New Church Policy?

[smac97]

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This doesn't have to be complicated.

Funny, then, to see so many trying to make it complicated.

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

There is a LoC that prohibits sxual relationships outside of marriage.

That's not all the Law of Chastity says.

Also, why do you keep omitting the "e" in "sexual?"

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That would mean that for a hetero couple they can date and do non-sxual behaviors like holding hands, kissing, dancing, emotional bonding etc.

For a hetero couple neither of whom is married to anyone else, yes.

The Church obviously recognizes that such behaviors are, though still constrained, fine and dandy.  They are necessary precursors to marriage.  Hence we have guidelines in the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet:

Quote

A date is a planned activity that allows a young man and a young woman to get to know each other better. In cultures where dating is acceptable, it can help you learn and practice social skills, develop friendships, have wholesome fun, and eventually find an eternal companion.
...
You should not date until you are at least 16 years old. When you begin dating, go with one or more additional couples. Avoid going on frequent dates with the same person. Developing serious relationships too early in life can limit the number of other people you meet and can perhaps lead to immorality. Invite your parents to become acquainted with those you date.

Choose to date only those who have high moral standards and in whose company you can maintain your standards. Remember that a young man and a young woman on a date are responsible to protect each other’s honor and virtue. 

Plan dating activities that are safe, positive, and inexpensive and that will help you get to know each other. Go only to places where you can maintain your standards and remain close to the Spirit.
...
Never do anything that could lead to sexual transgression.  Treat others with respect, not as objects used to satisfy lustful and selfish desires. Before marriage, do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing. Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body.  Pay attention to the promptings of the Spirit so that you can be clean and virtuous. 
...
Avoid situations that invite increased temptation, such as late-night or overnight activities away from home or activities where there is a lack of adult supervision. Do not participate in discussions or any media that arouse sexual feelings. Do not participate in any type of pornography.
...
Homosexual and lesbian behavior is a serious sin. If you find yourself struggling with same-gender attraction or you are being persuaded to participate in inappropriate behavior, seek counsel from your parents and bishop.

There is nothing in there that can be construed as providing guidelines for same-sex romantic behaviors.  To the contrary, "{h}omosexual and lesbian behavior" is stated to be "a serious sin."

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Likewise, it should mean for a gay couple that they can do all of the same things a hetero couple can do.

The Law of Chastity prohibits "homosexual behavior."  Nobody is allowed to engage in it.

The same standard applies to everyone.

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

To claim that a gay couple doing those things is breaking the LoC while a hetero couple is not breaking the LoC is absurd and an obvious double standard.

Nope.  Nobody is allowed to engage in homosexual behavior.  It is absurd to characterize this as categorical standard as a "double standard."

The only one trying to create a double standard is you.  You are suggesting here that some people (people with SSA) can engage in behaviors that others (heterosexual members) cannot.  

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

SSA is NOT a sin.

Nobody is saying otherwise.  But homosexual behavior is a sin.  As are adultery and fornication.

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Breaking the LoC is.

Yes.  And one breaks the Law of Chastity by . . . engaging in "{h}omosexual and lesbian behavior."

Again from the FTSOY pamphlet: "Homosexual and lesbian behavior is a serious sin."

I think you are materially misrepresenting the Law of Chastity here.

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But now people are trying to define any romantic relationship (even a chaste one) between a gay couple is breaking the LoC. That's just making up new rules

I think it is tendentious and absurd to characterize same-sex romantic behaviors except actual sexual intercourse as fallilng outside the ambit of "homosexual behavior."  This is the sort of pharisaical nitpicking I find problematic.  This is why I keep analogizing your reasoning to adultery. 

This is also  why I keep rejecting the notion that the "Law of Chastity" only pertains to sexual intercourse.  The Church regularly includes prohibitions against pornography, lustful thoughts, and immodest dress in materials addressing the Law of Chastity.  Chapter 39 of the Gospel Principles manual ("The Law of Chastity") :

Quote

Satan Wants Us to Break the Law of Chastity

• What are some ways Satan tempts people to break the law of chastity?

Satan’s plan is to deceive as many of us as he can to prevent us from returning to live with our Heavenly Father. One of the most damaging things he can do is entice us to break the law of chastity. He is cunning and powerful. He would like us to believe it is no sin to break this law. Many people have been deceived. We must guard ourselves against evil influences.

Satan attacks the standards of modesty. He wants us to believe that because the human body is beautiful, it is something to flaunt and expose. Our Heavenly Father wants us to keep our bodies covered so that we do not encourage improper thoughts in the minds of others.

Satan not only encourages us to dress immodestly, but he also encourages us to think immoral or improper thoughts. He does this with pictures, movies, stories, jokes, music, and dances that suggest immoral acts. The law of chastity requires that our thoughts as well as our actions be pure. The prophet Alma taught that when we are judged by God, “our thoughts will also condemn us; and in this awful state we shall not dare to look up to our God” (Alma 12:14).

Jesus taught, “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

“But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matthew 5:27–28).

President Gordon B. Hinckley warned: “You live in a world of terrible temptations. Pornography, with its sleazy filth, sweeps over the earth like a horrible, engulfing tide. It is poison. Do not watch it or read it. It will destroy you if you do. It will take from you your self-respect. It will rob you of a sense of the beauties of life. It will tear you down and pull you into a slough of evil thoughts and possibly of evil actions. Stay away from it. Shun it as you would a foul disease, for it is just as deadly. Be virtuous in thought and in deed. God has planted in you, for a purpose, a divine urge which may be easily subverted to evil and destructive ends. When you are young, do not get involved in steady dating. When you reach an age where you think of marriage, then is the time to become so involved. But you boys who are in high school don’t need this, and neither do the girls” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1997, 71–72; or Ensign, Nov. 1997, 51).
 

None of these (dressing immodestly, looking at porn, "lust{ing} after" someone) involves actual sexual contact with another person, but they are still violations of the Law of Chastity.

The Law of Chastity is about more than sexual intercourse.  

You are trying to re-define the Law of Chastity so as to justify/rationalize "homosexual behavior" that does not amount to actual sexual intercourse.  That is not what we believe.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 22, 2022 by smac97

[smac97]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

If the bright white line was simply no sexual relations outside of marriage, then I think there are a lot more LGBT members that would be able to navigate that.  

The Law of Chastity is not really a "bright line" rule.  Elements of it are categorical: no adultery, no fornication, no homosexual/lesbian behavior.  But even these end up being somewhat nuanced.  

And the Law of Chastity also prohibits the use of pornography.  That's not really a "bright line," is it?

The same with modesty in dress.

The same with the prohibition of "lustful thoughts."

The same with sexual-behaviors-not-amounting-to-actual-intercourse:

Quote

Never do anything that could lead to sexual transgression.  Treat others with respect, not as objects used to satisfy lustful and selfish desires. Before marriage, do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing. Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body.  Pay attention to the promptings of the Spirit so that you can be clean and virtuous. 
...
Avoid situations that invite increased temptation, such as late-night or overnight activities away from home or activities where there is a lack of adult supervision. Do not participate in discussions or any media that arouse sexual feelings. 

I think it is pretty horrible to try to splice-and-dice the Law of Chastity so as to rationalize/justify behavior that is categorically prohibited.  For everyone.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Funny, then, to see so many trying to make it complicated.

That's not all the Law of Chastity says.

Also, why do you keep omitting the "e" in "sexual?"

For a hetero couple neither of whom is married to anyone else, yes.

The Church obviously recognizes that such behaviors are, though still constrained, fine and dandy.  They are necessary precursors to marriage.  Hence we have guidelines in the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet:

There is nothing in there that can be construed as providing guidelines for same-sex romantic behaviors.  To the contrary, "{h}omosexual and lesbian behavior" is stated to be "a serious sin."

The Law of Chastity prohibits "homosexual behavior."  Nobody is allowed to engage in it.

The same standard applies to everyone.

Nope.  Nobody is allowed to engage in homosexual behavior.  It is absurd to characterize this as categorical standard as a "double standard."

The only one trying to create a double standard is you.  You are suggesting here that some people (people with SSA) can engage in behaviors that others (heterosexual members) cannot.  

Nobody is saying otherwise.  But homosexual behavior is a sin.  As are adultery and fornication.

Yes.  And one breaks the Law of Chastity by . . . engaging in "{h}omosexual and lesbian behavior."

Again from the FTSOY pamphlet: "Homosexual and lesbian behavior is a serious sin."

I think you are materially misrepresenting the Law of Chastity here.

I think it is tendentious and absurd to characterize same-sex romantic behaviors except actual sexual intercourse as fallilng outside the ambit of "homosexual behavior."  This is the sort of pharisaical nitpicking I find problematic.  This is why I keep analogizing your reasoning to adultery. 

This is also  why I keep rejecting the notion that the "Law of Chastity" only pertains to sexual intercourse.  The Church regularly includes prohibitions against pornography, lustful thoughts, and immodest dress in materials addressing the Law of Chastity.  Chapter 39 of the Gospel Principles manual ("The Law of Chastity") :

None of these (dressing immodestly, looking at porn, "lust{ing} after" someone) involves actual sexual contact with another person, but they are still violations of the Law of Chastity.

The Law of Chastity is about more than sexual intercourse.  

You are trying to re-define the Law of Chastity so as to justify/rationalize "homosexual behavior" that does not amount to actual sexual intercourse.  That is not what we believe.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes- and his name is SMAC97

I find it pathetic that the only information you can quote about what the LoC says is in a pamphlet intended for teens.

I don't believe I am misrepresenting the LoC. I believe I am refusing to accept the additional rules you're adding to it.

And none of these things are a part of a simple date that doesn't include sxual contact. 

You continually say there is no double standard but if I tell you a couple held hands on their date you would have to ask me if that couple was gay or straight before telling me whether or not they broke the LoC.

I am not the one re-defining the LoC. You are and the church is. You can argue that they have every right to re-define it, but that doesn't change the fact they are the ones redefining.

Calling handholding a violation of the LoC is asinine. 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The Law of Chastity is not really a "bright line" rule.  Elements of it are categorical: no adultery, no fornication, no homosexual/lesbian behavior.  But even these end up being somewhat nuanced.  

And the Law of Chastity also prohibits the use of pornography.  That's not really a "bright line," is it?

The same with modesty in dress.

The same with the prohibition of "lustful thoughts."

The same with sexual-behaviors-not-amounting-to-actual-intercourse:

I think it is pretty horrible to try to splice-and-dice the Law of Chastity so as to rationalize/justify behavior that is categorically prohibited.  For everyone.

Thanks,

-Smac

You are talking to the wrong guy.  I really don't care if the Church or you want to call holding hands a violation of the LoC.  Heck, let's make winking at someone a violation, or saying hi in the hallway or waving at someone of the same sex .  You know they all lead to dancing. And well, we can't have that.  

The more unbearable the Church makes it for the gay members, the sooner they will realize that perhaps there is no path for them in the Church and they will do better their own path back to God.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes- and his name is SMAC97

I find it pathetic that the only information you can quote about what the LoC says is in a pamphlet intended for teens.

Says the guy who hasn't quoted anything to support his ideosyncratic definition of the Law of Chastity taught by the Church.

The FTSOY pamphlet is one of many such resources I could quote.  And it's published by the Church. 

As between your characterizaton of the Church's teachings and the Church's characterization of its teachings, I'll go with the latter.

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't believe I am misrepresenting the LoC.

You are not citing to any source or reference to support your position.

You are rejecting the published statements of the Church.

There is no set of circumstances under which "homosexual or lesbian behavior" is allowable in the Church.  You are saying that there are such circumstances, or that there should be.

You are contradicting the teachings of the Church. 

Yeah, I think it's pretty clear you are misrepresenting the Law of Chastity. 

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I believe I am refusing to accept the additional rules you're adding to it.

I haven't added anything.  Meanwhile, you are omitting lots of things.  Deliberately.

The Church categorically prohibits "homosexual and lesbian behavior."  You are, nevertheless, arguing that some forms of such behavior are compatible with the Law of Chastity.  That's just not so.  And you are merely asserting this.  

I would really like to see you substantiate your argument.  Please show me a resource where the Church in its materials, or one of its General Authorities, has said something along the lines of what you are saying, that same-sex couples can engage in the some "homosexual and lesbian behavior{s}."

Take your time.  I'll wait.  

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

And none of these things are a part of a simple date that doesn't include sxual contact. 

So what?  Looking at porn "doesn't includes sexual contact" either, but it's still a violation of the Law of Chastity.

Lusting after a woman in your heart "doesn't includes sexual contact" either, but it's still "adultery" in some sense per Matthew 5:28.

This pharisaical nitpicking stuff just doesn't work.  The "Hey, it's not all-out 'sexual contact' so it's good to go" line of reasoning does not work.  This is a plain contravention of both the spirit and the letter of the Law of Chastity. 

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You continually say there is no double standard

And you continually fail to substantiate the idea that there is such a thing.

There is no "double standard" as to "homosexual or lesbian behavior" because nobody is allowed to engage in such things.  

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

but if I tell you a couple held hands on their date you would have to ask me if that couple was gay or straight before telling me whether or not they broke the LoC.

Right.  Because if the behavior is "homosexual or lesbian" in nature, then it violates the Law of Chastity.  Similarly, if a married man is stepping out on his wife and going on dates with a girlfriend, and engaging in romantic/sexual behaviors of this sort (holding hands, kissing, etc.) that would also be a violation of the Law of Chastity.

Context.  It's a beatiful thing.

But there's no "double standard" in view since nobody is allowed to engage in "homosexual or lesbian behavior."  Nobody.

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I am not the one re-defining the LoC. You are and the church is.

I literally chuckled when I read this.

You are attempting to re-define the Law of Chastity so as to allow some forms of "homosexual or lesbian behavior."

I have no need to re-define anything,.  I just go with what the Church is saying in it materials.  My position is "homosexual or lesbian behavior."  Your position is that some such behaviors are allowed.  Kissing.  Holding hands.  Dancing.  And probably more.  Just not full-on sexual intercourse.

Sorry, but that's not what the Law of Chastity is.  That's not what the Church teaches.  That's not what we believe.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 22, 2022 by smac97

[smac97]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

You are talking to the wrong guy.  

Well, you're on this message board.

1 minute ago, california boy said:

I really don't care if the Church or you want to call holding hands a violation of the LoC.  

And yet you continually participate on this message board.

1 minute ago, california boy said:

Heck, let's make winking at someone a violation, or saying hi in the hallway or waving at someone of the same sex .  You know they all lead to dancing. And well, we can't have that.

An appeal to ridicule does not work.

There are obviously incremental romantic or sexual behaviors, short of full-on sexual intercourse, that are violative of the Law of Chastity.  The pharisaical hairsplitting in evidence in this thread just does not work.  

1 minute ago, california boy said:

The more unbearable the Church makes it for the gay members, the sooner they will realize that perhaps there is no path for them in the Church and they will do better their own path back to God.

Obeying the Law of Chastity is not "unbearable."  It can be challenging, but it's quite doable.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, you're on this message board.

And yet you continually participate on this message board.

An appeal to ridicule does not work.

There are obviously incremental romantic or sexual behaviors, short of full-on sexual intercourse, that are violative of the Law of Chastity.  The pharisaical hairsplitting in evidence in this thread just does not work.  

Obeying the Law of Chastity is not "unbearable."  It can be challenging, but it's quite doable.

Thanks,

-Smac

says the guy that can have sex

Edited April 22, 2022 by Duncan

[california boy]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, you're on this message board.

And yet you continually participate on this message board.

An appeal to ridicule does not work.

There are obviously incremental romantic or sexual behaviors, short of full-on sexual intercourse, that are violative of the Law of Chastity.  The pharisaical hairsplitting in evidence in this thread just does not work.  

Obeying the Law of Chastity is not "unbearable."  It can be challenging, but it's quite doable.

Thanks,

-Smac

I enjoy sharing ideas and interacting with almost everyone on this discussion board.  I like hearing other peoples points of view.  And hopefully, at times, I offer a different perspective worth considering.  But unfortunately, interacting with you is not one of the reasons why I stay involved.  I will leave that task to others.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

says the guy that can have sex

Really?

If ever anyone wanted proof of the moral decline among members...

At times sex was restricted by doctrine to efforts to conceive.  That restriction was both taught and practiced at different times.  We no longer teach it but the idea was to be as moral, chaste, and virtuous as possible.

But yeah, it's all about getting to have sex.  Not virtue at all.

[teddyaware]

19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Really?

If ever anyone wanted proof of the moral decline among members...

At times sex was restricted by doctrine to efforts to conceive.  That restriction was both taught and practiced at different times.  We no longer teach it but the idea was to be as moral, chaste, and virtuous as possible.

But yeah, it's all about getting to have sex.  Not virtue at all.

The permissive attitudes of many members of the Church toward serious sin brings to mind the following sobering prophecy.

24 Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.
25 And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;
26 First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord. (Doctrine and Covenants 112)

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

Quote

Obeying the Law of Chastity is not "unbearable."  It can be challenging, but it's quite doable.

says the guy that can have sex

Oh, get real.  There are huge numbers of people in and out of the Church who, whether by choice or circumstance or necessity, cannot engage in sexual relations.  Challenging, yes, but eminently doable.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Peacefully]

8 hours ago, teddyaware said:

In addition, it’s also important to realize that the once the devil succeeds in persuading God’s people to acquiesce in the acceptance of so-called ‘minor’ concessions that lie along the periphery of the outright acceptance of sin, he’s never, ever satisfied to leave well enough alone. No, he just keeps on pushing hard for even more ‘incremental’ step-by-step concessions until he’s finally succeeded in carefully leading the souls of God’s people down to hell. 

Wow…

[Peacefully]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I enjoy sharing ideas and interacting with almost everyone on this discussion board.  I like hearing other peoples points of view.  And hopefully, at times, I offer a different perspective worth considering.  But unfortunately, interacting with you is not one of the reasons why I stay involved.  I will leave that task to others.

I like hearing your POV, CB. You are one of the reasons I stay:)

[JustAnAustralian]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

So what?  Looking at porn "doesn't includes sexual contact" either, but it's still a violation of the Law of Chastity.

I disagree (at least in the case of single members).

• The temple covenant is pretty specific about "sexual relations".
• The strength of youth pamphlet (which refers to sexual purity and breaking the LoC sexual transgression) separates it from things that can lead to it.

  • Quote

    The Lord’s standard regarding sexual purity is clear and unchanging. Do not have any sexual relations before marriage, and be completely faithful to your spouse after marriage....

    Avoid situations that invite increased temptation, such as late-night or overnight activities away from home or activities where there is a lack of adult supervision. Do not participate in discussions or any media that arouse sexual feelings. Do not participate in any type of pornography. 

     

• The handbook says that a membership council is not normally necessary. (Adultery and fornication are in the "may be necessary section")

  • Quote

    32.6.4.1

    Failure to Comply with Some Church Standards

    A membership council is not held for the actions listed below. However, note the exception in the last item.

    ...

    Using pornography, except for child pornography (as outlined in 38.6.6) or intensive or compulsive use of pornography that has caused significant harm to a member’s marriage or family (as outlined in 38.6.13).

     

 

Now that doesn't mean that we should all be running around watching porn, and if people are they should try and stop (since we're told not to watch it). But we need to be careful not to expand the law of chastity to cover the entire spectrum of anything remotely hormonal in nature.

Edited April 23, 2022 by JustAnAustralian

[Chum]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

The permissive attitudes of many members of the Church toward serious sin brings to mind the following sobering prophecy.

What is a bit discouraging to me is that only some serious sin is serious sin. Corruption (eg: trading law/power for campaign cash) does direct and ongoing harm on a massive scale - arguably far beyond direct harm done by extramarital sex.

Every indication I see is that the Church has no meaningful objection* to this practice. We don't ever hear it mentioned in conferences as an example of transgression. It feels like a protected sin.

As an aside, I suspect when we were a much smaller church, leadership sometimes called out corruption.

*To be fair tho, neither do most voters. News orgs typically aren't any better.

Edited April 23, 2022 by Chum

[JLHPROF]

32 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

I disagree (at least in the case of single members).

• The temple covenant is pretty specific about "sexual relations".
• The strength of youth pamphlet (which refers to sexual purity and breaking the LoC sexual transgression) separates it from things that can lead to it.

  •  

• The handbook says that a membership council is not normally necessary. (Adultery and fornication are in the "may be necessary section")
  •  

 

Now that doesn't mean that we should all be running around watching porn, and if people are they should try and stop (since we're told not to watch it). But we need to be careful not to expand the law of chastity to cover the entire spectrum of anything remotely hormonal in nature.

Christ said it was as good as adultery, so yes, a chastity violation.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

The permissive attitudes of many members of the Church toward serious sin brings to mind the following sobering prophecy.

24 Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.
25 And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;
26 First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord. (Doctrine and Covenants 112)

This scripture becomes more interesting if we remember what the Lord's house is.  It's not the Church, but the temple.

The very first thing to be set in order and cleansed will be the temple.

[california boy]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Christ said it was as good as adultery, so yes, a chastity violation.

Christ also said that if you divorce your wife and marry another, then you are committing adultery.

[smac97]

39 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

I disagree (at least in the case of single members).

• The temple covenant is pretty specific about "sexual relations".

This is a solid point.  I will think on it.

39 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

• The strength of youth pamphlet (which refers to sexual purity and breaking the LoC sexual transgression) separates it from things that can lead to it.

I'm less sure about this.

39 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

• The handbook says that a membership council is not normally necessary. (Adultery and fornication are in the "may be necessary section")

Drinking alcohol is a violation of the Word of Wisdom, but that doesn't require a membership council, either.

39 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Now that doesn't mean that we should all be running around watching porn, and if people are they should try and stop (since we're told not to watch it). But we need to be careful not to expand the law of chastity to cover the entire spectrum of anything remotely hormonal in nature.

I agree.  But I've been having Matthew 5:28 in my mind.  How do you account for that?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Oh, get real.  There are huge numbers of people in and out of the Church who, whether by choice or circumstance or necessity, cannot engage in sexual relations.  Challenging, yes, but eminently doable.

Thanks,

-Smac

condescending, but you can still have sex. How do you know that it is "eminently doable" if you have never done it? Have you ever had to live with the consequences of your own advice? my guess is no. 

[Duncan]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Really?

If ever anyone wanted proof of the moral decline among members...

At times sex was restricted by doctrine to efforts to conceive.  That restriction was both taught and practiced at different times.  We no longer teach it but the idea was to be as moral, chaste, and virtuous as possible.

But yeah, it's all about getting to have sex.  Not virtue at all.

yes, smac1797 can have sex if he wants to, others can as well but face excommunication. 

[CV75]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This is a solid point.  I will think on it.

I'm less sure about this.

Drinking alcohol is a violation of the Word of Wisdom, but that doesn't require a membership council, either.

I agree.  But I've been having Matthew 5:28 in my mind.  How do you account for that?

Thanks,

-Smac

I think the commission of adultery in the heart breeds the lust and can lead to a vicious cycle without repentance (like an anti-Alma 32 dynamic: faith is to knowledge as adultery in the heart is to lust.  "For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." (Matthew 6:21). Also Titus1:15:

^aUnto the pure all things are ^bpure: but unto them that are ^cdefiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their ^dmind and ^econscience is ^fdefiled.

The pure don't even point themselves in risky directions.

 

 

Edited April 23, 2022 by CV75

[JLHPROF]

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

Christ also said that if you divorce your wife and marry another, then you are committing adultery.

Yes.  He did.

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

yes, smac1797 can have sex if he wants to, others can as well but face excommunication. 

Because they're sinning.  Not sure how this is still being debated.  ANY sexual activity not between husband and wife is a sin.  Period.

When did this become debatable in our religion?  Outside it's always been a free for all.  But the members of the Church of Jesus Christ should have better morals.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think the commission of adultery in the heart breeds the lust and can lead to a vicious cycle without repentance (like an anti-Alma 32 dynamic: faith is to knowledge as adultery in the heart is to lust.  "For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." (Matthew 6:21). Also Titus1:15:

^aUnto the pure all things are ^bpure: but unto them that are ^cdefiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their ^dmind and ^econscience is ^fdefiled.

The pure don't even point themselves in risky directions.

I agree.  This is why I find the effort in this thread - to rationalize and justify incremental incursions into "homosexual behavior" (or its penumbras) - to be obnoxious and very wrong.  We should not be looking at behaviors prohibited by God and thinking "Hmm.  Just how close can I get to that and get away with it?  What sort of technicalities can I point to?  What sorts of equivocations and rationalizations can I use?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 23, 2022 by smac97