New Church Policy?

[Rain]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

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.

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

Thanks,

-Smac

Are you only debating her point or are you trying to understand what she is saying?  Real question and not an accusation.  You have said before you come here for debate so I'm trying to figure out where you are with this.

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Rain said:

Are you only debating her point or are you trying to understand what she is saying?  Real question and not an accusation. 

I am trying to understand what she is saying, while also expressing my own views.

15 minutes ago, Rain said:

You have said before you come here for debate so I'm trying to figure out where you are with this.

Debate and discussion both.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

Two-thirds of adult members in my stake are single. Faithfully living the Law of Chastity is something that I and many other members simply do every single day without complaint ... and without demanding that the prophets seek 'revelation' that would exempt us from this timeless and essential element of Christian morality.

[Duncan]

45 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Two-thirds of adult members in my stake are single. Faithfully living the Law of Chastity is something that I and many other members simply do every single day without complaint ... and without demanding that the prophets seek 'revelation' that would exempt us from this timeless and essential element of Christian morality.

The issue though is the Smac 1897's of the world are saying that "faithfully" living the LoC includes no hand holding, dancing is forbidden, no hugging, no man telling another man he loves him or woman saying that to another man. Reality though is we are talking about a teen dance, not married couples, and somehow stake leaders are supposed to know who's gay and who isn't and who is dancing with whom. In being faithful for a single person isn't good enough you must extricate yourself from human emotion and any and all physical contact-even the idea of wanting to touch someone is strictly forbidden and  comply with a disturbed view of the LoC that some members have. 

[smac97]

12 hours ago, Duncan said:

The issue though is the Smac 1897's of the world

Gotta love the ad hominem.

12 hours ago, Duncan said:

are saying that "faithfully" living the LoC includes no hand holding, dancing is forbidden, no hugging, no man telling another man he loves him or woman saying that to another man.

The issue is the pharisaical hairsplitting, mostly from critics and dissidents, who want to rationalize incremental-steps-toward-full-blown-sex "homosexual behavior{s}" as being totally okay and congruent with the Lord's will and the Law of Chastity.

Imagine a married man doing what you and yours are doing.  "Hmm.  Just how far can I go in stepping out on my wife without actually committing 'adultery?'"

12 hours ago, Duncan said:

Reality though is we are talking about a teen dance, not married couples,

Give me a break.  It's obvious what you and yours and trying to do here: Incremental chipping away at the Law of Chastity.

12 hours ago, Duncan said:

and somehow stake leaders are supposed to know who's gay and who isn't and who is dancing with whom.

Stake leaders are supposed to maintain the moral and behavioral standards of the Church.

12 hours ago, Duncan said:

In being faithful for a single person isn't good enough you must extricate yourself from human emotion and any and all physical contact-even the idea of wanting to touch someone is strictly forbidden and  comply with a disturbed view of the LoC that some members have. 

I think the pharisaical it's-not-sexual-intercourse-so-it's-not-a-violation-of-the-Law-of-Chastity rationalizations are becoming more and more apparent, and are pretty disturbing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 21, 2022 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The issue is the pharisaical hairsplitting, mostly from critics and dissidents, who want to rationalize incremental-steps-toward-full-blown-sex "homosexual behavior{s}" as being totally okay and congruent with the Lord's will and the Law of Chastity.

I think we saw an attempt at that two years ago with the controversy pertaining to Honor Code changes at BYU-Provo. 
 

By the way, how do I apply for membership in the “Smac 1897s of the World”?

[Duncan]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Gotta love the ad hominem.

The issue is the pharisaical hairsplitting, mostly from critics and dissidents, who want to rationalize incremental-steps-toward-full-blown-sex "homosexual behavior{s}" as being totally okay and congruent with the Lord's will and the Law of Chastity.

Imagine a married man doing what you and your are doing.  "Hmm.  Just how far can I go in stepping out on my wife without actually committing 'adultery?'"

Give me a break.  It's obvious what you and yours and trying to do here: Incremental chipping away at the Law of Chastity.

Stake leaders are supposed to maintain the moral and behavioral standards of the Church.

I think the pharisaical it's-not-sexual-intercourse-so-it's-not-a-violation-of-the-Law-of-Chastity rationalizations are becoming more and more apparent, and are pretty disturbing.

Thanks,

-Smac

I find your interest in teen sexuality disturbing frankly, Do you have some master list of what teen is gay and who is not?

Knowing you would blow this way out of porportion as you do I found the following quotations helpful

Elder Quentin L. Cook saying "Bishops, we love you!" in 2021 General Conference

Elder Neil L. Andersen saying to President Nelson, "We love you, President Nelson" in 2019 AND in 2017 he said  We love you, President Monson

Elder Rasband said in 2017 this about President Monson, "President Monson, we love you, sustain you, and ever pray for you"

 

According to people like you they are all homosexuals and have incrementally chipped away and publicly declared so. I don't find doing the chicken dance at a stake dance particularly "stepping out" on my wife-which I don't have one of. Does it bother you that these senior leaders are all gay and publicly said so?

 

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

20 minutes ago, Duncan said:

The issue though is the Smac 1897's of the world are saying that "faithfully" living the LoC includes no hand holding, dancing is forbidden, no hugging, no man telling another man he loves him or woman saying that to another man. 

As I wrote about elsewhere, living the Law of Chastity once required that I immediately stop giving lifts to church to our branch Relief Society president and that I eventually move away from the island altogether. Extreme? Perhaps, but the situation required it. 'Never do anything that could lead to sexual transgression'. That's the standard we should be teaching. To everyone.

I tell people of both genders that I love them all the time. I hug them too. (One of my housemates can't get through the day without a hug or two.) If saying/doing that to a particular individual ever increases the risk that we will violate the Law of Chastity, I won't do it.

Quote

In being faithful for a single person isn't good enough you must extricate yourself from human emotion and any and all physical contact ...

The idea that there is no human emotion or possibility of physical contact outside of sex or sexualised conduct is a gross offence to every faithful single person. Weaponising my situation in order to score cheap political points is not on.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I find your interest in teen sexuality disturbing frankly,

I have said nothing about teen sexuality.

I find your leering innuendo annoying.  But not surprising.  Ad hominem.  Smarmy insinuations.  Vitriol.  

Yawn.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

As I wrote about elsewhere, living the Law of Chastity once required that I immediately stop giving lifts to church to our branch Relief Society president and that I eventually move away from the island altogether. Extreme? Perhaps, but the situation required it. 'Never do anything that could lead to sexual transgression'. That's the standard we should be teaching. To everyone.

I tell people of both genders that I love them all the time. I hug them too. (One of my housemates can't get through the day without a hug or two.) If saying/doing that to a particular individual ever increases the risk that we will violate the Law of Chastity, I won't do it.

The idea that there is no human emotion or possibility of physical contact outside of sex or sexualised conduct is a gross offence to every faithful single person. Weaponising my situation in order to score cheap political points is not on.

tell all that to Smac. I have never said anything about politics as I don't care about American politics.

I just sent an email to the 4 elders and 2 sister missionaries that my brother and I invited over for dinner on friday that they can't come over anymore. It would be sexually suggestive to shake hands with the sister missionaries or even look at them. They can find food elsewhere as I don't want to break the LoC.

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have said nothing about teen sexuality.

I find your leering innuendo annoying.  But not surprising.  Ad hominem.  Smarmy insinuations.  Vitriol.  

Yawn.

Thanks,

-Smac

which is the WHOLE point about this thread and you missed it. A teen dance and you are talking about adults committing adultery

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I just sent an email to the 4 elders and 2 sister missionaries that my brother and I invited over for dinner on friday that they can't come over anymore. It would be sexually suggestive to shake hands with the sister missionaries or even look at them. They can find food elsewhere as I don't want to break the LoC.

Way to teach them!

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

As I wrote about elsewhere, living the Law of Chastity once required that I immediately stop giving lifts to church to our branch Relief Society president and that I eventually move away from the island altogether. Extreme? Perhaps, but the situation required it. 'Never do anything that could lead to sexual transgression'. That's the standard we should be teaching. To everyone.

I tell people of both genders that I love them all the time. I hug them too. (One of my housemates can't get through the day without a hug or two.) If saying/doing that to a particular individual ever increases the risk that we will violate the Law of Chastity, I won't do it.

The idea that there is no human emotion or possibility of physical contact outside of sex or sexualised conduct is a gross offence to every faithful single person. Weaponising my situation in order to score cheap political points is not on.

I have a dear friend whom I don't get to see nearly as often as I'd like.  When we do see each other, at parting we hug and say "Love you, brother!" to each other.  There is no romantic or sexual component or connotation here.

I work regularly with several women, but it's all by phone.  I'm pretty much a "Pence Rule" kind of guy.  Our society is way too sexualized, so otherwise inordinate precautions and heightened levels of decorum and propriety are necessary and useful.  No opportunity --> no temptation --> no risk of impropriety or the appearance of impropriety.  And no risk of misunderstanding or false allegations, either.

It is annoying that American culture (and Western culture generally) has so debased itself that plain old brotherly affection is likely to garner smirks, snark and prurient commentary from some quarters (several examples are seen in this very thread).

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Duncan said:

tell all that to Smac. I have never said anything about politics as I don't care about American politics.

And yet here you are, scoring prurient cheapshots anyway.

12 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I just sent an email to the 4 elders and 2 sister missionaries that my brother and I invited over for dinner on friday that they can't come over anymore. It would be sexually suggestive to shake hands with the sister missionaries or even look at them. They can find food elsewhere as I don't want to break the LoC.

"Homosexual behavior" and other inappropriate behaviors relative to the Law of Chastity are prohibited by the Church.  Marginal or incremental behaviors that are potentially pertaining thereto can arise in activities sponsored by the Church.  Local leaders can and do implement reasonable measures to mitigate against such things.

For you, "reasonable measures" in obeying the Law of Chastity involve . . . cancelling a dinner with six missionaries.

Got it.  

-Smac

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Quote

 

I have said nothing about teen sexuality.

I find your leering innuendo annoying.  But not surprising.  Ad hominem.  Smarmy insinuations.  Vitriol.  

 

which is the WHOLE point about this thread and you missed it.

I think I understand the point that some are trying to press in this thread.

16 minutes ago, Duncan said:

A teen dance and you are talking about adults committing adultery

Surely you are familiar with analogy.  A comparison of shared traits by two otherwise dissimilar things.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm pretty much a "Pence Rule" kind of guy.

I'm happy for you to make that choice if it works for you. It wouldn't work for me. I'm an adviser to a female member of parliament. We are together all the time -- in the office, at events, in her car on our way to stakeholder meetings, etc. If this ever became an actual (rather than hypothetical) issue for either of us, I'd leave my job, but that's not going to happen.

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm happy for you to make that choice if it works for you. It wouldn't work for me. I'm an adviser to a female member of parliament. We are together all the time -- in the office, at events, in her car on our way to stakeholder meetings, etc. If this ever became an actual (rather than hypothetical) issue for either of us, I'd leave my job, but that's not going to happen.

The Pence Rule is difficult to implement and maintain.  My current job situation allows for it, so there's that.  If and when that changes, I'll likely settle for some approximation of the rule.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 21, 2022 by smac97

[Calm]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

If you do it in a way that shows them a false picture of the gospel or of God

[teddyaware]

53 minutes ago, Calm said:

If you do it in a way that shows them a false picture of the gospel or of God

In keeping with the context of this thread, I’d appreciate it if you could provide an example of how encouraging gay members of the Church to obey the law of chastity could give them a false picture of God, and I’d also appreciate it if you could give an example of how encouraging gay members to obey the law of chastity could give them a false picture of the gospel?

[The Nehor]

I keep seeing the idea that many find it tiresome that some members of the board are trying to alter the Law of Chastity by slow steps and I guess talking about it. But almost all these threads are started by people who are opposed to said change and are primarily to pontificate and draw out the same posters and the same arguments to “debate” it.

Why does it seem any excuse is enough to start one of these? This ione is especially sad as the pretext comes from a possibly false statement pulled from a message board for literal crazies. Is there some joy some people get from repeating these same explanations of the Law of Chastity over and over? Is it some kind of endorphin rush?

Probably a bit of a stretch so I am going with the theory that the posters who endlessly want to talk about gay marriage and Chastity are deeply closeted and just use any excuse to talk about it to repeat their justifications to themselves to stay strong. That makes sense and makes me a little more empathetic towards why they do it.

Edited April 21, 2022 by The Nehor

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Probably a bit of a stretch so I am going with the theory that the posters who endlessly want to talk about gay marriage and Chastity are deeply closeted and just use any excuse to talk about it to repeat their justifications to themselves to stay strong. That makes sense and makes me a little more empathetic towards why they do it.

Trying to get the thread shut down as a public service?

[Calm]

8 hours ago, teddyaware said:

In keeping with the context of this thread, I’d appreciate it if you could provide an example of how encouraging gay members of the Church to obey the law of chastity could give them a false picture of God, and I’d also appreciate it if you could give an example of how encouraging gay members to obey the law of chastity could give them a false picture of the gospel?

Given the failure of any understanding of my comments on this thread except by a few of the less involved posters, I am having a hard time drumming up enough motivation to try to be understood again. I am too bored with assumptions getting made about my positions having nothing to do with my actual comments beyond a possibility someone not me somewhere else not in my posts in this thread said something that might be interpreted into something like the assumption being tacked on to me without cause.

Added: I won’t do specific examples given dismissal tendencies, but I don’t see it as all that difficult to come up with ideas about God and the gospel that would turn someone off from desiring to be one with God…I would be surprised if people haven’t come across someone who has reacted that way if they have discussed the gospel with many.  A broad example could be using fear and shame as reasons to obey as they can often backfire as can the emphasis of blessings that may be reminders of trauma an individual is experiencing (as in making the goal of living the gospel all about family when all someone has received from family is abuse or neglect could very well lead someone to reject the gospel as desirable)

 

 

Edited April 21, 2022 by Calm

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Trying to get the thread shut down as a public service?

No. I want to see if something happens now.

[Duncan]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

And yet here you are, scoring prurient cheapshots anyway.

"Homosexual behavior" and other inappropriate behaviors relative to the Law of Chastity are prohibited by the Church.  Marginal or incremental behaviors that are potentially pertaining thereto can arise in activities sponsored by the Church.  Local leaders can and do implement reasonable measures to mitigate against such things.

For you, "reasonable measures" in obeying the Law of Chastity involve . . . cancelling a dinner with six missionaries.

Got it.  

-Smac

If you see all those senior leaders of the Church saying that they love another man as "homosexual behaviour" then that's your issue. The rest of us don't though. I did cancel the dinner because according to you it's breaking the LoC as is publicly declaring love for man from another man. 

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Probably a bit of a stretch so I am going with the theory that the posters who endlessly want to talk about gay marriage and Chastity are deeply closeted and just use any excuse to talk about it to repeat their justifications to themselves to stay strong. That makes sense and makes me a little more empathetic towards why they do it.

Alternatively, such relentless debating can be a result of deep discomfort about their own position against homosexual relationships.   As someone who did that for years, I can say this with experience. I wanted to be good and loving, but was bothered by the conflict. Ultimately I never quite felt my opposition aligned with Christlike love. 

It sucks to be pulled between two competing values which one has long believed were aligned: the church's politics and the gospel.