New Church Policy?

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Quote

Way back I knew a man who was in a deeply unhappy marriage (they later divorced).  Although I certainly sympathized with his plight, there was no point at which I would have encouraged him or endorsed his decision to commit adultery.  As unhappy has he was, violating his solemn covenants to God would have made things worse.

Unless you encouraged him to remarry.

Which, were it within my province and stewardship to say, would not be an encouragment to violate the Law of Chastity.

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Doesn't the Bible say that a man who takes another man's wife in marriage is committing adultery. But times, and the LoC change... so...

From FAIR:

Quote

Jesus taught divorce was not acceptable unless fornication had occurred. (Matthew 5:31-32) Why does the LDS church allow divorce when not for this reason? Shouldn't these people either be disfellowshipped or excommunicated? Why does the church permit re-marrying?

Dallin H. Oaks responded to this question in 2007:

In ancient times and even under tribal laws in some countries where we now have members, men have power to divorce their wives for any trivial thing. Such unrighteous oppression of women was rejected by the Savior, who declared:

“Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

“And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matthew 19:8–9).

The kind of marriage required for exaltation—eternal in duration and godlike in quality—does not contemplate divorce. In the temples of the Lord, couples are married for all eternity. But some marriages do not progress toward that ideal. Because “of the hardness of [our] hearts,” the Lord does not currently enforce the consequences of the celestial standard. He permits divorced persons to marry again without the stain of immorality specified in the higher law. Unless a divorced member has committed serious transgressions, he or she can become eligible for a temple recommend under the same worthiness standards that apply to other members.^[1]

In 2012, Elder Oaks noted:

Our Church leaders have taught that looking “upon marriage as a mere contract that may be entered into at pleasure … and severed at the first difficulty … is an evil meriting severe condemnation,” especially where “children are made to suffer.” And children are impacted by divorces. Over half of the divorces in a recent year involved couples with minor children.

Many children would have had the blessing of being raised by both of their parents if only their parents had followed this inspired teaching in the family proclamation: “Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. … Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another.” The most powerful teaching of children is by the example of their parents. Divorcing parents inevitably teach a negative lesson.

There are surely cases when a divorce is necessary for the good of the children, but those circumstances are exceptional. In most marital contests the contending parents should give much greater weight to the interests of the children. With the help of the Lord, they can do so. Children need the emotional and personal strength that come from being raised by two parents who are united in their marriage and their goals. As one who was raised by a widowed mother, I know firsthand that this cannot always be achieved, but it is the ideal to be sought whenever possible.

Children are the first victims of current laws permitting so-called “no-fault divorce.” From the standpoint of children, divorce is too easy. Summarizing decades of social science research, a careful scholar concluded that “the family structure that produces the best outcomes for children, on average, are two biological parents who remain married.” A New York Times writer noted “the striking fact that even as traditional marriage has declined in the United States … the evidence has mounted for the institution’s importance to the well-being of children.” That reality should give important guidance to parents and parents-to-be in their decisions involving marriage and divorce. We also need politicians, policy makers, and officials to increase their attention to what is best for children in contrast to the selfish interests of voters and vocal advocates of adult interests.^[2]

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Also worth noting that the people upholding and defending the status quo of such a society that allows that to happen may find themselves living out Jesus’s tale of Lazarus and the rich man. The Old Testament prophets have a lot to say about societies where to be honest is to be a victim of those who are not.

The only "status quo" in view I am defending is the Law of Chastity.

20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Is there any comparable circumstance pertaining to homosexual behavior?  Where committing a sin (homosexual behavior) is compulsory?  A matter of life and death?  A lesser of two evils?  A Sophie's Choice?  Broadly speaking, I can't really think of any.

I can. Bacha bazi practices come to mind though there are similar practices all over.

Fair point.  Rape, sexual exploitation, etc. deprives the individual of meaningful choice, and hence accountability because there is no volitional sin.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Same law, disparate impact.

I think this may come down to you and others seeing a law as dealing with the simple statement of thou shalt or shalt not while myself and others see a law as more what is required to obey the simple thou shalt and shalt nots.

Let me try another example to check this.

Would you say everyone has the same standard of admission to a club if that admission was based solely on wearing a particular unaltered uniform when on its premises?  Disregarding if the uniform comes in only one size or a variety of sizes from very small to very large or perhaps was one type of synthetic material or a variety to choose from for comfort, and it was free or expensive?  If not, please explain why the standard is different for different individuals in this case.

Edited April 20, 2022 by Calm

[Vanguard]

33 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm glad you said this. Until that point I was picturing you as Javert   These lyrics from Stars came to mind.

 

You know your place in the sky
You hold your course and your aim
And each in your season
Returns and returns
And is always the same
And if you fall as Lucifer fell
You fall in flames!

And so it must be
For so it is written
On the doorway to paradise
That those who falter and those who fall
Must pay the price!

Lord let me find him
That I may see him
Safe behind bars
I will never rest
Till then, this I swear
This I swear by the stars!

Javert was one of the finest examples of things being 'black and white' as pertains to the law. He allowed for no context regards to consequences for breaking any given rule. You seem to be conflating price payed for breaking the law with the clear directive to obey it. Yes, the law is the same for all though consequences for breaking it may well vary depending on the individual's circumstances for breaking it. Fortunately, it is not for us to determine what those consequences are in the eternities. I have not seen anyone on this thread including smac suggest otherwise.

Edited April 20, 2022 by Vanguard

[Calm]

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A starving man who steals a loaf of bread will, I think, fall within the atonement of Jesus Christ.  The law is there, but the transgression of it is swallowed upon by the mercies of our Lord.

If you don’t see a parallel, change it to a man who is hungry and weak and won’t die, but if he doesn’t eat he may lose his job because he can’t work hard enough that day and he has been warned no more excuses and no job may lead to him being homeless not being able to pay his rent.  He can still survive by living in shelters, but he is now filled with insecurity and self doubt.

By obeying the law, he may have to give up his sense of belonging, being safe, his ability to control his circumstances as well as before. 
 

Again the wealthy man who has everything that he truly wants already gives up nothing in his obedience to the law.  Obedience doesn’t even require any thought on his part.  It would in fact be more inconvenient and uncomfortable for him to break the law.  The law helps him to feel safe and in control.

Edited April 20, 2022 by Calm

[Vanguard]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Change it to a man who is hungry and weak and won’t die, but if he doesn’t eat he may lose his job because he can’t work hard enough that day and he has been warned no more excuses and no job may lead to him being homeless not being able to pay his rent.  He can still survive by living in shelters, but he is now filled with insecurity and self doubt.

By obeying the law, he may have to give up his sense of belonging, being safe, his ability to control his circumstances as well as before. 

If I'm understanding your point, I agree. There must be myriad contextual variables that determine the consequences of breaking what is considered an eternal law applicable to all. Does the man in your example steal a loaf once to get himself through the difficult time or does he - after stealing it once - believe it is his right to continue to steal?

[Calm]

Just now, Vanguard said:

If I'm understanding your point, I agree. There must be myriad contextual variables that determine the consequences of breaking what is considered an eternal law applicable to all. Does the man in your example steal a loaf once to get himself through the difficult time or does he - after stealing it once - believe it is his right to continue to steal?

I am trying to explore one aspect of thought to see if there can be agreement if the right language is found.  Let’s keep it simple with how the man most likely would be looking at it (I am so hungry, should I take this to eat?).

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

If I'm understanding your point, I agree

That the standard of behaviour is in essence different for the two because it requires significantly different amounts of sacrifice to obey for the two men?

Edited April 20, 2022 by Calm

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Same law, disparate impact.

I think this may come down to you and others seeing a law as dealing with the simple statement of thou shalt or shalt not while myself and others see a law as more what is required to obey the simple thou shalt and shalt nots.

Not sure what this means. 

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Let me try another example to check this.

Would you say everyone has the same standard of admission to a club if that admission was based solely on wearing a particular unaltered uniform when on its premises?

I suppose so.  Same standard for everyone.

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Disregarding if the uniform comes in only one size or a variety of sizes from very small to very large or perhaps was one type of synthetic material or a variety to choose from for comfort, and it was free or expensive?  

So the "standard" is arbitrary and unreasonable.  

I can't get on board with that relative to the Law of Chastity.  I don't think such a comparison holds.

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

If not, please explain why the standard is different for different individuals in this case.

The standard is the same, but capricious and unjust.

Conversely, the Law of Chastity is not capricious.  And since it comes from God, I cannot characterize it as "unjust."  I can't even get on board with the idea that the struggle of obeying the Law of Chastity is unique to our gay brothers and sisters.  Again, Pres. Oaks has addressed this:

Quote

Everyone has some challenges they have to struggle with. You’ve described a particular kind of challenge that is very vexing. It is common in our society and it has also become politicized. But it’s only one of a host of challenges men and women have to struggle with, and I just encourage you to seek the help of the Savior to resist temptation and to refrain from behavior that would cause you to have to repent or to have your Church membership called into question.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: If somebody has a very powerful heterosexual drive, there is the opportunity for marriage. If a young man thinks he’s gay, what we’re really saying to him is that there is simply no other way to go but to be celibate for the rest of his life if he doesn’t feel any attraction to women?

ELDER OAKS: That is exactly the same thing we say to the many members who don’t have the opportunity to marry. We expect celibacy of any person that is not married.
...
We’re not talking about a unique challenge here. We’re talking about a common condition of mortality. We don’t understand exactly the ‘why,’ or the extent to which there are inclinations or susceptibilities and so on. But what we do know is that feelings can be controlled and behavior can be controlled. The line of sin is between the feelings and the behavior. The line of prudence is between the susceptibility and the feelings. We need to lay hold on the feelings and try to control them to keep us from getting into a circumstance that leads to sinful behavior.
...

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: If we were to look back at someone who had a ‘short fuse,’ and we were to look at their parents who might have had a short fuse, some might identify a genetic influence in that.

ELDER OAKS: No, we do not accept the fact that conditions that prevent people from attaining their eternal destiny were born into them without any ability to control. That is contrary to the Plan of Salvation, and it is contrary to the justice and mercy of God. It’s contrary to the whole teaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which expresses the truth that by or through the power and mercy of Jesus Christ we will have the strength to do all things. That includes resisting temptation. That includes dealing with things that we’re born with, including disfigurements, or mental or physical incapacities. None of these stand in the way of our attaining our eternal destiny. The same may be said of a susceptibility or inclination to one behavior or another which if yielded to would prevent us from achieving our eternal destiny.
...
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: A little earlier, Elder Oaks, you talked about the same standard of morality for heterosexuals and homosexuals. How would you address someone who said to you, ‘I understand it’s the same standard, but aren’t we asking a little more of someone who has same-gender attraction?’ Obviously there are heterosexual people who won’t get married, but would you accept that they at least have hope that ‘tomorrow I could meet the person of my dreams.’ There’s always the hope that that could happen at any point in their life. Someone with same-gender attraction wouldn’t necessarily have that same hope.

ELDER OAKS: There are differences, of course, but the contrast is not unique. There are people with physical disabilities that prevent them from having any hope — in some cases any actual hope and in other cases any practical hope — of marriage. The circumstance of being currently unable to marry, while tragic, is not unique.

It is sometimes said that God could not discriminate against individuals in this circumstance. But life is full of physical infirmities that some might see as discriminations — total paralysis or serious mental impairment being two that are relevant to marriage. If we believe in God and believe in His mercy and His justice, it won’t do to say that these are discriminations because God wouldn’t discriminate. We are in no condition to judge what discrimination is. We rest on our faith in God and our utmost assurance of His mercy and His love for all of His children.

We could spend years identifying ways in which different people face different struggles and challenges.  Pres. Oaks is right when he sayd that "it won’t do to say that these are discriminations because God wouldn’t discriminate."

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

That the standard of behaviour is in essence different for the two because it requires significantly different amounts of sacrifice to obey for the two men?

I once had a boyfriend that praised my virginity because he found me attractive.  “All these ugly girls out here touting their virginity like it took any effort” -

We didn’t last.  He was a jerk.  

Thank goodness none of us need to , nor should we, be the judge of each other.  Only God could handle such complications of humans and their history and the impacts of life on one vs the other.  

I keep hoping heaven will be like school - where I arrive and find out that your average Walmart shopper is struggling so hard that my sins smell like roses and I realize that all my worry was for nothing. 

[Vanguard]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

That the standard of behaviour is in essence different for the two because it requires significantly different amounts of sacrifice to obey for the two men?

Yes, the impact on the individual is different though the directive is the same for both.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Buckeye said:

I was referencing the scriptural instruction to not call good things evil. 
 

From your post, can I take it that you agree gay marriages are good (even if not best)? That would be a welcome development and one I would hope to see in the church. My heterosexual marriage/sealing is good too but no where near celestial yet. I can’t expect better fruit from gay marriages than from my own. 
 

In the long run, do you think gay people stay gay? If so, I’d recommend gay marriage to them all since none of them will qualify for exaltation under current church doctrine. Either their orientation changes or the doctrine changes. It’s apparent the church has given up on changing anyones orientation in this life.
 

So my honest answer for gay members is to find the most happiness in this life and continue searching in the next. If we find that orientations can change in the next then we can revisit getting back on the covenant path then. But inasmuch as the covenant path only offers isolation here it’s not a plan of happiness for gay members. 

I am all for calling things what they are, but I think describing them in context is better.

Whether gay marriage can be good depends on many things, and arguments can be made for anything. People on the whole are just more used to it and as such will not critically develop or evaluate their long-term social or political projections. I certainly cannot evaluate your assessment of your own marriage. Some have the restored gospel and some do not, which is often a function of their mortal circumstances and not merely their willful resistance to search for the Lord.

My understanding is that the temple marriage covenant has no more to do with sexual orientation than it does with sexual compatibility, but strictly with gender. The quality of interpersonal relationships between the parties in the Church covenant of course mirror those in any non-temple arrangement, for better or worse. I would say the Holy Spirit is a great assist in our interpersonal relationships and in addressing our various mortal circumstances.

Whether sexual orientation or compatibility or personality changes in the next life, gender and the marriage covenant do not, since it seems to me that every mortal circumstance (by definition) and far more human characteristics are subject to change than not. This is a gospel of repentance, healing and grace. But a few things in our belief system cannot change: man is spirit; they were created individually male and female, spiritually before naturally; and what God has established let no man change, whether by divorce or by alteration.

My answer to (what was the question?) gay members is to search for the Lord in good faith and happiness, peace and rest will follow according to the principles shared in this talk: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2022/04/41christofferson?lang=eng

Subheading: “No matter what our mortal experience may entail, we can trust God and find joy in Him.”

A quote: “In the end, it is the blessing of a close and abiding relationship with the Father and the Son that we seek. It makes all the difference and is everlastingly worth the cost.”

And a scripture reference: “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.”

I know the difference between wanting something so badly I deny His lead while justifying/rationalizing my decisions in terms of being led (very Korihor-ish in style but not that uncommon for human nature), and letting that go and becoming as a child. But this talk is the right way to go!

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So the "standard" is arbitrary and unreasonable.  

Or a necessity because that was all that was available to the club owners at the time (Covid interfered with production, terrorists stole all the sizes save one, take your pick or come up with another reason).

[filovirus]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thank you for your response. I too shall push back a little  

For an LGBTQ person, what path does the church foster? What are their options? It seems the only church approved option would be to do absolutely nothing romantic in life and live and die alone. No hand holding, kissing, arms around the back. No emotional intimacy. Be alone. That's it. What else does the church have to offer LGBTQ persons? Serious question because i can't think of anything the church offers.

Also, while I'd agree that the church teaches such things I would argue that the church and its leaders have no knowledge of such things. They are making the best educated guesses they can based on their culture and history but as has been pointed out many times, there is NO revelation about how/where LGBTQ individuals or couples fit into Gods plan of happiness.

 

Hope!!! And by that I mean the "hope" found in the faith, hope, and charity sense. Hope that this mortal, carnal body will in fact put on incorruption. Hope that the atonement will give power to overcome a lifelong struggle. Hope that mistakes can be remedied by the atonement. Hope that Christ's love can be felt. Hope that they can eventually be sealed as His through the holy spirit of promise.

In nowise am I saying that it is easy. Far from it. And we as members do not do enough to comfort those in need of comfort and mourn with those who mourn. But I truly believe there is a place for them in Christ's church.

Will hand holding keep them from obtaining promised blessings? I don't know. Will kissing? I don't know. Arms around the back? I don't know. Petting? Oral Sex? Fornication? I don't know. But I would advise with a strong amount of caution for all of them.

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I once had a boyfriend that praised my virginity because he found me attractive.  “All these ugly girls out here touting their virginity like it took any effort” -

We didn’t last.  He was a jerk.  

Thank goodness none of us need to , nor should we, be the judge of each other.  Only God could handle such complications of humans and their history and the impacts of life on one vs the other.  

I keep hoping heaven will be like school - where I arrive and find out that your average Walmart shopper is struggling so hard that my sins smell like roses and I realize that all my worry was for nothing. 

John Bytheway had that story where his bishop let everyone confidentially ask law of chastity questions and then he would read and answer them.

His was: “My problem is not being tempted to break the law of chastity. My problem is getting into a situation where it’s actually an option.”

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I probably wasn't clear in my point about the dances here. The LDS folks certainly had dances - lots of them. It appears the one dance that was banned by some bishops, especially in Colonia Dublan was the waltz. I know nothing - zero - nada about the waltz, but apparently it was a bit too touchy for some bishops to allow into the 1930s. They had some great fiddlers here back then. There is a gravestone of a J. T. Whetten in the Colonia Juarez cemetery that features an engraving of his famous fiddle. For over 18 years he was bishop of Garcia and on the Juarez stake presidency. He was also the official fiddler for dances for those years. I wonder if you can fiddle a waltz? That shows you the little I know about such things. One . . . Two . . .  Three . . . and is there a Four? Take care my friend!

No clue - if anything the waltz is less likely to be "close dancing". It's structure ured

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

If you don’t see a parallel, change it to a man who is hungry and weak and won’t die, but if he doesn’t eat he may lose his job because he can’t work hard enough that day and he has been warned no more excuses and no job may lead to him being homeless not being able to pay his rent.  He can still survive by living in shelters, but he is now filled with insecurity and self doubt.

By obeying the law, he may have to give up his sense of belonging, being safe, his ability to control his circumstances as well as before. 

Sorry, but the comparison doesn't seem to work.  No two people face the same combinations of blessings and challenges, of opportunities and privations, of skill and flaws.  There will always be differences in circumstance.  And I am confident that the Lord will take all such things into account. 

Meanwhile, however, there are some commandments that are pretty easy to understand.  "Love God, love your neighbor."  Others may call for implementation in ways both clear and nuanced.  

As regarding "homosexual behavior," I just have a hard time formulating some sort of dire circumstance in which violating the Law of Chastity is necessary or compulsory, such that there is a genuine dilemma analogous to dying of starvation, losing a job, etc.

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Again the wealthy man who has everything that he truly wants already gives up nothing in his obedience to the law.  

I am sorry, but I reject the notion that my obedience to a commandment is predicated or contingent or otherwise affected by whether or not some other guy obeys that same commandment.  I'm me, he's him.  It doesn't matter if obedience is hard for me and easy for him, I'm still obligated to keep my covenants.

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Obedience doesn’t even require any thought on his part.  It would in fact be more inconvenient and uncomfortable for him to break the law.  The law helps him to feel safe and in control.

Not sure how this is analogous to keeping the Law of Chastity.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

So the "standard" is arbitrary and unreasonable.

Or a necessity because that was all that was available to the club owners at the time (Covid interfered with production, terrorists stole all the sizes save one, take your pick or come up with another reason).

I'd rather not.  I'm not particularly interested in parsing out obedience to a commandment based on whether I think God's reasoning for it is acceptable to me.  "For my ways are not your ways" and all that.

I acknowledge that the Law of Chastity is easier to obey for some as opposed to others, and that this relative easiness and difficulty can often be well outside the individual's ability to control.  But I just can't get on board with the idea that we should decide to obey a commandment based - in whole or in part - on whether such obedience is as difficult for others as it is for me.  There is no provision for such special pleading that I can see.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

die alone.

Without a marriage/romantic partner to be more accurate. 
 

Many people die with no spouse there, but with family or friends surrounding them.  Are they dying alone?

[smac97]

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

For an LGBTQ person, what path does the church foster?

The same path that is available to a person with an incurable disease, to a person dealing with profound mental illness, to a person living in abject poverty, to a person born into affluence and privilege, and so on:  Salvation.  Exaltation.  Eternal lives.

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

What are their options?

Join the Church.  Make and keep covenants.  Exercise faith.  Serve others.  Be grateful for the blessings that come your way.  Ask for help to address the challenges.

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It seems the only church approved option would be to do absolutely nothing romantic in life and live and die alone.

More than half of the adult members of the Church are not married, and many of them have little or no prospect of "romance."

But the Church offers all sorts of blessings and helps in terms of opportunities to serve others, to make friends, to socialize, to build up and strengthen a community, and so on.

Sex and romance are very fun and important parts of the human experience, but they are not the ends thereof.  There's a lot of happiness to be found in discipleship.

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No hand holding, kissing, arms around the back.  No emotional intimacy. Be alone. That's it.

Only if you confine relationships/friendships to those that are romantic/sexual.

Again, more than half of the adult members of the Church are not married, and many of them have little or no prospect of "romance."  And yet life can be full and uplifting and joyous. The cynics and naysayers are so consumed in their antipathy toward the Church that they either cannot see or else refuse to acknowledge such things.

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

What else does the church have to offer LGBTQ persons? Serious question because i can't think of anything the church offers.

I believe you.  

And that's a pity.  Life is about more than sex and romance.  There are so, so many things that a person can do in the Church to live a rich and fulfilling life in the community the Church provides.  

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Also, while I'd agree that the church teaches such things I would argue that the church and its leaders have no knowledge of such things. They are making the best educated guesses they can based on their culture and history but as has been pointed out many times, there is NO revelation about how/where LGBTQ individuals or couples fit into Gods plan of happiness.

With respect, I disagree.  "LGBTQ" persons fit into the Plan of Salvation the same way everyone else does: by exercising faith, making and keeping covenants, loving God and your neighbors, serving others, and so on.

Funny how often critics and dissidents presume to speak on behalf of the Church, and end up flatly contradicting the Church.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 20, 2022 by smac97

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

e "standard" is arbitrary and unreasonable.  

I went with two extremes as a starting point of hopeful agreement so we might figure out where the lines are drawn. One is dismissed as not applicable as too coercive.  I tried to find a standard that didn’t have much baggage attached so that it didn’t become an issue of righteousness and didn’t involve an absolute need to avoid a discussion of force or necessity.  You dismiss it as unreasonable. 

I don’t see any purpose in trying to continue to find language we can agree on. 
 

Quote

But I just can't get on board with the idea that we should decide to obey a commandment based - in whole or in part - on whether such obedience is as difficult for others as it is for me. 

And that had nothing to do with my position or argument. 
 

For me the point of recognizing the different standards required of people is to provide better for their needs to obey as well as to prevent them from feeling like a goal is impossible, they are failures from the beginning. Being willing to meet people where they are and not where you want them to be is the best way to help them move forward. And if they choose not to, at least you weren’t one of the obstacles making movement impossible. 

Edited April 21, 2022 by Calm

[bluebell]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But I just can't get on board with the idea that we should decide to obey a commandment based - in whole or in part - on whether such obedience is as difficult for others as it is for me. 

Who is arguing that?  Calm isn't but maybe someone else on the thread has argued it and I missed it.

[Vanguard]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Who is arguing that?  Calm isn't but maybe someone else on the thread has argued it and I missed it.

I think that is precisely the argument that many are and have made on this board. In other words, the directive is wrong and therefore should be changed.

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

I went with two extremes as a starting point of hopeful agreement so we might figure out where the lines are drawn.

I don't see this as a "lines are drawn" situation.  "Homosexual behavior" is not really susceptible to line-drawing.

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

One is dismissed as not applicable as too coercive.  

The comparison doesn't work because there is no coercion relative to the Law of Chastity.  Nobody has a gun pointed to anyone's head, nobody is being forced to do or not do anything.  Obedience is totally up to the individual.

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

I tried to find a standard that didn’t have much baggage attached so that it didn’t become an issue of righteousness and didn’t involve an absolute need to avoid a discussion of force or necessity.  You dismiss it as unreasonable. 

Oh, sorry.  I really misunderstood when you said "Disregarding if the uniform comes in only one size or a variety of sizes from very small to very large or perhaps was one type of synthetic material or a variety to choose from for comfort, and it was free or expensive?"  I thought you said the uniform did come in "only one size," which is why I characterized the requirement as "arbitrary and unreasonable."

If admission to a club requires wearing a uniform, and if we "disregard" any issues with the uniform (size, etc.), then yes, the standard for admission seems to be the same.  Sorry for the error on my part.

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

For me the point of recognizing the different standards required of people is to provide better for their needs to obey as well as to prevent them from feeling like a goal is impossible, they are failures from the beginning.

Abstaining from homosexual behavior is required of all members of the Church, so I don't see "different standards required of people."  

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

Being willing to meet people where they are and not where you want them to be is the best way to help them move forward.

I have no standing to dictate to anyone else where I "want them to be."  The issue, then, is meeting people "where they are" and encouraging them to go where the Lord "want{s} them to be."

I didn't formulate the Law of Chastity, after all.  

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

And if they choose not to, at least you weren’t one of the obstacles making movement impossible. 

How is encouraging someone to obey God an "obstacle"?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Vanguard said:

I think that is precisely the argument that many are and have made on this board. In other words, the directive is wrong and therefore should be changed.

You are saying the quiet part out loud, but . . . yeah.  Some here seem to be suggesting that the prohibition in the Law of Chastity is wrong and therefore should be changed.  Daniel and HappyJackWagon were, I think, the most obvious about it.

Thanks,

-Smac