New Church Policy?

[CV75]

55 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That is not what he meant at all.

But you still agree that It wouldn't be well for a GA to deck an offender for someone who could do it himself. 

[The Nehor]

15 minutes ago, CV75 said:

But you still agree that It wouldn't be well for a GA to deck an offender for someone who could do it himself. 

No, the missionary and Elder Packer should punch each other while the other missionary should punch himself. Makes as much sense as anything else.

[CV75]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, the missionary and Elder Packer should punch each other while the other missionary should punch himself. Makes as much sense as anything else.

Neat -- they are a consubstantial trinity!

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

How do you feel about the "Oscar Slap"?

Hey man, this is LA.

Lucky he didn't shoot 'em! 

 

[Durangout]

On 4/20/2022 at 10:24 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

cool...

great...

That's the common justification. I get it. "God is Love." I've read that somewhere.

Somehow people think that to love God they must judge others. It's backwards.

Wrong.

John 7:24 has Jesus commanding us to "judge righteous judgment." The JST change in Matthew says the same thing.  So yes, to love God (we only love God by keeping His commands) we must righteously judge others.

 For example there was a recent news story about a man on trial for killing two teenage kids and dumping their bodies down a mine shaft.  I judge him to be evil.  
 

Today another story popped up where a young woman just graduated from BYU that sewed a rainbow flag on the inside of her graduation gown.  She flashed it upon receiving her diploma.  She went onto explain that she is bisexual and had a relationship w another woman while attending the Y.
 

I judge her to be dishonest and immoral.  She lied about keeping Honor Code and participated in activities that the Bible and prophets have declared sins.

The whole “not judging others” BS is a false paradigm and powerful tool that Satan uses to normalize and promote sin.

[Durangout]

On 4/21/2022 at 3:19 PM, 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? 

The Handbook is a policy and procedure manual that changes from time to time.  It’s not canonized.  The Bible, canonized scripture, does declare homosexuality to be a sin.

Perhaps I read the handbook differently than you.  Maybe it would help if you quote directly from the Handbook the passage stating that homosexuality isn’t a sin.

[Duncan]

14 minutes ago, Durangout said:

Wrong.

John 7:24 has Jesus commanding us to "judge righteous judgment." The JST change in Matthew says the same thing.  So yes, to love God (we only love God by keeping His commands) we must righteously judge others.

 For example there was a recent news story about a man on trial for killing two teenage kids and dumping their bodies down a mine shaft.  I judge him to be evil.  
 

Today another story popped up where a young woman just graduated from BYU that sewed a rainbow flag on the inside of her graduation gown.  She flashed it upon receiving her diploma.  She went onto explain that she is bisexual and had a relationship w another woman while attending the Y.
 

I judge her to be dishonest and immoral.  She lied about keeping Honor Code and participated in activities that the Bible and prophets have declared sins.

The whole “not judging others” BS is a false paradigm and powerful tool that Satan uses to normalize and promote sin.

This is how I judge you for judging them Mormon 8:19 "For behold, the same that judgeth rashly shall be judged rashly again"

you are going to judge someone for what someone else said about them? that's stupid

Edited April 26, 2022 by Duncan

[smac97]

On 4/21/2022 at 3:19 PM, Theosis said:

The very premise of this question is wrong. Homosexuality isn't a sin.

The oriention and inner-held feelings are not a sin.  But acting on such things is.

On 4/21/2022 at 3:19 PM, Theosis said:

The Handbook makes that clear. So if not a sin, why can't they dance? 

The question becomes one of semantics and judgment.  Is same-sex dancing, kissing, etc. within the ambit of "homosexual behavior" that is unequivocally prohibited in the Church?  Or are such things in the "penumbra" of the Law of Chastity?  Or incremental steps toward the violation of the Law of Chastity?

It is not within my stewardship or province to declare answers to these on behalf of the Church.  But for me, in a "let's get down to brass tacks" analysis, I don't see any situation where such behaviors are appropriate.  I cannot envision the apostles doing anything like endorsing or celebrating (or ignoring or tacitly authorizing) such behaviors.  And I don't think any of you could, credibly and with a straight face, say otherwise.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

51 minutes ago, Durangout said:

The Handbook is a policy and procedure manual that changes from time to time.  It’s not canonized.  The Bible, canonized scripture, does declare homosexuality to be a sin.

Perhaps I read the handbook differently than you.  Maybe it would help if you quote directly from the Handbook the passage stating that homosexuality isn’t a sin.

Leaning on the Bible (especially the Old Testament) to support your judgment on homosexuality is a risky proposition given some of its contents.

[Amulek]

16 hours ago, california boy said:

Have you read the comments about this talk in response to this talk?

I believe I have read all of the comments since you brought the subject up, and I don't recall anybody saying that it is okay to just randomly go around beating on gays.

If you believe I missed something, however, please feel free to point it out.

My personal comment on the matter was that "an appropriate response needs to be proportionate to the level of threat." As a general rule, I think that's a fairly reasonable position.

 

16 hours ago, california boy said:

How many think the talk is just as pertinent today as it was 45+ years ago.  

I saw at least one commenter say as much.

Personally, I can say with honesty that I have yet to read the talk in its entirety. It was given before I was even born, and unless I'm mistaken I don't believe it's widely recognized as being one of those epic talks that everyone remembers (e.g., HBB's currant bush).

Likewise, I can't say with any degree of certainty what its impact was, but I know for a fact that we had a gay elder on my mission (late 90's) and he was well liked by everyone.

The obnoxious vegan who got the missionaries blacklisted by the stake RS President in one area (at least for a period of time) on the other hand - him, lots of guys wanted to punch.

 

16 hours ago, california boy said:

Do you think underneath the veneer of "we love you" [...]

The veneer of love? Really? Why don't you tell us how you really feel.

 

16 hours ago, california boy said:

Sorry but someone didn't have to do it when there are so many other options easily available to that elder.  

In that very moment? How on earth could you possibly know?

 

16 hours ago, california boy said:

I doubt very much that there is any tolerance for any sexual advances towards a missionary.  Nor should there be.  

I agree. Which is why, baring any information indicating otherwise, I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the victim with respect to his actions in the moment.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It is not within my stewardship or province to declare answers to these on behalf of the Church.  But for me, in a "let's get down to brass tacks" analysis, I don't see any situation where such behaviors are appropriate.  I cannot envision the apostles doing anything like endorsing or celebrating (or ignoring or tacitly authorizing) such behaviors.  And I don't think any of you could, credibly and with a straight face, say otherwise.

I think the episode at BYU (two years ago now?) makes clear where the Church stands on behaviors that are romantic in nature in a homosexual context and, allowed to flower, would lead inexorably to homosexual acts. 

[Scott Lloyd]

18 hours ago, california boy said:

Have you read the comments about this talk in response to this talk?  How many think the talk is just as pertinent today as it was 45+ years ago.

I was present in the Tabernacle when the talk was delivered (seated six rows from the front during the priesthood session). I’ve read it many times since then. And yes, I think it pertinent today, as much as when it was first delivered. 
 

Now let the hyperventilating begin. 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think the episode at BYU (two years ago now?) makes clear where the Church stands on behaviors that are romantic in nature in a homosexual context and, allowed to flower, would lead inexorably to homosexual acts. 

BYU is sort of interesting because it is an educational institution with a behavioral code, the parameters of which some students want to splashily and publicly test and push against.  Normally the particulars of what constitutes "homosexual behavior" (or "homoromantic behavior," as has been used in this thread) by members of the Church is a matter of quiet and individual choice and, where appropriate and necessary, a matter to be addressed by a bishop or stake president.  But BYU being what it is, we get public declarations applicable to tens of thousands of students.

The BYU Honor Code is, obviously, uniquely applicable to BYU students.  Its underlying principles pertaining to sexual ethics and behavior, however, are not.  There is no set of circumstances where adultery, fornication, or homosexual behavior is compatible with the Honor Code.  It also happens that these things are also incompatible with discipleship and membership in the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac 

 

[The Nehor]

I am trying to understand how some of the people here ever found a spouse if they believe the proper response to flirting is punching? Arranged marriages?

Actual assault (sexual or otherwise) is a cause for punching.

Of course it is still always moral to punch Nazis. If the Nazi is flirting with you you can punch them extra hard.

[longview]

24 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Arranged marriages?

Shotgun weddings were NOT too infrequent back in the day.  Now this is one clear unequivocal standard to be applied!

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, longview said:

Shotgun weddings were NOT too infrequent back in the day.  Now this is one clear unequivocal standard to be applied!

Wait, so they all got married through fornication? Huh……

No wonder gay marriage was so slow to arrive. Without pregnancy, no shotguns. Without shotguns, no wedding.

The more things change….

 

[CV75]

22 hours ago, Analytics said:

When I read Packer's remarks, my impression is:

1- The missionary felt guilty for literally flooring the guy. It would seem he felt guilty because his "self defense" was totally out of proportion to the threat.

2- It appears Packer agreed that literally flooring the guy was wrong. That's why he said, "it wouldn't be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way."

Note that Packer did not ask, "Did you need to floor him in order to defend yourself? Why do you feel guilty for flooring him? Did he try to rape you? Did you report it to the police?" Packer saying it wouldn't be "well" for a general authority to knock a guy out seems to imply that the guy deserved to be punched and needed to be punched to "solve the problem," but society at large didn't understand the need to some people to floored--thus it's better for missionaries to floor guys who need to be floored rather than relying on GA's to do it. It wasn't about defending yourself--it was about punching somebody who deserved to be punched.

Yes, he goes on to say "you must defend yourself," but the details of the story aren't about merely protecting yourself. They are about "solving a problem" in a way that "wouldn't be well for a General Authority" to do.

1. Not necessarily guilt and not necessarily out of proportion. Confession of sorrow for unfortunate but necessarily extreme measures is often the case, where guilt is not appropriate: “Now, they were sorry to take up arms against the Lamanites, because they did not delight in the shedding of blood; yea, and this was not all—they were sorry to be the means of sending so many of their brethren out of this world [/on the floor] into an eternal world [/daze], unprepared to meet their God [/mother].” (Alma 48: 23). The missionary was given permission to process these feelings without penance, leaving the lesson learned between him and the Lord.

2. There are many reasons other than it being morally wrong for a GA to solve this particular problem in this particular way, in that particular instance. Not all problems have a moral basis, either. To me it can come across as tactically ill-advised for a GA, for many other reasons which I’ll navel gaze along if someone else starts it  .The morality lesson in this part of the talk is that this option is not omitted on moral grounds when pressured to engage in immoral acts.

That is my take, anyway.

Edited April 26, 2022 by CV75

[HappyJackWagon]

53 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Wait, so they all got married through fornication? Huh……

No wonder gay marriage was so slow to arrive. Without pregnancy, no shotguns. Without shotguns, no wedding.

The more things change….

 

Best line of the day 🤣😂

[longview]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Without pregnancy, no shotguns.

Most of the time there were no pregnancies.  All was needed was for them to be caught hot and heavy.  Thats how strict the standards were.

[The Nehor]

21 minutes ago, longview said:

Most of the time there were no pregnancies.  All was needed was for them to be caught hot and heavy.  Thats how strict the standards were.

It didn’t work very well. I remember one source from England in the 1850s found that almost half of brides were pregnant and legal records of the wealthy suing each other over pregnancies back up those statistics in most of Europe.

All the strictness did was emphasize “don’t get caught” and with dumb teenagers most of them were not nearly as cautious as they thought they were. Actual shotgun weddings were rare. The social pressure was enough a lot of the time.

I haven’t seen much that convinces me that people in the past were more chaste than they are now. We just stopped hiding the fornication and with later marriage ages there is more of it in volume but that is mostly a function of age. Most people still try to hide the adultery.

[Durangout]

10 hours ago, Duncan said:

This is how I judge you for judging them Mormon 8:19 "For behold, the same that judgeth rashly shall be judged rashly again"

you are going to judge someone for what someone else said about them? that's stupid

No worries.

Just for the record:

In my first example, the murder is a matter of public court record.  In my second example the young woman herself posted the details of her being in a relationship w another female on social media, while being enrolled at BYU.

Pretty sure I was not being stupid or rash in either case.

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am trying to understand how some of the people here ever found a spouse if they believe the proper response to flirting is punching?

Well, I haven't found a spouse, so there's that ...

But yeah, I wasn't aware anyone on this thread was discussing mere flirting. I certainly haven't been ... unless you consider sexual groping to be flirting? (I know some people do ...)

When I was studying in America, I went to the on-campus pool/gym early one morning to swim laps and then get ready for the day. I was alone in the showers when another student stood near me and began masturbating. I quickly finished my shower and headed to the bathroom to shave. Within minutes, the same man was standing about two metres behind me, still masturbating. I moved to a different bathroom. He followed.

Flirting, in your opinion? It didn't feel that way to me. It was early enough that no one else was in the area, and this student was considerably larger than I am. (I'm a bit heavier now, but I would have weighed about 54kg then.) I was terrified of what might happen next ... and so full of adrenaline that I was ready to either flee or fight back if necessary.

Mercifully, some more men entered the change room at this time, and my 'admirer' made himself scarce. There's a reason why we have criminalised persistent, unwanted sexual advances.

[The Nehor]

22 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Well, I haven't found a spouse, so there's that ...

But yeah, I wasn't aware anyone on this thread was discussing mere flirting. I certainly haven't been ... unless you consider sexual groping to be flirting? (I know some people do ...)

When I was studying in America, I went to the on-campus pool/gym early one morning to swim laps and then get ready for the day. I was alone in the showers when another student stood near me and began masturbating. I quickly finished my shower and headed to the bathroom to shave. Within minutes, the same man was standing about two metres behind me, still masturbating. I moved to a different bathroom. He followed.

Flirting, in your opinion? It didn't feel that way to me. It was early enough that no one else was in the area, and this student was considerably larger than I am. (I'm a bit heavier now, but I would have weighed about 54kg then.) I was terrified of what might happen next ... and so full of adrenaline that I was ready to either flee or fight back if necessary.

Mercifully, some more men entered the change room at this time, and my 'admirer' made himself scarce. There's a reason why we have criminalised persistent, unwanted sexual advances.

Some people specifically said flirting needed to be defended against earlier in the thread.

Not sure why you think your story is somehow flirting.

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Not sure why you think your story is somehow flirting.

I don't. Just checking with you.

Though for all I know, the man in the change room with me considered what he was doing to be flirting.

And at least one participant on this thread has insisted that the use of physical force is never justified for anything other than rape.

[The Nehor]

12 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't. Just checking with you.

Though for all I know, the man in the change room with me considered what he was doing to be flirting.

And at least one participant on this thread has insisted that the use of physical force is never justified for anything other than rape.

I have specifically said the opposite and that people who commit acts of assault need punching.