 minute ago, hope_for_things said: or as Nephi says being guided by the spirit not knowing beforehand. Nephi "was led by the Spirit, not knowing beforehand the things which {he} should do." (1 Nephi 4:6) Nephi wasn't making things up. He was being led by the Spirit. 1 minute ago, hope_for_things said: I think the differences lie in how we both define revelation, but other than that I agree with your assessment, they are attempting to do their best and to honor scripture and tradition from their perspectives. By way of clarification, I think the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article does a good job of summarizing how I "define revelation." By way of clarification, I don't know how you "define revelation." Not because I'm stupid. And not because I am arguing for the sake of argument. But because you just don't seem to be explaining yourself very well. 1 minute ago, hope_for_things said: Doesn't mean their decisions are any less prone to error than anyone else who's honestly attempting to do the same. We're all human. I disagree. I think revelation is real. I think God's servants are "less prone to error" when they are guided by revelation than when they are not, and that they are "less prone to error" as compared to those who either do not seek or do not follow revelatory guidance. 1 minute ago, hope_for_things said: When I said supernatural in this context I was speaking about an idea that inspiration is somehow received unfiltered from an external source. That it is a pure representation of divine will and that it is 100% accurate and infallible. This is what I meant by supernatural, probably not the best word choice. Probably not. 1 minute ago, hope_for_things said: As for other kinds of knowledge, since I don't think revelation comes independently and outside of other types of knowledge, I don't think its possible to separate the revelation from the other knowledge, they are intertwined fundamentally, so I don't see it as possible to pick out which parts are revelation. I do. Personal revelation helps. Study and reasoning helps. Revelation given to, and recorded by, past and present prophets and apostles helps. Counsel from those in authority helps. 1 minute ago, hope_for_things said: Again, it comes down to our definitions and assumptions. I'm not really into ideosyncratic definitions. I am going with what the Church teaches and defines (and, to a lesser extent, with standard dicitionary definitions). I am also assuming that the Church is what it claims to be, and that revelation and priesthood authority are real, and that the leaders of the Church are broadly and overwhelmingly in communion with God. I'm not sure what you believe. Not because I am making assumptions about you, but because you aren't really explaining yourself very well. 1 minute ago, hope_for_things said: I definitely don't agree on the obedience emphasis in recent years in the church. I was surmising that. And "obedience" isn't a "recent years" kind of thing. It's a precept that has been around for quite a while. 1 minute ago, hope_for_things said: Its not part of the core gospel transformational experience that I'm explaining. I could not disagree more. I think it is central to the transfromational experience contemplated in the Scriptures. Christ emphasized obedience. So did His ancient prophets and apostles. So do His current ones. Blessings from God are predicated on obedience. Obedience to God is integral to loving Him. Laws and commandments are not mere suggestions. They are, well, laws and commandments. Obedience to them is not an optional part of the Gospel path. 1 minute ago, hope_for_things said: God doesn't want a bunch of obedience soldiers, Yes, He does. 1 minute ago, hope_for_things said: God wants self actualized people creating good independently for goodness sake. Self actualization and creating good arise by . . . obeying God. And yet you are differentating these things from obedience. That seems pretty . . . out there. 1 minute ago, hope_for_things said: The gospel I'm talking about is not at all about prescriptive behavioral observance, I don't see anything inspirational about that. The obedience emphasis does have some utility from a practical standpoint, but I'm talking about the gospel in very different terms. I'm not sure what you're talking about, or where you are getting your ideas. I'm also not sure why you think such ideosyncratic notions would be meaningful or persuasive. I don't know what you believe. Stuff like "I'm talking about the gospel in very different terms" is not illuminating, particularly when you say it in the context of disparaging/dismissing the principle of obedience in the Restored Gospel. Thanks, -Smac 2
smac97 Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I don't understand your point, because I haven't seen you present any evidence for well reasoning. Reasoning has to talk about WHY, and I haven't seen you talk about any of that. Its not why, because revelation says so, or God says so, or Joe or Russ says so. You're still quoting scriptures (your personal interpretation included) and church leaders. Thats isn't reasoning, its just appeals to authority all over again. You continue to misapprehend the concept of "appeals to authority." It's not fallacious to appeal to authority on an issue where the cited authority has jurisdiction over the issue. Look, we've had our say. I've presented my position, which is essentially congruent with the teachings of the Church. I don't know what you believe about such things. You seem to be marching to the beat of your own drum. And if so, have at it. But if you are setting yourself up as a voice of authority alternative and superior to that of the Brethren, then I'll just make note of that and move on. I'm just not interested in what appears to be just another ad hoc, ideosyncratic, who-cares-what-the-Scriptures-and-the-Brethren-have-to-day approach to the Restored Gospel (with a dash of pop psychology terminology added in for flavor). Thanks, -Smac 2
JAHS Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Incidentally, when did Kate Kelly come out as “queer”? That’s news to me. Don't know when but her twitter account says she is.
hope_for_things Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 6 minutes ago, smac97 said: I'm not sure what you're talking about, or where you are getting your ideas. I’m sure part of our not connecting is due to my not being able to express ideas as effectively as I’d like. I think the other part of it is that we’re swimming in very different waters, so the audience is different. I can make comments like these in other settings and have people follow what I’m saying quite well. The frustrating thing for me is that I can understand what you’re saying just fine, because I’ve been in the more traditional orthodox believing world for much of my life. However, its really hard to translate new ideas for this audience. Probably the best thing to do is to just say that I’m getting ideas through an exploration of the ideas of many different sources, science, religion, culture, psychology, history, etc. I’m trying to be much more well read with respect to the genre’s of material that I consume in recent years. Best to you, and clearly we disagree on some things, but hopefully we at least can respect each other in our efforts to striving to do good with sincere intentions.
smac97 Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 9 minutes ago, Analytics said: Quote Or perhaps they are transitioning such inquiries to the individual and the individual's bishop, rather than the Honor Code Office. That doesn't explain why they removed the special section on homosexual behavior from the honor code. Well, it may. If "penumbra" behaviors are to be removed from the jurisdiction of the Honor Code Office, and are instead to be handled by the individual and his/her bishop, then removing the behaviors from the Honor Code makes sense. 9 minutes ago, Analytics said: For years and years, apologists have been claiming that the law of chastity applies equally to everyone and doesn't single out gays. Yes. 9 minutes ago, Analytics said: Now that the actual text of the honor code reflects this understanding, conservative apologists seem to be backtracking and claiming that non-marital homosexual behavior is intrinsically much more sinful than the exact same behavior in a heterosexual context. I don't think there is backtracking here. There are two contexts, one of which allows for sexual behavior in certain parameters, and one which does not. Sexual orientation is not determinative, you see. Everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, is allowed to enter into a heterosexual marriage and have heterosexual relations therein. Conversely, everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, is prohibited from engaging in same-sex relations in any circumstance. 9 minutes ago, Analytics said: Or so it seems to me. Sounds good. Thanks, -Smac 1
hope_for_things Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 6 minutes ago, smac97 said: You continue to misapprehend the concept of "appeals to authority." It's not fallacious to appeal to authority on an issue where the cited authority has jurisdiction over the issue. Look, we've had our say. I've presented my position, which is essentially congruent with the teachings of the Church. I don't know what you believe about such things. You seem to be marching to the beat of your own drum. And if so, have at it. But if you are setting yourself up as a voice of authority alternative and superior to that of the Brethren, then I'll just make note of that and move on. I'm just not interested in what appears to be just another ad hoc, ideosyncratic, who-cares-what-the-Scriptures-and-the-Brethren-have-to-day approach to the Restored Gospel (with a dash of pop psychology terminology added in for flavor). Thanks, -Smac And you continue to appeal to authority. Even your complaint that I'm misapprehending the concept is an appeal to authority, i.e. "where the cited authority has jurisdiction". I'm specifically asking for using reason as the basis for a development of a sexual relationship ethic. No authority citing allowed, if that helps you understand where I'm coming from. I want to look at different elements, that I talked about earlier, to determine what is a balanced, inspired and reasonable ethic on this topic.
smac97 Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Quote You continue to misapprehend the concept of "appeals to authority." It's not fallacious to appeal to authority on an issue where the cited authority has jurisdiction over the issue. Look, we've had our say. I've presented my position, which is essentially congruent with the teachings of the Church. I don't know what you believe about such things. You seem to be marching to the beat of your own drum. And if so, have at it. But if you are setting yourself up as a voice of authority alternative and superior to that of the Brethren, then I'll just make note of that and move on. I'm just not interested in what appears to be just another ad hoc, ideosyncratic, who-cares-what-the-Scriptures-and-the-Brethren-have-to-day approach to the Restored Gospel (with a dash of pop psychology terminology added in for flavor). And you continue to appeal to authority. Yes, I do. But not fallaciously. I have a former neighbor whose house was foreclosed. There was a substantial amount of money left over from the sale. My former neighbor may well be entitled to that money. She has asked me to explain the process for getting that money. That explanation starts with Utah Code 57-1-29, which is the statute that governs the legal procedures for getting the money. There is nothing wrong with me "appealing" to that statute when discussing this issue with my neighbor. To be sure, it would be irresponsible for me to ignore that statute and fabricate some ideosyncratic, home-grown explanation for how she canget the money. Similarly, when we are discussing the doctrines of the Church, it is not fallacious to cite the Church's scriptures and other authoritative sources. The Church's doctrines, including the Law of Chastity, are fairly well-defined, and they are not infinitely malleable. They are also not the product of each of us fabricating our own ideosyncratic versions of such things. You continue to misapprehend what "appeal to authority" means, and how it is applied. But I won't belabor the point. Let's just agree to disagree. 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Even your complaint that I'm misapprehending the concept is an appeal to authority, i.e. "where the cited authority has jurisdiction". No, it's not. You are really not getting the point. 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I'm specifically asking for using reason as the basis for a development of a sexual relationship ethic. Reason and citation to authority are not mutually incompatible. I'm not really enthused at the prospect of hashing this out, since we don't seem to be getting along. But I'll give it a college try: Constraints on sexual behavior make a lot of sense. Sex is an important part of life. Inappropriate manifestations of sexual behavior are destructive and harmful. Rape, sexual abuse, incest, are all generally construed as malum in se, as axiomatically bad. The reasons for this assessment are obvious and self-evident. Similarly, adultery is very harmful to marital relationships, as it undermines trust and emotional/sexual closeness that should abound between husband and wife. Fornication can be very harmful. It can be emotionally confusing. It can be difficult to handle by youth whose cognitive/reasoning/judgment abilities are still forming. Adultery and fornication also carry a number of substantial risks, such as STIs, unwanted pregnancies, abortion, fatherlessness, false claims of abuse, and so on. There are also a number of "downstream" adverse effects that can arise, such as increased rates of depression, anxiety, substance abuse, suicidal ideation, and so on. These adverse effects are hugely reduced, avoided, and/or even eliminated outright by adherence to sexual ethics. Proscriptions against nonconsensual sex, if followed, would reduce instances of rape and other forms of sexual assult (and, therefore, also reduce the instances of "downstream" adverse effects as well). Proscriptions against adultery and fornication, if followed, would drastically reduce or eliminate STIs, out-of-wedlock births, many abortions, many fatherless homes, and so on. What we in the Church call the "Law of Chastity" is a set of sexual ethics based on the Bible, and also on other scriptures and prophetic writings. Its proscriptive elements (against adultery, fornication, and same-sex relations) used to be widely taught as an integral part of the Judeo-Christian ethos, albeit imperfectly observed. Since the advent of the Sexual Revolution 50+ years ago, these proscriptive elements have been weakened, both in instruction and in practice. Consequently, we have seen increased incidents of the above-referenced adverse effects of not sufficiently adhering to this code of sexual ethics. I think the value of sexual ethics is obvious and self-evident. I also think God wants us to adhere to these ethics. We have been told as much many, many times. 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: No authority citing allowed, Sorry, but that's not your call to make. 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: if that helps you understand where I'm coming from. It does not. It seems presumptuous of you to dictate what I can and cannot say. 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I want to look at different elements, that I talked about earlier, to determine what is a balanced, inspired and reasonable ethic on this topic. I'm not particularly enthused at the prospect. Thanks, -Smac 1
smac97 Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 39 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I’m sure part of our not connecting is due to my not being able to express ideas as effectively as I’d like. Well, I'm not stupid, and I'm not playing dumb. And I have a pretty good track record of having substantive discussions on this board. I don't think you are explaining your position very well. 39 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I think the other part of it is that we’re swimming in very different waters, so the audience is different. I can make comments like these in other settings and have people follow what I’m saying quite well. The frustrating thing for me is that I can understand what you’re saying just fine, because I’ve been in the more traditional orthodox believing world for much of my life. However, its really hard to translate new ideas for this audience. I'm not a cloistered monk. I am familiar with terminology and ideas outside of the Church. There isn't a need to "translate." I'm a relatively bright and educated person. I can usually pick up what others are putting down. 39 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Probably the best thing to do is to just say that I’m getting ideas through an exploration of the ideas of many different sources, science, religion, culture, psychology, history, etc. I’m trying to be much more well read with respect to the genre’s of material that I consume in recent years. Best to you, and clearly we disagree on some things, but hopefully we at least can respect each other in our efforts to striving to do good with sincere intentions. As you like. We're done, I assume. Thanks, -Smac 1
Analytics Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 38 minutes ago, smac97 said: Sexual orientation is not determinative, you see. Everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, is allowed to enter into a heterosexual marriage and have heterosexual relations therein. Conversely, everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, is prohibited from engaging in same-sex relations in any circumstance. You seem to be dodging my point. Allow me to offer a specific example. When I was in college and was dating LDS women, it was quite common to hold hands and cuddle. I remember one girl I knew who approached me and said quite matter-of-factly that she needed to somebody to cuddle with and that she was sure she could trust me to be her cuddle buddy. I don't think I ever even dated this particular girl, and nothing happened that I felt was the least bit "sinful." We just walked around campus holding hands, talked, and sat in her dorm room cuddling. I suppose we both enjoyed it in a heterosexual way, but we were both very clear where the line was, and didn't cross it. Didn't really even come close to it. If the rules are "no sex outside of [heterosexual] marriage" and "don't cheat on your spouse", then according to the penumbra what we were doing would probably be considered okay, right? Then why wouldn't it also be okay if the person I was doing it with happened to be another guy? To make the case that it is okay to cuddle with a girl but bad to cuddle with a guy, you need to come up with extra anti-gay rules, like the ones that BYU removed from the Honor Code. 1
smac97 Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Analytics said: You seem to be dodging my point. Allow me to offer a specific example. When I was in college and was dating LDS women, it was quite common to hold hands and cuddle. And as long as you and the woman were not married to anyone else, and acted within decorum, that's fine. Quote I remember one girl I knew who approached me and said quite matter-of-factly that she needed to somebody to cuddle with and that she was sure she could trust me to be her cuddle buddy. I don't think I ever even dated this particular girl, and nothing happened that I felt was the least bit "sinful." A non-romantic "cuddle buddy" seems a bit weird, but okay. Quote We just walked around campus holding hands, talked, and sat in her dorm room cuddling. I suppose we both enjoyed it in a heterosexual way, but we were both very clear where the line was, and didn't cross it. Didn't really even come close to it. Okay. Quote If the rules are "no sex outside of [heterosexual] marriage" and "don't cheat on your spouse", That is not an accurate (as in not complete) re-statement of "the rules." Quote then according to the penumbra what we were doing would probably be considered okay, right? Sounds like it. Quote Then why wouldn't it also be okay if the person I was doing it with happened to be another guy? A non-romantic, non-sexual "cuddle buddy"-and-handholding relationship with another guy? I guess that's okay. Mighty weird, though. And contrived, too. Strange that you have to go to such lengths to make a point. Quote To make the case that it is okay to cuddle with a girl but bad to cuddle with a guy, you need to come up with extra anti-gay rules, like the ones that BYU removed from the Honor Code. I don't think so. The fact that you are presenting this using an absurd, contrived hypothetical rather militates against your point. Everyone is prohibited from engaging in same-sex relations, regardless of sexual orientation. Right? Thanks, -Smac Edited February 21, 2020 by smac97 1
CV75 Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: I don't think the church has a clearly defined Law of Chastity, and I thought we both agreed on that from earlier comments. I don't think we're getting anywhere either unfortunately, not for a lack of effort on my part though. I think the Church definition I provided is quite clearly defined. I take it you think clarity is attained by a universal list of examples, applications, contexts, and prescriptive dos and do-nots. But these are not identifying characteristics and thus do not constitute part of a definition. And even you grant and appeal to authority whatever process it is by which you would like to see a definition developed that suits your expectations. You've evidently given this definition a great deal of thought. Will you share your current preferred definition of chastity and the law of chastity that would better serve the Church community (just as a starting point for open, non-authoritative dialogue that would result in widespread accpetance)? Edited February 21, 2020 by CV75 1
Recommended Posts