Pope Francis advocates for civil union laws

[Storm Rider]

On 10/22/2020 at 2:18 PM, Ahab said:

CFR.  As far as I know the vow to be chaste is not a requirement for baptism, which is all that is required to become a full-fledged member of the Church. It is taught that we should be chaste because we are taught that we should strive to attain temple blessings, but if a member of the Church is unchaste they will not be excommunicated as a member, only taught that he or she should strive to be chaste.

edited to add: I do agree that a member who has made that temple covenant to be chaste may be excommunicated for breaking that vow, but not a member who has not made that vow, which as far as I know and remember is not made at baptism.

I don't this is an accurate reflection of the Church's position. I had a good friend who as a young man was disfellowshipped prior to becoming an elder/going to the temple because he was not chaste. He wanted to serve a mission and began the process and found himself disfellowshipped. 

Sin is sin regardless of who or when it is committed. The process of repentance may be more stringent for one, but the Church never teaches that sin is not sin because you have not gone to the temple. 

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, Storm Rider said:

I don't this is an accurate reflection of the Church's position. I had a good friend who as a young man was disfellowshipped prior to becoming an elder/going to the temple because he was not chaste. He wanted to serve a mission and began the process and found himself disfellowshipped. 

Sin is sin regardless of who or when it is committed. The process of repentance may be more stringent for one, but the Church never teaches that sin is not sin because you have not gone to the temple. 

A disfellowshipped member of the Church is still a full-fledged member of the Church.  I was talking about the leeway given to members to remain members even if they do not obey all of God's commandments.

But yes I agree that Church leaders and teachers still try to teach members and non-members that we all should obey all of God's commandments.  And that we will be blessed according to how obedient we are.

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Ahab said:

I feel like too many people don't understand that it has nothing to do with fear and that it is actually about a disgust of sinful behavior... any sinful behavior, including the disgusting act of having sexual relations with someone of the same sex.

I don't know much about you but I don't like it much when I see people do disgusting things, whether by their self or with some other person.  And you ask how would it hurt to allow full fellowship with families or individuals who do disgusting things when bringing them to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ?  It would hurt by knowing they are doing those disgusting things with each other.  And the restored gospel demands that people stop doing disgusting things even if nobody else knows they are doing those disgusting things. And some people act as if they don't even know that what they do is disgusting.

And yet fornication between male and female adults is not a sin even as a member of the church if you are unendowed- That is what I believe you have been saying

I have edited this post and regret some of the comments I made earlier in this post.

See below for what can be seen as a minimizing fornication.  Yet we know that Jesus condemned it repeatedly.

Edited October 24, 2020 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 10/22/2020 at 10:37 AM, Ahab said:

 

On 10/22/2020 at 11:18 AM, Ahab said:

CFR.  As far as I know the vow to be chaste is not a requirement for baptism, which is all that is required to become a full-fledged member of the Church. It is taught that we should be chaste because we are taught that we should strive to attain temple blessings, but if a member of the Church is unchaste they will not be excommunicated as a member, only taught that he or she should strive to be chaste.

The vow to be chaste is a temple covenant and not expected from members who do not qualify for temple blessings, as far as I know. 

 

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Ahab said:

A disfellowshipped member of the Church is still a full-fledged member of the Church.  I was talking about the leeway given to members to remain members even if they do not obey all of God's commandments.

But yes I agree that Church leaders and teachers still try to teach members and non-members that we all should obey all of God's commandments.  And that we will be blessed according to how obedient we are.

I suggest you ask your bishop if this is accurate.  A disfellowshiped  person can be highly restricted in their activity- including the ability to take the sacrament, teach, pray publically or serve in callings.  If you call that "full-fledged membership" I don't know what that phrase means.

But I am sure you will teach me.

Edited October 24, 2020 by mfbukowski

[3DOP]

9 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Hi Rory,

Thanks for your responses, as always. I think in these difficult times the Lord will forgive us, as you say, for agnosticism. I think the key is what you say -- to behave as if he were pope, and I'll add to revere the office. I visited the Fisheaters forum to see what was going on there with this latest twist and was deeply saddened to see many ostensibly faithful and traditional Catholics wishing for the death of Francis, and others saying they no longer pray for him. It was surreal, honestly, and shows the problematic relationship that traditional Catholicism has with the papacy, when the papacy is so foundational to Catholicism. Without the papacy what are we? High church Anglicans? I also find it problematic that Catholics are using private judgement to determine questions involving the papacy. That is so... protestant.

I want to be clear that I am speaking in general principles here. I am not judging you or anyone personally for agnosticism on the issue. You may well be right and I may well be wrong. I just have a hard time feeling like God will pass judgement on those who stay with the papacy.

I bet this whole discussion is surprising to our LDS friends here. Catholics questioning the papacy?? Well, that's one of the things that makes this board unique -- two traditional Catholics on an LDS forum, ha.

Speaking of Fisheaters, I have a lovely grilled salmon dinner planned for today

+ PAX +

Jesse

Jesse, my friend...I am not questioning the papal office, or its perpetuity until the end of time.

The great majority of my friends take your position including all of the priests I have known and admire. I am not a follower of anybody that I am familiar with. I believe that a very broad range of opinions can be held by Catholics in a state of grace. I must admit that most thinking Catholics seem to have certainties about what they believe about the pope and his office and confidence in the absurdity of what they do not believe about the pope and his office. Everyone here knows how skeptical I am about whether widely believed things by great numbers of people can be really absurd. I am put off by confidence that ridicules. I am not at this time confident about any position. I do not think at this time that the Catholic Church has clarified what we are required to believe about the current occupant of the Vatican. He might be a pope who is a material heretic. I do have little doubt that Francis is a material heretic. However, some cite saintly doctors of the Church who appear to say that this would mean he cannot be pope. Others cite other saintly doctors of the Church who allow that such a man may still be pope. I can be patient unto death about this, without knowing the answer. I have prayed for light about this question, and I am sure I wanted certainty when I prayed. Who is right? Who is wrong? Instead of certainty, after seeking God's counsel, I think I need to be happy and content with the "light" of uncertainty at this moment in history. I follow no camp in the Church. I do not follow the SSPX or anybody else who seems terribly confident about the current state of the papacy.

I think I can prove that those who would claim to be sons and daughters of Msgr. Marcel Lefebvre would be well served to be reserved in their opinions about Pope Francis and the papacy as I try to be. I am sure that those associated with the SSPX and who insist that Francis is pope, revere Abp. Lefebvre as much as I do. But I think they forget some history sometimes, which has led to some unfortunate polarization with those with whom we could have "ecumenical dialogue". Heh. Heh. I do not think we are intended to know all of the answers for now. I can relate to those who insist that I must be certain that Francis is pope. I can relate with those who would insist that Francis is not pope. But I cannot believe with their confidence. I do not believe the Church has spoken.    

Edited October 24, 2020 by 3DOP

[pogi]

55 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Jesse, my friend...I am not questioning the papal office, or its perpetuity until the end of time.

The great majority of my friends take your position including all of the priests I have known and admire. I am not a follower of anybody that I am familiar with. I believe that a very broad range of opinions can be held by Catholics in a state of grace. I must admit that most thinking Catholics seem to have certainties about what they believe about the pope and his office and confidence in the absurdity of what they do not believe about the pope and his office. Everyone here knows how skeptical I am about whether widely believed things by great numbers of people can be really absurd. I am put off by confidence that ridicules. I am not at this time confident about any position. I do not think at this time that the Catholic Church has clarified what we are required to believe about the current occupant of the Vatican. He might be a pope who is a material heretic. I do have little doubt that Francis is a material heretic. However, some cite saintly doctors of the Church who appear to say that this would mean he cannot be pope. Others cite other saintly doctors of the Church who allow that such a man may still be pope. I can be patient unto death about this, without knowing the answer. I have prayed for light about this question, and I am sure I wanted certainty when I prayed. Who is right? Who is wrong? Instead of certainty, after seeking God's counsel, I think I need to be happy and content with the "light" of uncertainty at this moment in history. I follow no camp in the Church. I do not follow the SSPX or anybody else who seems terribly confident about the current state of the papacy.

I think I can prove that those who would claim to be sons and daughters of Msgr. Marcel Lefebvre would be well served to be reserved in their opinions about Pope Francis and the papacy as I try to be. I am sure that those associated with the SSPX and who insist that Francis is pope, revere Abp. Lefebvre as much as I do. But I think they forget some history sometimes, which has led to some unfortunate polarization with those with whom we could have "ecumenical dialogue". Heh. Heh. I do not think we are intended to know all of the answers for now. I can relate to those who insist that I must be certain that Francis is pope. I can relate with those who would insist that Francis is not pope. But I cannot believe with their confidence. I do not believe the Church has spoken.    

Hi 3DOP, 

Just curious, what do you mean by “material heretic”?  What specifically makes him one in your opinion?

I am also curious, how can someone insist that he is not the pope?  Do they think he was not validly elected by the papal conclave, or is it more that they think he lost his papal authority through heresy, or something of that nature - like a fallen prophet?  Has anything like that ever happened in history?  Are there procedures set in place in anticipation of such an event?  What would happen if it is decided that he is not pope, and who has the authority to decide that?

Is the Pope subject to church courts like our prophet is?

Edited October 24, 2020 by pogi

[Peacefully]

22 hours ago, Ahab said:

I feel like too many people don't understand that it has nothing to do with fear and that it is actually about a disgust of sinful behavior... any sinful behavior, including the disgusting act of having sexual relations with someone of the same sex.

I don't know much about you but I don't like it much when I see people do disgusting things, whether by their self or with some other person.  And you ask how would it hurt to allow full fellowship with families or individuals who do disgusting things when bringing them to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ?  It would hurt by knowing they are doing those disgusting things with each other.  And the restored gospel demands that people stop doing disgusting things even if nobody else knows they are doing those disgusting things. And some people act as if they don't even know that what they do is disgusting.

Perhaps you shouldn’t think so much about what other adults might or might not be doing with each other. What is disgusting to you might be a loving gesture to someone else. Just a thought. 

[Peacefully]

23 hours ago, ksfisher said:

We would have to redefine the law of chastity.  The revealed will of the Lord states that sexual relations are appropriate only within the bonds of marriage between a man and a woman. 

So the only way you see a gay person having full fellowship is either in a mixed orientation marriage or being celibate? 

[Peacefully]

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think some (many?  most?) people are, or were, opposed to the radical re-definition of marriage, and are not "scared" of gay couples "having the same rights."

First establish that there is such an "underlying fear," then we can address it.

How would it hurt our mission of bringing people to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ if unmarried cohabiting couples were allowed full fellowship including callings and temple recommends? 

How would it hurt our mission of bringing people to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ if adulterous couples were allowed full fellowship including callings and temple recommends? 

How would it hurt our mission of bringing people to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ if polygamouse couples were allowed full fellowship including callings and temple recommends? 

It "would hurt" because the conduct, which violates the Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity and marriage, is incompatible with the laws and commandments of the Restored Gospel.

Thanks,

-Smac

Imho, comparing gay marriage to adultery or  polygamy (which is the same as adultery when not commanded by God) is not fair. Gay married couples who are monogamous are just like monogamous heterosexual couples. They are not cheating like an adulterer. They are being true to their spouse and creating a family. I just think we can find a place for them at the table, like Bluebell says, although I’m not sure why any gay family would want to be in a church where many people think of them as “less than”.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Peacefully said:

Imho, comparing gay marriage to adultery or  polygamy (which is the same as adultery when not commanded by God) is not fair. Gay married couples who are monogamous are just like monogamous heterosexual couples. They are not cheating like an adulterer. They are being true to their spouse and creating a family. I just think we can find a place for them at the table, like Bluebell says, although I’m not sure why any gay family would want to be in a church where many people think of them as “less than”.

And many fight to have their children baptized.

Go figure.  THAT is one I have never understood

[3DOP]

22 hours ago, pogi said:

Hi 3DOP, 

Just curious, what do you mean by “material heretic”?  What specifically makes him one in your opinion?

I am also curious, how can someone insist that he is not the pope?  Do they think he was not validly elected by the papal conclave, or is it more that they think he lost his papal authority through heresy, or something of that nature - like a fallen prophet?  Has anything like that ever happened in history?  Are there procedures set in place in anticipation of such an event?  What would happen if it is decided that he is not pope, and who has the authority to decide that?

Is the Pope subject to church courts like our prophet is?

Hi pogi.

Your questions show a lot of insight. I am not surprised. Catholic and LDS ecclesiology make us think the same ways about the laws of the church. I have company this weekend, but I have a little time right now to try to give some answers. 

Material heresy is a much less serious charge than formal heresy. It would not surprise me to learn that I am in some way a material heretic. It is not impossible that what I am about to say is material heresy! However, what follows is a simplification of how I understand the matter: Material heresy means to ignorantly believe teachings that are contrary to the Catholic faith. If one is committed to all that the Catholic Church believes and teaches, and is willing to be corrected, such a person cannot be guilty of formal heresy. An element of gravity attaches to material heresy when one begins to publicize the teaching, for instance, on the internet. At that point, while one may not yet be a formal heretic, but such an one would have some culpability for their ignorance. I do not say that the sin would necessarily be grave. After all, I am always giving opinions, and this very exercise of explaining material heresy has struck me with a little concern that I have hastily offered speculations of my own at times that were not warranted. If so, mea culpa, before God I am sorry.

So I expressed my opinion that I cannot help but be confident that Pope Francis is at least a material heretic. A formal heretic is one who is obstinate and unwilling to be corrected by the authority of the Church. I do not accuse Pope Francis of this. However, if some quite anonymous factory hand who sometimes tries to teach the Catholic faith to a handful of people who might read what he says can be charged with culpable ignorance, how much more a priest, and then a bishop, and then a pope, whose voice is attended to around the world. There are now nine pages of a thread on an LDS internet board examining what he says and believes about a question that was supposed to be settled forever. I tend to think that Francis is a formal heretic. I think he knows what the Church teaches and he does not like it. He has been asked in many ways and on many occasions to clarify everything from unguarded offhand remarks to long formal letters with his official approval. These are usually what we call encyclicals. When asked how certain expressions of his beliefs could be reconciled with the Catholic faith, he is silent. He does allow his staff to say that a remark was taken out of context, or that a translation was not accurate. But never is there a repudiation of what the pope was made to appear to believe. 

Probably the best known example of his unwillingness to cooperate with the faithful in trying to understand how he can be our pope while believing and teaching things that popes have condemned for two thousand years occurred 1,496 days ago. This is when four of his cardinals approached him with all reverence and humility to deliver what is called a dubia. This is a formal letter which in this instance asked how Catholics could believe that men and women who are living together outside the sacrament of Holy Matrimony should be allowed to receive Holy Communion. The Church has always taught that Holy Communion should not be received while in a state of grave sin. For the good of the guilty parties we remind them to refrain because to receive Holy Communion unworthily is a sacrilege and adds woe upon woe. You probably know where it is plain as day in the first letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians. I believed it when I was a Baptist. We had what we called the Lord's Supper one night after a friend and I had been a little naughty now in some unremembered way, and as I recall, the little cracker came first to my friend who took one, and then I refused. I didn't see any point in getting sick or dying when my soul wasn't in the best shape. My buddy, perceiving why I let it go by, threw his cracker on the floor! If Baptists can fear to take a cracker, how much more Catholics who believe that the host has become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ? In a formal document called Amoris Laetitia written 4 or 5 years ago, Francis muddled Catholic Sacramental teaching on Matrimony as well as the Holy Eucharist by allowing that unmarried people who are living together may now receive Holy Communion.

To issue a dubia to church authority, even to a pope, is not unprecedented. What is unprecedented is when someone who claims to be pope refuses to even give faithful Catholics who need an answer, the dignity of a reply. Following is an older internet post showing the level of interest among the Catholic faithful to have his own teaching explained to us.

https://lifepetitions.com/petition/pope-francis-i-support-the-4-cardinals-letter-pleading-for-clarity-on-amoris-laetitia

 A very short blog post was written yesterday that is like hundred and thousands of others asking similar questions as you asked pogi, and coming from different angles. This may shed some light on why faithful Catholics who want to respect the Holy Father are continually frustrated with his unwillingness to address our profoundly disturbed hearts and minds. How can we not wonder if he knows that he has no answers as to how to reconcile his teaching with the Catholic faith? Why would he refuse to console us with the light that has been supposedly granted him as pope?

https://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/10/why-cant-bishop-schneider-issue-formal.html

The questions in the second paragraph are more difficult to answer without qualifying my "yes", "no", or "I don't know." I look forward to trying. I understand the interest in this question of what it means when the most well-known religious voice in the world is apparently legitimizing behaviors that have ever been taught by Catholic doctrine before him, including every pope, to be sinful. We are talking about one of only four sins that according to what the Catholic Church teaches, "cries to heaven for vengeance"! Think about this. For nearly two thousand years, an organization influenced souls and societies the world over to condemn and disapprove in the harshest terms, perfectly legitimate behavior that is compatible with God's truth? Think of the shame, harm, and despair that innocent, good, God-loving people have had to endure for generation after generation because of the Catholic Church. To think that the Catholic Church has maliciously mistreated these people for century after century makes it impossible to believe in the one, true Catholic Church. If Pope Francis is correct, maybe it would be time to finally try to destroy this organization that perverts Christ's message? Maybe that is what he perceives as his just mission? Maybe that is why he seems to despise Traditional Catholics?

3DOP       

               

   

Edited October 25, 2020 by 3DOP

[Peacefully]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

And many fight to have their children baptized.

Go figure.  THAT is one I have never understood

I tend to agree with you. It is hard to understand. My daughter is a social worker and thinks a person would have to really be able to twist things around in their mind to stay in a church that makes them feel like that. I think it probably takes someone of great faith, but it would be wonderful to hear from gay people who have decided to stay themselves or have asked to have their children baptized. 

[mfbukowski]

39 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

I tend to agree with you. It is hard to understand. My daughter is a social worker and thinks a person would have to really be able to twist things around in their mind to stay in a church that makes them feel like that. I think it probably takes someone of great faith, but it would be wonderful to hear from gay people who have decided to stay themselves or have asked to have their children baptized. 

There were a lot of those kinds of threads hereabouts a few years ago when the church decided that, for their protection and for family unity, that children of same sex couples should not be baptized.   THAT was a big deal here, but the reaction of the gay parents who posted never made any sense to me whatsoever.

They seem to have taken it as the poor innocent children being persecuted eternally for not being able to be baptized. 

It was very strange to me.  And some of those folks still post here- maybe they will answer

To me, if I was, say, Jewish, it would be like insisting that my child join the Nazi youth group and then protesting that they would not be allowed to do so

[ksfisher]

6 hours ago, Peacefully said:

So the only way you see a gay person having full fellowship is either in a mixed orientation marriage or being celibate? 

That is essentially what the church teaches.

[carbon dioxide]

On 10/23/2020 at 12:36 PM, Peacefully said:

I feel like some people are scared of married, gay couples having the same rights in our church that heterosexual couples have.  What is the underlying fear? How would it hurt our mission of bringing people to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ if gay families were allowed full fellowship including callings and temple recommends? 
 

 

I the Lord can not look upon sin with the least degree of allowance is a passage that comes to my mind.  My fear is not the gay couple anymore than I fear an married couple who have an open marriage and like to swing.  I fear the Lord and the great condemnation that would come from the Church accepting sinful behavior to gain favor among man.

[carbon dioxide]

9 hours ago, Peacefully said:

Imho, comparing gay marriage to adultery or  polygamy (which is the same as adultery when not commanded by God) is not fair. Gay married couples who are monogamous are just like monogamous heterosexual couples. They are not cheating like an adulterer. They are being true to their spouse and creating a family. I just think we can find a place for them at the table, like Bluebell says, although I’m not sure why any gay family would want to be in a church where many people think of them as “less than”.

Does not matter if the gay couple love each other and are faithful.  The scriptures do not say that sin is not sin if those involved are consenting and faithful.  Perhaps gay couples who are faithful to each other are like heterosexuals in the eyes of the law but not in the eyes of God.  Remember as well that even in heterosexual relationships, God does not view them equally.  All contracts, covenants, ect done in the world without the sealing power of the priesthood end at death.   God does not care if the couple was faithful for 50 years.  Without the sealing power, the marriage is terminated at death and will not be recognized in the world to come.  God does not mess around with his laws.  He is pretty serious about this stuff and we can't persuade him to change his laws to fit our will.

I would also say that comparing adultery, unauthorized polygamy and gay marriage is legitimate when examining the law of chastity which is simple and clear.  That law is that the only time sexual relations between the children of God is acceptable is between man and wife in marriage.  Gay marriage is compatible to the law of Chasity as playing an Xbox 360 game disk on an PS4.  It just does not work.   The beauty of the law of chastity is that it is clear and can't be misunderstood though Satan does try to muck it up.

Edited October 25, 2020 by carbon dioxide

[Peacefully]

2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Does not matter if the gay couple love each other and are faithful.  The scriptures do not say that sin is not sin if those involved are consenting and faithful.  Perhaps gay couples who are faithful to each other are like heterosexuals in the eyes of the law but not in the eyes of God.  Remember as well that even in heterosexual relationships, God does not view them equally.  All contracts, covenants, ect done in the world without the sealing power of the priesthood end at death.   God does not care if the couple was faithful for 50 years.  Without the sealing power, the marriage is terminated at death and will not be recognized in the world to come.  God does not mess around with his laws.  He is pretty serious about this stuff and we can't persuade him to change his laws to fit our will.

I would also say that comparing adultery, unauthorized polygamy and gay marriage is legitimate when examining the law of chastity which is simple and clear.  That law is that the only time sexual relations between the children of God is acceptable is between man and wife in marriage.  Gay marriage is compatible to the law of Chasity as playing an Xbox 360 game disk on an PS4.  It just does not work.   The beauty of the law of chastity is that it is clear and can't be misunderstood though Satan does try to muck it up.

I appreciate your thoughtful answer although I don’t completely agree. I do not try to persuade God, but I do have my own thoughts and feelings about the subject that I believe come from personal revelation. I think God is more understanding of each of his children than we know. 

[JamesBYoung]

On 10/21/2020 at 8:07 AM, bsjkki said:

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-calls-for-civil-union-law-for-same-sex-couples-in-shift-from-vatican-stance-12462

"In a documentary that premiered Wednesday in Rome, Pope Francis called for the passage of civil union laws for same-sex couples, departing from the position of the Vatican’s doctrinal office and the pope’s predecessors on the issue.The remarks came amid a portion of the documentary that reflected on pastoral care for those who identify as LGBT. “Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family. They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it,” Pope Francis said in the film, of his approach to pastoral care.After those remarks, and in comments likely to spark controversy among Catholics, Pope Francis weighed in directly on the issue of civil unions for same-sex couples.“What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered,” the pope said. “I stood up for that.”The remarks come in “Francesco,” a documentary on the life and ministry of Pope Francis which premiered Oct. 21 as part of the Rome Film Festival, and is set to make its North American premiere on Sunday.

I have no trouble with contractual civil unions.

[Calm]

14 hours ago, Peacefully said:

comparing gay marriage to adultery or  polygamy (which is the same as adultery when not commanded by God) is not fair

I would rate legal but unauthorized by the Church polygamy as the same as gay marriage. Both are approved by the state, but not by God in our doctrine. 
 

Now I do feel that if the husband gets married without the approval of his current wives that is a different level than gay marriage, though it is not adultery if his culture is saying that is moral.  I think someone needs to choose to consciously violate the contract of marriage to commit adultery. It is a weird grey area where cultures allow not only legal polygamy, but the husband can just get married when he wants without agreement from his wife. There may be no legal requirement in any polygamous culture, I haven’t heard of any, but there have been cultures that frown on that kind of stuff, put limits on how many wives, etc. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

  The scriptures do not say that sin is not sin if those involved are consenting and faithful

There is no sin when there is no law though (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/moro/8.22?lang=eng#p22#22 ). Those who are ignorant of the gospel teachings on chastity won’t be judged the same as those who are. 

Though I wonder if it needs to be full ignorance or if that includes a belief that has been taught them that such ideas are ridiculous (as opposed to having been taught they were good and righteous ideas and choosing to reject them).  

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, ksfisher said:

That is essentially what the church teaches.

And has always taught. 
 

It is society, not the Church, that has changed. 

[JustAnAustralian]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Though I wonder if it needs to be full ignorance or if that includes a belief that has been taught them that such ideas are ridiculous (as opposed to having been taught they were good and righteous ideas and choosing to reject them).  

The closest I can think of with scriptural backing would be the lamanites not being punished severely for being jerks, because their beliefs were due to teachings by their ancestors.

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

There is no sin when there is no law though (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/moro/8.22?lang=eng#p22#22 ). Those who are ignorant of the gospel teachings on chastity won’t be judged the same as those who are. 

 

Yes and no.  Of course those who don't understand as much are not held as accountable.  With more light comes more accountability.  However many outside of the gospel still have the light of Christ and still now the basics of right and wrong.  Otherwise what sins are people being washed of when they are baptized?  There is no need for converts to repent before baptism because they never commit sin.  Really the only sinners that live on the earth are those in the Church who sin.  Everyone else lives sinless lives.  I don't think it works that way.   If this is not the case and they are not sinning by violating the law of chastity or other things, the best thing we as members can do is NOT preach the gospel to people.  Keeping them in their state of ignorance will turn out to be a great blessing to them.  We should just pull the plug on that aspect of the Church.

Edited October 25, 2020 by carbon dioxide

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

There is no need for converts to repent before baptism because they never commit sin

Untrue. There are the Ten Commandments that are common to many faiths and there are other gospel truths that are taught by faiths and even by secular organizations, like versions of the Golden Rule.