New Church Policy?

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

That's a lot of parsing.  You've been hanging around with with SMAC. 

I want to be clear that I'm neither raging nor wringing my hands nor gnashing my teeth.  I am not angry about this in any way.

Ok. You just seem very exercised over this.

17 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 

It's simply wrong

You think it is wrong and base it on because you think God says so right?  Do you have anymore to base your conclusion on than this?

17 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 

If I allowed myself to get upset every time someone does something wrong, even within the membership, I'd give myself an aneurysm.
And frankly, I'm far more upset by the doctrines and ordinances of the gospel that get altered than I am by the declining morality.  Morals are between individuals and God.  Doctrine and ordinance restored for the last time are far more significant, even the most moral person can't return to God without obeying his laws and ordinances.

A lot to unpack here but likely a different topic.  I find your comment bolded above and am curious about specifics.

17 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 

I am however curious just how far the Lord will allow the Church to regress from the truths restored to Joseph Smith before he steps in.  I've had plenty of debates with those who think SSM will never be allowed in the Church.
I think the Church will eventually claim that revelation.  But it may be the last straw for the Lord if they do.
So yes, those faithful members who are posting here will likely get their wish one day.  And it won't anger me any more than I was before.  I've already said previously that while I'm still a believer I've just about had it with the so-called progress and continuing revelation.

The day will probably come when my inactivity will become complete.

 

I thought the idea was that the restoration in the dispensationi fo the fullness of times was complete and would never be taken away.  Apparently you think differently?  Like I said we all have the straw that may break our faith.

[MrShorty]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Homosexual behavior" and other inappropriate behaviors relative to the Law of Chastity are prohibited by the Church. 

We talk about this as if there is a bright, clear line around homoromantic behavior. And, yet, I provided one example (I know there are others) of one person who maintains full fellowship in the Church while also openly engaging in a homoromantic, non-sexual relationship. It almost feels more like a problem of leadership roulette, where it is up to local leaders to decide how to teach and enforce this dimming line around homoromantic behavior. While this topic usually makes for some fun fireworks on this discussion board, it seems that the real disagreement is with bishops and stake presidents and other leaders on up the chain who seem unwilling to help draw and enforce this alleged bright line around homoromantic behavior.

It's already been mentioned, but Elder Johnston's addendum to the BYU honor code doesn't seem to be sufficient, because I'm sure many of these leaders are well aware of what the addendum does for the BYU honor code, but we all know there are plenty of elements of the BYU honor code that do no apply to the Church more broadly (beard ban, anyone?).

Until someone higher up than a 70 starts preaching this alleged bright line, and bishops and stake presidents start enforcing consequences around this alleged bright line, the bright line might as well not exist.

[Navidad]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I'm IN this church because it allows for continuing - AND PERSONAL revelation because I have seen so many screwy beliefs suddenly imposed on folks who then drink the cool aid!

Time again for Moroni 10, James 1, and Alma 32.

If you don't like change and being in a LIVING church, it's probably not the right place for you anyway!

Gotta follow your heart!   And it ain't up to you to challenge other's revelations any more that it is right for me to tell you that YOUR HEART is wrong.

Tollerance of ambiguity is a big deal in psychology.

How do we discern between others' (and our own) personal revelations and "screwy beliefs that may often get "imposed"by us or others on others? Methinks that happens all too often in too many faiths (maybe most). I love change and being in a LIVING church. That is why I enjoy the LDS folks, the Baptists, the Catholics, and the Mennonites! Perhaps it ain't up to you to challenge other's revelations or hearts who ain't LDS!?  Tolerance of ambiguity is indeed a big deal - especially in faith (as well as in psychology)! I embrace ambiguity. It is certitude that I struggle with! Are you with me?

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

From FAIR:

Thanks,

-Smac

The thing I like about this response, as well as your comment about the man stealing bread is that there is a humble acknowledgement that we don't know how a person's circumstances will impact on God's judgement of the individual. 

I think that extending that humble acknowledgement towards the LGBTQ community, recognizing that there is SOOO much we don't know, including how God will judge them, would be very useful for the church as an organization as well as its individual members. Instead, it seems that the church and most of its members are more interested in casting the judgement to such an extent that LGBTQ individuals and couples are villainized simply for being LGBTQ and expressing that part of themselves.

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

No.

It is no longer "legal matrimony" it is matrimony within the LAW, yes, but the law of God.

Get thee to the temple. 

 

So what does that mean?  If someone does not have a temple marriage are they outside the "law of God?"

[CA Steve]

27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think that extending that humble acknowledgement towards the LGBTQ community, recognizing that there is SOOO much we don't know, including how God will judge them, would be very useful for the church as an organization as well as its individual members. Instead, it seems that the church and most of its members are more interested in casting the judgement to such an extent that LGBTQ individuals and couples are villainized simply for being LGBTQ and expressing that part of themselves.

The biggest problem I have with organized religion in general and Mormonism specifically is the people who believe they know how God wants other people to act. People, I might add, who will willing acknowledge they themselves are not sure how this whole process really works. The biggest selling point for the church since McKay was prophet has been our claim to unify the family in the hereafter and yet we have no idea what this means in actual practice. "God will work it out".  I believe God will work out how GLBT's are in the hereafter and it won't be anything like current Mormon teaching advocates. 

[ttribe]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

If assigning motive and jumping to conclusions were sports, some on this board would be Olympic Gold Medalists.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The thing I like about this response, as well as your comment about the man stealing bread is that there is a humble acknowledgement that we don't know how a person's circumstances will impact on God's judgement of the individual. 

Sure.  I don't think I've ever presumed to speculate about God's judgment about such matters.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think that extending that humble acknowledgement towards the LGBTQ community, recognizing that there is SOOO much we don't know, including how God will judge them, would be very useful for the church as an organization as well as its individual members.

Wait, that is way overreaching.  There is a vast difference between A) encouraging obedience to God's commandments, including the Law of Chastity, repentance, etc., and B) presuming to declare "God's judgement of the individual."

We certainly need to abstain from B, but you are conflating it with A.  I can't go along with that.  

I understand that you and yours think there is nothing wrong with homosexual behavior.  But we do.  The prophets and apostles do.  The scriptures do.  Reasonable minds can disagree about such things, but I think you overreach when you conflate things in this way.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Instead, it seems that the church and most of its members are more interested in casting the judgement to such an extent that LGBTQ individuals and couples are villainized simply for being LGBTQ and expressing that part of themselves.

That is not so.  The Law of Chastity isn't about "the LGBTQ community" in any unique way.  By sheer numbers there are far more members of the Church whose (hetero) sexual behaviors are constrained by the Law of Chastity.  Nobody but God knows how each of them will be judged, but it would be absurd to do as you would seemingly have us do: "Hey, none of us knows how God will judge those who commit adultery or fornication, so don't encourage others to refrain from committing those acts, or to repent of those acts, because if you do you are 'casting ... judgement.'"

I will also note the strong irony of you complaining about "casting ... judgement" and "villa{nizing" while in the very midst of doing such things yourself.

I have no standing to judge any other person in the way God does, or even as a "Judge in Israel" does.  My job as a Latter-day Saint is to proclaim the Gospel and to include people to abide by its precepts.  To encourage others to keep the commandments is materially distinguishable from "judging" or "villainizing" them.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 21, 2022 by smac97

[smac97]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

"Homosexual behavior" and other inappropriate behaviors relative to the Law of Chastity are prohibited by the Church. 

We talk about this as if there is a bright, clear line around homoromantic behavior.

Well, not really.  We are condensing a set of behaviors into a single phrase.  That means there are some things that will obviously fall within the parameters of "homosexual behaviors," while others might be at the margins of the phrase's meaning and intent.

Look at "adultery."  Is there "a bright clear line around" it?  Is it, as HappyJackWagon would have us believe, only limited to actual sexual intercourse?  "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."  (Matt. 5:28.)

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

And, yet, I provided one example (I know there are others) of one person who maintains full fellowship in the Church while also openly engaging in a homoromantic, non-sexual relationship.

Okay.

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

It almost feels more like a problem of leadership roulette, where it is up to local leaders to decide how to teach and enforce this dimming line around homoromantic behavior.

You are suggesting that there is "a bright, clear line around homoromantic behavior."  I don't think that's so.  And in the absence of "a bright, clear line," there will likely be disparities in decisions reached for "in the margins" situations.  

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

While this topic usually makes for some fun fireworks on this discussion board, it seems that the real disagreement is with bishops and stake presidents and other leaders on up the chain who seem unwilling to help draw and enforce this alleged bright line around homoromantic behavior.

Again, I don't think there is any such "bright line."

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

It's already been mentioned, but Elder Johnston's addendum to the BYU honor code doesn't seem to be sufficient, because I'm sure many of these leaders are well aware of what the addendum does for the BYU honor code, but we all know there are plenty of elements of the BYU honor code that do no apply to the Church more broadly (beard ban, anyone?).

Until someone higher up than a 70 starts preaching this alleged bright line, and bishops and stake presidents start enforcing consequences around this alleged bright line, the bright line might as well not exist.

"Until someone higher up that a 70 starts preaching {a bright line about what constitutes 'adultery' and what does not}, and bishops and stake presidents start enforcing consequences around this alleged bright line, the bright line might as well not exist."

"Until someone higher up that a 70 starts preaching {a bright line about what constitutes 'fornication' and what does not}, and bishops and stake presidents start enforcing consequences around this alleged bright line, the bright line might as well not exist."

"Until someone higher up that a 70 starts preaching {a bright line about what constitutes 'pornography' and what does not}, and bishops and stake presidents start enforcing consequences around this alleged bright line, the bright line might as well not exist."

Would you buy in to that line of reasoning?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 21, 2022 by smac97

[Saint Bonaventure]

23 hours ago, CV75 said:

The world is "telestial," not "evil," and given the glories it offers upon its transition to immortality, can and does produce good fruit But the kingdom that is not of this world produces the best fruit. For example, which is better in the long run, the gay couple who who "finds happiness, peace and rest" in rejecting the kingdom's covenants (even Cain said, "I am free..."), or the gay person who dedicates their life in keeping the kingdom's covenants? 

I'd benefit from a little hair splitting here. Do LDS have an agreed upon definition of "evil" and "telestial" (a new word to me)?

[smac97]

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

The biggest problem I have with organized religion in general and Mormonism specifically is the people who believe they know how God wants other people to act.

The problem I have with sentiments like these is that they are conveniently malleable.  Folks like you only register these complaints selectively, as to particular moral issues but not others.  And the moral issues with which you take issue are typically socially trendy.

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

People, I might add, who will willing acknowledge they themselves are not sure how this whole process really works.

I don't know the particulars of how my car's catalytic converter works, but that doesn't preclude me from hopping into it (the car) to get from Point A to Point B.

I've been lawyering for 18 years, mostly in real estate.  And yet I am constantly learning new things about "how this whole process works."  For example, this last week I delved into "sovereign immunity" for Native American tribes and whether that immunity extends to corporate entities organized by tribes under state law.  There appears to be a circuit split on this issue.

By your implication, because I am still learning and coloring in the blank spaces at the margins of my familiarity with this area of law, I am to be faulted.  That you would have a "big problem" with me.  That even though I have spent 18 years studying the law, I cannot definitively say that I know every nook and cranny of the law.  That because there are some obscure and marginal and "judgment call" areas of the law I have yet to master, I am - by your reckoning - "not sure how this whole process really works."

That does not seem reasonable to me.  I can acknowledge that I do not know the meaning of all things, but there are some things I do know, or else have good reason to firmly believe.

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

The biggest selling point for the church since McKay was prophet has been our claim to unify the family in the hereafter and yet we have no idea what this means in actual practice.

"We have no idea what this means in actual practice"?

Are you sure?  No idea at all? 

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

"God will work it out". 

Yes.  

By way of analogy, I can say "My car runs on an internal combustion engine, which burns gasoline to create small, carefully-timed explosions, whose energy is converted by the engine into forward motion."  So...

• Do I know the particulars of how oil is refined into gasoline?  Nope.
• Do I know how a spark plug generates a spark?  Nope.
• Do I know the metallurgical composition of each part of the engine, the chassis, etc.?  Nope.
• Do I know fully understand the science pertaining to catalytic converters?  Nope.

But . . . 

• Can I drive my car to get from Point A to Point B?  Yep.
• Can I do regular basic maintenance on my car (tire pressure, oil changes, filter changes, etc.)?  Yep.
• Can I pay attention to the warning signals on the dashboard?  Yep.
• Can I get my car to a mechanic when it starts having problems?  Yep.

Would it be fair or accurate to say that, regarding my car, I am "not sure how this whole process really works"?  No.  Though I certainly have very limited understanding of a lot of the particulars as to materials, engineering, science, and so on, I am quite familiar with the basics, at least enough to enable me to use the car for its intended purposes.

Something similar can be said about the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I believe God will work out how GLBT's are in the hereafter and it won't be anything like current Mormon teaching advocates. 

I believe the Church's teachings about sexual ethics are based in scripture and revelation, and are substantively correct and congruent with the will of God.

I further believe that large portions of our society are in the thrall of a intense and extensive and ongoing campaign to deviate from, and to obscure and hide the merits of, these sexual ethics.

I further believe such trendy notions, being untethered from any coherent moral anchor or framework, will not stand the test of time, and that the basics of the Judeo-Christian sexual ethics will be validated over time, as has happened many times in the past.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 21, 2022 by smac97

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I'd benefit from a little hair splitting here. Do LDS have an agreed upon definition of "evil" and "telestial" (a new word to me)?

Telestial is the third heaven p, the lowest of the three kingdom of glories.  It is the destination of those who refuse to accept the Atonement of Christ and therefore they suffer in hell until they are purified of their sins as no sin can exist in a Kingdom of God’s glory.  I am not sure if this is taught this way, but my belief is they become sinless after losing the desire to sin and the effect of their sins have been removed from those they have harmed (through the Atonement I am assuming in most cases though for those who reject that, my guess is there is some form of therapy involved like can happen in mortality that helps individuals move past hurt).

Official reference with links

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/telestial-kingdom?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-46-the-final-judgment?lang=eng. including other kingdoms and outer darkness for context

Quote

Celestial

“They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized, … that by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit.” These are they who overcome the world by their faith. They are just and true so that the Holy Ghost can seal their blessings upon them. (See D&C 76:51–53.) Those who inherit the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, who become gods, must also have been married for eternity in the temple (see D&C 131:1–4). All who inherit the celestial kingdom will live with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ forever (see D&C 76:62).

Through the work we do in temples, all people who have lived on the earth can have an equal opportunity to receive the fulness of the gospel and the ordinances of salvation so they can inherit a place in the highest degree of celestial glory.

Terrestrial

These are they who rejected the gospel on earth but afterward received it in the spirit world. These are the honorable people on the earth who were blinded to the gospel of Jesus Christ by the craftiness of men. These are also they who received the gospel and a testimony of Jesus but then were not valiant. They will be visited by Jesus Christ but not by our Heavenly Father. (See D&C 76:73–79.)

Telestial

These people did not receive the gospel or the testimony of Jesus either on earth or in the spirit world. They will suffer for their own sins in hell until after the Millennium, when they will be resurrected. “These are they who are liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie.” These people are as numerous as the stars in heaven and the sand on the seashore. They will be visited by the Holy Ghost but not by the Father or the Son. (See D&C 76:81–88, 103–6, 109.)

Outer Darkness

These are they who had testimonies of Jesus through the Holy Ghost and knew the power of the Lord but allowed Satan to overcome them. They denied the truth and defied the power of the Lord. There is no forgiveness for them, for they denied the Holy Spirit after having received it. They will not have a kingdom of glory. They will live in eternal darkness, torment, and misery with Satan and his angels forever. (See D&C 76:28–35, 44–48.)

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I'd benefit from a little hair splitting here. Do LDS have an agreed upon definition of "evil" and "telestial" (a new word to me)?

This is a useful reference for research topics about the Church and Gospel that might not be covered in the  Gospel Topics section of the church’s website.  It is not an official source in the sense it is considered doctrinal as many different writers contributed who were not General Authorities.  It is a scholarly production.  It may include opinion and has some historical errors in it, information that has been found or is more well known since it was published, but it was produced with the approval of Church leadership, detailed in the preface.  My memory says the Church handed out numerous copies to libraries all over, but it may not have been the Church but an organization in support of the Church.  I was quite fried and depressed when I found, not long after I heard that this had happened, a brand new set of the EoM in the “For Sale” pile at my local library in Alberta.  Instead they chose to have available a copy of the Book of Mormon, iirc Jesus the Christ by Talmage, and then a significant number of AntiMormon books, including some obscure ones.  But then the rest of their religion section was quite unimpressive too.

Quote

Lest the role of the Encyclopedia be given more weight than it deserves, the editors make it clear that those who have written and edited have only tried to explain their understanding of Church history, doctrines, and procedures; their statements and opinions remain their own. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism is a joint product of Brigham Young University and Macmillan Publishing Company, and its contents do not necessarily represent the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In no sense does the Encyclopedia have the force and authority of scripture.

https://eom.byu.edu

The author was a well known BYU Philosophy prof, great reputation, did a lot of good work imo.

https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Evil
 

Quote

The LDS concept of evil is also explained in the article on Devils. The following article discusses a view of the purposes of evil and presents an LDS response to traditional discussions of the problem of evil. ] In ordinary discourse, the term "evil" has a very wide definition and, along with the term "bad," is used in English most often to refer to morally wrong intentions, choices, and actions of agents (moral evil); to the operations of nonhuman nature such as disease, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and tornadoes (natural evil); and to the human and animal pain and suffering (psychological evil) that moral and natural evils may cause. In more technical philosophical discourse, it is applied also to inherent human limitations and defects (metaphysical evil).

The term is used with additional meanings in LDS scripture and discourse. In the Old Testament, the term is translated from the Hebrew term, ra', and its cognates, whose applications range widely from (1) what tastes nasty or is ugly, displeasing, or sad, through (2) moral wickedness and the distress, misery, and tragedy that ensue from it, to (3) willful disobedience of God and his intentions for human beings. The latter two senses of the term predominate in the New Testament and in latter-day scriptures. Given its widely variant meanings, the precise meaning of evil must be ascertained from its context.

LDS scripture further illuminates biblical suggestions about God's purposes for his children and, thereby, helps to clarify one fundamental sense of evil. God disclosed to Moses: "This is my work and my glory-to bring to pass the immortality [resurrection, with everlasting bodily duration] and eternal life [Godlike quality or mode of being] of man" (Moses 1:39). Thus, anything inconsistent with, contrary to, or opposed to the achievement of these ends would be evil.

There seems to be no basis in latter-day scripture for either the privative or relativistic views of evil advocated by some philosophers. In the fifth century, St. Augustine, puzzled by the existence of evil in a world that was created by God, concluded that evil must not be a substance or a positive reality in its own right, but only the absence of good (privatio boni ). Yet, in the Old and New Testaments, evil is depicted as menacingly real, a view shared by latter-day scripture. Nor is there any scriptural evidence that good and evil are simply matters of personal preference. Rejecting this kind of relativism, Proverbs declares, "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death" (Prov. 14:12); and Isaiah warns, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" (Isa. 5:20). Relativism is also rejected in latter-day scripture (2 Ne. 28:8).

Nonbelievers and believers alike often question why God would allow evil of any kind to exist. The question becomes especially acute within an Augustinian worldview that affirms God to be the ex nihilo or absolute creator of whatever exists other than himself. On that premise it appears that God is the ultimatesource or cause of all evil, or, at least, a knowing accessory before the fact, and thus omniresponsible for all evils that occur.

Latter-day Saints reject the troublesome premise of creation ex nihilo (out of nothing), affirming rather that there are actualities that are coeternal with God. These coeternal actualities include intelligences (sometimes perceived as primal selves or persons), chaotic matter (or mass energy), and laws and principles (perhaps best regarded as the properties and relations of matter and intelligences). Given this plurality of uncreated entities, it does not follow, within an LDS worldview, that God is the ultimate source of evil. Evil is traceable, alternatively, to the choices of other autonomous agents (such as Lucifer, the Devil) who are also coeternal with God, and, perhaps, even to recalcitrant properties of uncreated chaotic matter.

Though on the basis of latter-day revelation it is evident that God is neither the source nor the cause of either moral or natural evil, the question still arises as to why he does not prevent or eliminate it. The ancient philosopher Epicurus posed the problem in the form of a dilemma: Either God is unwilling to prevent the evil that occurs or he is unable to prevent it. If he is unable, then he is not omnipotent; if he is unwilling, then he is not perfectly good. Epicurus' statement of the dilemma is based on two assumptions: (1) a perfectly good being prevents all the evil it can; and (2) an omnipotent being can do anything and, hence, can prevent all evil.

From an LDS perspective the first assumption appears to be false. A perfectly good being would certainly wish to maximize the good, but if, in the nature of things, allowing an experience of evil were a necessary condition of achieving the greatest good, a perfectly good being would allow it. For example, it seems evident that the existence of opposition and temptation is a necessary condition for the expression of morally significant freedom and the development of genuinely righteous personalities (see 2 Ne. 2:11-16; Moses 6:55).

Latter-day Saints would also reject the second assumption. Since there are realities that are coeternal with God, his omnipotence must be understood not as the power to bring about any state of affairs absolutely, but rather as the power to bring about any state of affairs consistent with the natures of coeternal realities. This insight makes possible an instrumentalist view of evil. With Epicurus' basic assumptions thus modified by latter-day revelation, it seems possible to construct a coherent LDS concept of the nature, use, and existence of evil

My guess is most members would define evil as that which is not good, that which harms us and others and prevents us from progression or seeking God.

Edited April 21, 2022 by Calm

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

You are suggesting that there is "a bright, clear line around homoromantic behavior."  I don't think that's so.  And in the absence of "a bright, clear line," there will likely be disparities in the margins.  

I thought I accused you of suggesting that there is a bright, clear line around homoromantic behavior. If we both agree that there is no bright clear line around homoromantic behavior, I'm not entirely sure what we are trying to say with this entire 12 pages of discussion (other than have another discussion of an LGBT+ issue that generates more heat than light).

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Look at "adultery."  Is there "a bright clear line around" it?  Is it, as HappyJackWagon would have us believe, only limited to actual sexual intercourse? 

I cannot speak for @HappyJackWagon, but I don't think that's what he was saying. The problem with the comparison to adultery that I see is that most romantic relationships (especially those headed towards marriage) reach a point where the couple overtly or covertly commit to being romantically exclusive (this promises then gets cemented in the marriage ceremony, though it isn't explicitly mentioned). The false equivalence I see is that I cannot see where or when LGB+ people have made a similar "romantically celibate" promise/vow/covenant/contract. Perhaps this is just a different way of bringing up the bright line again. When/where/how does the promise to be romantically celibate (if it exists in the Church) get undertaken?

As for the "would you buy into" the different lines of reasoning, I'm not certain what you are looking for. For adultery, I've been around enough marriage help circles to know that the question of "when does a friendship become an emotional affair" is somewhat common, and the answers are not without nuance and personal choices (no clear bright line here). I don't think it's any secret that YSAs and teens are constantly asking "how far is too far" when it comes to fornication, and I see a lot of nuance and gray areas (again, no bright lines). Pornography, too, has its share of nuance and gray areas (my favorite is the "double standard" around whether or not romance novels are classified as pornography). If we want bright lines, we need to draw them, and, in a top down church, those lines need to be drawn by the top leadership if they are going to be true bright lines around behaviors. If the top leadership is unwilling to draw bright lines (maybe because God Himself wants to see how we navigate the gray areas??), then we need to accept that there is often nuance and gray mixed in with our declarations of what is sin and not.

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I understand that you and yours think there is nothing wrong with homosexual behavior.  But we do.  The prophets and apostles do.  The scriptures do.  Reasonable minds can disagree about such things, but I think you overreach when you conflate things in this way.

 

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The problem I have with sentiments like these is that they are conveniently malleable.  Folks like you only register these complaints selectively, as to particular moral issues but not others.  And the moral issues with which you take issue are typically socially trendy.

Why do you do this? You have this habit in your defenses of creating 'Us v. Them' dualities and lumping people into groups which may not actually represent who they are. You draw battle lines every time you do this and it's a major stumbling block to ever reaching any understanding with you. You're not alone, of course, this has long been an integral part of much of Mormon Apologetics, but it really just causes people to dig in their heels. I don't get it.

[HappyJackWagon]

46 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I thought I accused you of suggesting that there is a bright, clear line around homoromantic behavior. If we both agree that there is no bright clear line around homoromantic behavior, I'm not entirely sure what we are trying to say with this entire 12 pages of discussion (other than have another discussion of an LGBT+ issue that generates more heat than light).

 

I cannot speak for @HappyJackWagon, but I don't think that's what he was saying. The problem with the comparison to adultery that I see is that most romantic relationships (especially those headed towards marriage) reach a point where the couple overtly or covertly commit to being romantically exclusive (this promises then gets cemented in the marriage ceremony, though it isn't explicitly mentioned). The false equivalence I see is that I cannot see where or when LGB+ people have made a similar "romantically celibate" promise/vow/covenant/contract. Perhaps this is just a different way of bringing up the bright line again. When/where/how does the promise to be romantically celibate (if it exists in the Church) get undertaken?

As for the "would you buy into" the different lines of reasoning, I'm not certain what you are looking for. For adultery, I've been around enough marriage help circles to know that the question of "when does a friendship become an emotional affair" is somewhat common, and the answers are not without nuance and personal choices (no clear bright line here). I don't think it's any secret that YSAs and teens are constantly asking "how far is too far" when it comes to fornication, and I see a lot of nuance and gray areas (again, no bright lines). Pornography, too, has its share of nuance and gray areas (my favorite is the "double standard" around whether or not romance novels are classified as pornography). If we want bright lines, we need to draw them, and, in a top down church, those lines need to be drawn by the top leadership if they are going to be true bright lines around behaviors. If the top leadership is unwilling to draw bright lines (maybe because God Himself wants to see how we navigate the gray areas??), then we need to accept that there is often nuance and gray mixed in with our declarations of what is sin and not.

Yeah- not what I was saying at all, and I even told him so once or twice but whatever...  He likes to misrepresent my comments but I think anyone who read both his and mine would recognize what's going on there.

On one hand he wants to enforce a boundary with homosxual behavior (for which there is no bright line) whilst simultaneously arguing that no bright line exists. I often come to the point in communication with SMAC where I remember that there's no real value in engaging. I'm at that point once again.

[smac97]

Just now, MrShorty said:

I thought I accused you of suggesting that there is a bright, clear line around homoromantic behavior.

I don't know.  In any event, I disagree with the concept.  And I have been referencing "homosexual behavior."

Just now, MrShorty said:

If we both agree that there is no bright clear line around homoromantic behavior, I'm not entirely sure what we are trying to say with this entire 12 pages of discussion (other than have another discussion of an LGBT+ issue that generates more heat than light).

I think some are "trying to say" that, in the absence of a "schoolmaster" / "bright line rule" approach to homosexual behavior, then members of the Church are free to engage in "homosexual behavior" that does not amount to straight up sexual intercourse.  So same-sex "romantic" things like holding hands, dancing, kissing, etc. are just fine and dandy, and not at all a violation of the Law of Chastity or any other teachings of the Church because, well, there is no straight-up sex involved (yet).

As I noted previously to Duncan:

Quote

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?'"

This sort of rationalizing is, I think, the main point in dispute at this point.

Just now, MrShorty said:

I cannot speak for @HappyJackWagon, but I don't think that's what he was saying.

I do.  And others we all.

Just now, MrShorty said:

The problem with the comparison to adultery that I see is that most romantic relationships (especially those headed towards marriage) reach a point where the couple overtly or covertly commit to being romantically exclusive (this promises then gets cemented in the marriage ceremony, though it isn't explicitly mentioned).

So what?  How does exclusivity justify committing a violation of the Law of Chastity?

Can a boyfriend/girlfriend justify fornication by "overtly or covertly commit{ting} to being romantically exclusive" to each other?

Can a married man justify adultery by persuading his wife into an "open marriage" that allows him to be "romantically exclusive" with his girlfriend?

What on earth are you saying here?  What does romantic exclusivity have to do with the price of tea in China (the parameters of the Law of Chastity)? 

Just now, MrShorty said:

The false equivalence I see is that I cannot see where or when LGB+ people have made a similar "romantically celibate" promise/vow/covenant/contract.

The Law of Chastity prohibits "homosexual behavior."  Members of the Church covenant to keep this and all other commandments.

The Law of Chastity also prohibits adulterous behavior.  Members of the Church covenant to obey this provision as well.

I'm not presenting an "equivalence" between adultery and "homosexual behavior." 

I am, instead, stating something that is prosaic and obviously true: Both behaviors are prohibited under the Law of Chastity. 

I am further suggesting that efforts to justify/rationalize marginal "homosexual" behavior is akin to attempting to justify/rationalize marginal "adulterous" behavior.

Just now, MrShorty said:

Perhaps this is just a different way of bringing up the bright line again. When/where/how does the promise to be romantically celibate (if it exists in the Church) get undertaken?

I reject the notion of a "bright line."  

Again, 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?'  How close to that 'bright line' can I get without actually crossing it?"

Would such an inquiry reflect a sincere and legitimate effort of a disciple of Jesus Christ?  I don't think so.  It is, instead, a pharisaical exercise in trying to rationalize behaviors prohibited by God.  Incrementally.  Gradually.  Subtley.  Not saying the quiet part out loud - yet.

I am reminded here of 2 Nephi 26:22:

Quote

And there are also secret combinations, even as in times of old, according to the combinations of the devil, for he is the founder of all these things; yea, the founder of murder, and works of darkness; yea, and he leadeth them by the neck with a flaxen cord, until he bindeth them with his strong cords forever.

I think there are people, without and within the Church, who want to cast off the Law of Chastity in most or all respects.  But they can't actually say that, as it would be too jarring.  Hence the "flaxen cord" approach.  I summarized my thoughts on this general topic back in 2016:

Quote

My sense is that this post is just another attempt to adroitly persuade the Saints to disregard the counsel from the Brethren, and to follow what the world is saying about issues pertaining to same-sex attraction.  It's a classic move:

• First, you start with a topic that *nobody* could find objectionable.  Caring for the welfare of children fits the bill.  
• Second, make broad, unquantifiable, emotion-based accusations about the topic to induce guilt in the target audience.  In the post the author takes as established, quantified, fact that "34 LDS LGBT young people between the ages of 14 and 20 have committed suicide."  She even puts this point in bold.  She then says "Here’s the newsflash: every one of us has culpability for these deaths if we are not actively, openly doing all we can to reduce them."  Yep, that works.  
• Third, introduce an innocuous-sounding suggestion that we do *something* (nice and vague) to resolve the problem.  Here, the author accuses "every one of us" of "culpability" for teen suicides unless we do *something* ("all we can") about them.  Check this one off.
• Fourth, at some point switch the nebulous, vague, innocuous-sounding suggestion that we do "something" ("all we can") with something more specific.  And I suspect that "something more specific" will, in this matter, include taking a position which will in some material respects oppose or otherwise be hostile to the LDS Church, its doctrines and/or leaders.
• Fifth, once you have established item four above, you are at liberty to set yourself up as a moral voice alternate and superior to that of the Brethren.  Because if you don't agree with the author of this blog post, or if you *dare* to support the Church in its teachings about same-sex attraction, then the foregoing steps establish, as axiomatic truth, that you hate children and want them to commit suicide.

Nice, eh?

"First, you start with a topic that *nobody* could find objectionable."  Dancing fits the bill.  Harmless, right?  Innocuous.

"Second, make broad, unquantifiable, emotion-based accusations about the topic to induce guilt in the target audience."  Boy, we've seen a lot of this in this thread.  Insults.  Slurs.  Leering innuendo (hat tip to Duncan!).  

"Third, introduce an innocuous-sounding suggestion that we do *something* (nice and vague) to resolve the problem."  Pivot to allowing same-sex dancing in Church-sponsored dances.  "Hey, it's just dancing, not sexual intercourse.  Chill out."  And along with that comes other seemingly harmless/innocuous homosexual-romantic behaviors (holding hands, kissing, etc.).

"Fourth, at some point switch the nebulous, vague, innocuous-sounding suggestion that we do 'something' ('all we can') with something more specific."  Now pivot again.  Ridicule and criticize any distinction between the foregoing supposedly harmless/innocuous homosexual-romantic behaviors and more obviously "homosexual" behaviors (such as straight up "homosexual" sex, but between a married same-sex couple).

"Fifth, once you have established item four above, you are at liberty to set yourself up as a moral voice alternate and superior to that of the Brethren."  This is the point of total abdication.  Abandonment of the Law of Chastity as to homosexual behavior.  

This thread is stymied somewhere around Steps 3-4.

Just now, MrShorty said:

As for the "would you buy into" the different lines of reasoning, I'm not certain what you are looking for.

Just a candid answer.

You are apparently advocating for a "bright line" explanation from the Brethren as to "homosexual behavior."  Do you likewise insist on "bright line" rules as to adultery?  Fornication?  Porn?  If not, why not?

Just now, MrShorty said:

For adultery, I've been around enough marriage help circles to know that the question of "when does a friendship become an emotional affair" is somewhat common, and the answers are not without nuance and personal choices (no clear bright line here).

I quite agree.  So can I assume that you would not be in favor of imposing such a "bright line?"  That we should not call upon the Brethren to give us explicit and graphic explanations of which behaviors cross the "bright line" into adultery (or fornication, or homosexual behavior) and which do not?  Wouldn't that be a massive step back, and likely a breach of the principle in D&C 58:26 ("For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward")?

Just now, MrShorty said:

I don't think it's any secret that YSAs and teens are constantly asking "how far is too far" when it comes to fornication, and I see a lot of nuance and gray areas (again, no bright lines).  Pornography, too, has its share of nuance and gray areas (my favorite is the "double standard" around whether or not romance novels are classified as pornography).

Agreed.  So let's generally not use a "bright line" approach to matters of sexual ethics.  At the macro level, "Thou shalt not commit adultery" works as a generalized precept, but in practice I don't think the Lord wants His servants to spend time formulating lists of specified behaviors as allowed or verboten. 

Just now, MrShorty said:

If we want bright lines, we need to draw them, and, in a top down church, those lines need to be drawn by the top leadership if they are going to be true bright lines around behaviors.

I don't think we generally want "bright lines" as to matters of sexual behavior.

Just now, MrShorty said:

If the top leadership is unwilling to draw bright lines (maybe because God Himself wants to see how we navigate the gray areas??), then we need to accept that there is often nuance and gray mixed in with our declarations of what is sin and not.

Yes.  And those who are in authority are then left to grapple with addressing behavioral standards under this rubric.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

Quote

I understand that you and yours think there is nothing wrong with homosexual behavior.  But we do.  The prophets and apostles do.  The scriptures do.  Reasonable minds can disagree about such things, but I think you overreach when you conflate things in this way.

Why do you do this? You have this habit in your defenses of creating 'Us v. Them' dualities and lumping people into groups which may not actually represent who they are. You draw battle lines every time you do this and it's a major stumbling block to ever reaching any understanding with you. You're not alone, of course, this has long been an integral part of much of Mormon Apologetics, but it really just causes people to dig in their heels. I don't get it.

You raise a fair point.  I will give it some real consideration.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MrShorty]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, 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?'  How close to that 'bright line' can I get without actually crossing it?"

While I think there were some potentially interesting discussion threads to go, I think I'm going to go with @HappyJackWagon. If you insist on characterizing me as promoting adultery, then I don't think we can have a productive conversation, and I'm going to bow out.

[Theosis]

On 4/19/2022 at 2:29 PM, Durangout said:

I saw the following on another LDS related blog site.  Let me say at the outset that I realize that it is anonymous and I usually dismiss out of hand anything 2-3rd hand / anonymous.  In this case, however, I received addition information via a PM that leads me to believe that the situation is real and as described.

I’m horrified and saddened that this has happened and even more so if this is the direction that The Church is going.  To normalize homosexual behaviors is simply evil (contrary to God’s Plan).  Are we, as a church, so weak that we can’t stand up to the world any longer?  Are we no longer a peculiar people?  It does seem that a latter day apostasy of sorts is underway.

 

https://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=66191

“Our stake president met with other stake presidents and they decided together that same-sex-attracted youth can slow dance with others of the same gender. They rationalized that "well, they're not breaking the law of chastity" and "at least they're at the church instead of somewhere else" (!!!).

I was speechless and dumbfounded ... and remain dumbfounded although I'm just starting to find my tongue.

I expressed later in an email that we are to avoid the very appearance of evil and that I would not want my young teen son to go to a church dance and see females slow dancing with females and males slow dancing with other males. I mentioned that kissing and hugging isn't breaking the law of chastity ... are the same gender couples allowed to do that as well?

The stake president (whom I love and respect very much and who is a lawyer by trade) replied that it's a slippery legal slope and banning them from slow-dancing could lead to legal trouble.

I countered: "The slippery slope leading youth to full-blown homosexual relations is more damaging than the slippery slope leading to legal problems, in my opinion. If we can't ban wickedness as a church with God on our side because we're afraid of society and its lawyers, then we've already lost the battle and the war."

I feel like I'm living in bizarro-world”

Thoughts?

The very premise of this question is wrong. Homosexuality isn't a sin. The Handbook makes that clear. So if not a sin, why can't they dance? 

[SkyRock]

7 minutes ago, Theosis said:

The very premise of this question is wrong. Homosexuality isn't a sin. The Handbook makes that clear. So if not a sin, why can't they dance? 

No.  Same sex attraction isn't a sin   Very big difference.

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

Again, 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?'  How close to that 'bright line' can I get without actually crossing it?"

While I think there were some potentially interesting discussion threads to go, I think I'm going to go with @HappyJackWagon. If you insist on characterizing me as promoting adultery, then I don't think we can have a productive conversation, and I'm going to bow out.

Note the word "imagine."

That said, I should not have said "you and yours."  Ttribe has only in the last few minutes taken me to task for that.  So I apologize for and retract my personalizing statement.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 21, 2022 by smac97

[Vanguard]

13 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

While I think there were some potentially interesting discussion threads to go, I think I'm going to go with @HappyJackWagon. If you insist on characterizing me as promoting adultery, then I don't think we can have a productive conversation, and I'm going to bow out.

I don't think you should take it that way. Your commentary is helpful and comes off as genuine. : ) As I see it, smac is challenging your rationale with the hopes you too will ultimately agree with his line of reasoning. We're both pretty sure smac does not believe you are actually promoting adultery but rather laying a foundational argument that might compel you at some point to admit by force of logic that it does sound like just that - advocacy. That's a big difference. 

[Nofear]

8 minutes ago, Theosis said:

The very premise of this question is wrong. Homosexuality isn't a sin. The Handbook makes that clear. So if not a sin, why can't they dance? 

Male-male friendships are of course fine, good and healthy even. Within cultural context, non-sexual physical expression of such friendships can be quite appropriate (e.g. https://www.artofmanliness.com/people/relationships/the-history-and-nature-of-man-friendships/). Same for female-female.

One of the biggest successes of the Adversary has achieved over our society is to make every physical interaction potentially carnal, sexual. Heck, sexual interaction can often be seen to take a back seat to intimate interactions (e.g. it's just sex, but I won't kiss her unless I love her). Another grand success of the Adversary is to propagate the idea of overtly sexual heaven too. I quite believe that sex, whatever role it plays in celestial partnerships, will be of minimal to zero influence on the intimacy of celestial partners. To put it bluntly, heaven ain't about the sex.

[Vanguard]

14 minutes ago, Theosis said:

The very premise of this question is wrong. Homosexuality isn't a sin. The Handbook makes that clear. So if not a sin, why can't they dance? 

This is very much what we have been bantering around for a good portion of the thread. Do you think the church should buy out of discouraging LGBT from any type of behavior that falls short of actually engaging in sex? And in your mind would there be different standards when it comes to youth or would it all be the same?