New Church Policy?

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Fair point.

I agree.  Just as I think our young men should dress just as modestly at the beach as our young women.

So are you for banning all same sex dancing or teaching our kids the doctrine of the law of chastity and telling them they know in their hearts whether they are breaking that in their thoughts and we will leave that between them and God and the Bishop if they need to confess, but inappropriate sexualized dancing will be banned at stake dances for anyone….or some other variation?

Hopefully if a variation, it would be something that isn’t going to send the message from Salt Lake City that what is happening in the US is the most important measure in church leadership’s minds and even if a rule is nonsense in their culture, they still have to live it like any American would.

Edited April 19, 2022 by Calm

[Duncan]

54 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Exactly what is happening - same sex pairing becomes more and more acceptable.

I agree that dancing is pretty harmless.  I don't agree that displaying acceptance of same sex couples is harmless.

Dancing isn't sex.  Romantic attraction is often a big part of youth dances.

We really need to stop pretending that homosexual sex isn't serious sin.  And anything that encourages acceptance is wrong too.

do you think someone who isn't gay can actually turn gay? does it work the other way around someone who is gay can be turned into someone who isn't gay?

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

So are you for banning all same sex dancing or teaching our kids the doctrine of the law of chastity and telling them they know in their hearts whether they are breaking that and we will leave that between them and God and the Bishop if they need to confess, but inappropriate sexualized dancing will be banned at stake dances for anyone….or some other variation?

I'm for option B.  I'm not convinced it's really being taught that homosexual relations are always sin though.

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It is very much a bizarro world, but not quite the way you imagine.  Your SP isn't much of a lawyer to think that banning same sex slow dancing could lead to legal problems. I can well recall that it was common at all dances many years ago for girls and women to dance together.  Men being reticent, and the women not seeing anything suggestive about dancing together publicly.  Do we really need to go to unreasonable extremes in order to avoid the very appearance of evil?  Are we really in the throes of a latter-day apostasy?

The slippery slope to heterosexual sex outside of wedlock can likewise be blamed on slow dancing together.  And hugging and kissing.  We need to set reasonable boundaries, but what would those boundaries be?  Should we become control freaks?

I don’t believe equating the same sex slow dancing of girls with the same sex slow dancing of boys is at all a valid comparison. Given that two men slow dancing in each other’s embrace has no precedence in American popular culture as something that would be viewed as asexual in nature, and not at all suggestive of romantic expression, it’s hard to imagine that the traditional non-suggestive slow dancing of two girls is in any way comparable to two boys slow dancing together. Additionally, it’s just as true that in today’s culture two men slow dancing together would instantly be understood to be an outward expression of same sex attraction.

When I was in school, two girls dancing together was viewed as acceptable because too many of the shy, clumsy and self conscious boys were reticent to ask a girl to dance. But I can guarantee that if two boys had ever slow danced together a near riot would have ensued. Do you really think that today two boys slow dancing in each other’s embrace would be seen a something non-indicative of same sex attraction?

And while it’s true that there are now plenty of pro same sex attraction members who would be delighted to see two boys slow dancing cheek-to-cheek, that doesn’t mean the general authorities would think it’s acceptable and in innocent harmony with the law of chastity.

Edited April 19, 2022 by teddyaware

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Duncan said:

do you think someone who isn't gay can actually turn gay? does it work the other way around someone who is gay can be turned into someone who isn't gay?

I don't think people are turned gay or straight.  I think people have the choice who they participate in sexual or romantic activities with.  Sometimes our choices are supposed to go against our nature, and not just in sex.  There are many things about myself I fight against.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm for option B.  I'm not convinced it's really being taught that homosexual relations are always sin though.

If it is not, then there should be just as much concern for the ‘hidden’ same sex female couples dancing as there is for any same sex male couples I am guessing in your view?

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Given that two men slow dancing in each other’s embrace has no precedence in American popular culture

There are lots of things that have no precedence that become overnight cultural attributes…at least in the US.  Pet rocks, for one example.

Quote

it’s hard to imagine that the traditional non-suggestive slow dancing of two girls is in any way comparable to two boys slow dancing together.

Seriously?  What about two brothers practicing together?  What about two kids goofing off?  What about two boys feeling left out on the edge and seeing two girl wall flowers join the dance, decide not to care because they know their friends know they aren’t gay (if that matters to them) and wouldn’t mock one way or the other and do the same as the girls they see.  What if they are given a dare?  What if everyone is to be paired off at a dance but there are two extra boys and they decide to be good sports about it?  What if they are in the middle of a fast dance and it changes to a slow unexpectedly and they decide just to go with it as it is too much of a hassle to go sit down and just standing there feels weirder?

Edited April 19, 2022 by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This entire post makes me sad. I am horrified that you are horrified.

But don't worry. I imagine the Stake Presidents will have their wrists slapped and things will go back to the regular Anti-gay way we're all accustomed to.

Nobody in the Church is allowed to engage in "behavior" that is "homosexual or lesbian" in nature.

The Church has a thoughtful differentiation here (emphasis added) :

Quote

Feeling same-sex attraction or choosing to use a sexual identity label (such as gay, lesbian, or bisexual) is not a sin and does not violate Church policy. Words like gay and lesbian mean different things to different people. Identifying as gay may mean a member experiences same-sex attraction but chooses not to act on these feelings. This label may also describe how they express themselves emotionally, physically, romantically, sexually, or politically. Do not assume an individual is breaking the law of chastity because they use a sexual identity label.

Elder M. Russell Ballard stated, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that ‘the experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including [those with same-sex attraction]’” (“Be Still, and Know That I Am God” [Church Educational System devotional for young adults, May 4, 2014], broadcasts.ChurchofJesusChrist.org.)

And here (emphasis added) :

Quote

“We have given much thought and care to better understanding the experience of same-sex attraction. And making sure individuals who feel such attraction, and their families, feel welcome and part of the great worldwide family that is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

“I now speak directly to Church members who experience same-sex attraction or identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. We want you to know we love you. You are welcome. We want you to be part of our congregations. You have great talents and abilities to offer God’s kingdom on earth, and we recognize the many valuable contributions you make.
...
God promises that if we obey His laws, we will have eternal joy, and He always keeps His promises. People who experience same-sex attraction or identify as gay can make and keep promises to God. They can walk in His light. They can fully participate in the Church.

“If members feel same-sex attraction and are striving to live the law of chastity, leaders support and encourage them in their resolve. These members may receive Church callings, hold temple recommends, and receive temple ordinances if they are worthy. Male members may receive and exercise the priesthood” (“Same-Sex Attraction and Same-Sex Behavior,” General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ or Latter-day Saints, 38.6.12).

President Gordon B. Hinckley stated:

“We love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are” (“What Are People Asking about Us?” Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71).

And here (emphasis added) :

Quote

38.1.1

Attendance at Church Meetings

The Savior taught that His disciples should love their neighbors (see Matthew 22:39). Paul invited new converts to “no more be strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints” (Ephesians 2:19). The Savior also taught that Church members are not to “cast any one out from … public meetings, which are held before the world” (Doctrine and Covenants 46:3).

All are welcome to attend sacrament meeting, other Sunday meetings, and social events of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The presiding officer is responsible to ensure that all who attend are respectful of the sacred setting.

Those who attend should avoid disruptions or distractions contrary to worship or other purposes of the meeting. All age and behavior requirements of different Church meetings and events should be respected. That requires refraining from overt romantic behavior and from dress or grooming that causes distraction. It also precludes making political statements or speaking of sexual orientation or other personal characteristics in a way that detracts from meetings focused on the Savior.

And here (emphasis added) :

Quote

“One change to the Honor Code language that has raised questions was the removal of a section on ‘Homosexual Behavior,’” the letter stated. “The moral standards of the Church did not change with the recent release of the General Handbook or the updated Honor Code. There is and always has been more to living the Lord’s standard of a chaste and virtuous life than refraining from sexual relations outside of marriage. Lasting joy comes when we live the spirit as well as the letter of God’s laws.

“A foundational doctrine of the Restored gospel of Jesus Christ is that ‘marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children’ (The Family: A Proclamation to the World). Church leaders have long taught these principles.

“Same-sex romantic behavior cannot lead to eternal marriage and is therefore not compatible with the principles included in the Honor Code."

I think this last emphasized statement is applicable to all members of the Church, not just those bound by the Honor Code.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm sure those youth will be shunned in due time.

Applying the Law of Chastity is not reasonably characterized as "shunning."

There will always be boundary-pushing efforts.  What is the difference between "modest" and "immodest" dress?  

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Please tell me what the sin is for 2 same gender individuals slow dancing? If it appears evil for them, does slow dancing not also appear evil for hetero dancers? Maybe Footloose was on to something and we should just ban it outright. That would solve so many problems.

Or we could continue to be patient and compassionate, even when some folks are into boundary pushing, with the ultimate intention of undermining them.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But I would like to thank you for illustrating the double standard that exists in the church. It's helpful to remember.

There is no double standard in the Church.  Nobody is allowed to engage in homosexual behavior.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

I've seen this for years, nobody cares! Girls dance with Girls, who gives a whip.

As noted above, such pairings are typically construed as "non-romantic."

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

I've never seen inappropriate type dancing though.

I have.  By heterosexual couples.

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

I'll have you know that homosexual youth aren't the only ones who can inappropriately dance.

Yep.  By sheer numbers, there are far more "heterosexual" violations of the Law of Chastity than "same-sex" ones.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

If it is not, then there should be just as much concern for the ‘hidden’ same sex female couples dancing as there is for any same sex male couples I am guessing in your view?

Sure.  I'm for morals and virtue in both sexes.

[ttribe]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There is no double standard in the Church.  Nobody is allowed to engage in homosexual behavior.

This line of argument is no better now than it was the previous million times you've thrown it out there.

Edited April 19, 2022 by ttribe

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

each other’s embrace

There is a lot of variation in slow dancing.  I doubt slow dancing between girls “in each other’s embrace” would be acceptable in most stake chaperones’ opinions.

Quote

two boys slow dancing cheek-to-cheek

And girls slow dance cheek to cheek all the time?

Edited April 19, 2022 by Calm

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As noted above, such pairings are typically construed as "non-romantic."

That doesn't mean they are "non-romantic." As Calm has pointed out, it's far more likely than not that at least some of those girl-girl pairings are secretly romantic in nature.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But we should remember that all people are welcome at church...even members of the LGBTQ community...as long as they don't act like they're part of the LGBTQ community  

As long as folks hold themselves to the same standards of behavior that apply to everyone, they are welcome.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I snark...but it's true.

You snark, and it's only kinda sorta true.  It's more a caricature than characterization of what the Church is and how it functions.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

And it drives me nuts when people pretend that a gay couple is welcome at church, because they're not.

I think many feel that way.  Similarly, unmarried heterosexual cohabiting couples probably also don't feel "welcome" (particularly where one or both is a member of the Church).

We have room to improve, to be sure.  

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

IMO the culture of worthiness checking is very bad for the church (and church's in general). 

In terms of sheer numbers, there are far more "heterosexual" violations of the Law of Chastity.  It can be a tough commandment for anyone to obey in our increasingly sexualized world.  And yet . . . here we are.  Expected - commanded even - to obey it. 

Moreover, the Law of Chastity it is not secret.  It is not hidden.  It is not unknown.  It is, instead, simply unpopular in some quarters.  It goes against social trends that are erasing sexual ethics to an extreme extent, such that the only touchstone left appears to be consent (and even that one seems to be wobbly).  Virtually anything goes.  

I am grateful that the Church maintains its teachings about the Law of Chastity, which are in turn incorporated into the Honor Code.  There is now a huge, screeching, discordant chorus of voices that are essentially variations on Korihor's zero-standards, anything-goes, if-you-feel-like-it-do-it, "whatsoever a man did was no crime"-style culture of of hedonism in Alma 30 that, IMO, would be very bad for the Church:

Quote

16 Ye look forward and say that ye see a remission of your sins. But behold, it is the effect of a frenzied mind; and this derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers, which lead you away into a belief of things which are not so.

17 And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime.

18 And thus he did preach unto them, leading away the hearts of many, causing them to lift up their heads in their wickedness, yea, leading away many women, and also men, to commit whoredoms—telling them that when a man was dead, that was the end thereof.

I am grateful, then, that there is a clear, calm, firm voice speaking and reminding of the commandments of God.  This is the collective voice of prophets and apostles who are saying the same things that have been said by past prophets and apostles.  "Anything goes" does not work.  "If it feels good, do it" does not work.  "Whatsoever a man did was no crime" does not work.  There is real value in having external sources of wisdom and authority to function as a bulwark against evasion, rationalization, and so on.  A man in an unhappy marriage may very well have no feelings, or even acrimonious feelings, for his wife.  I get that, but that does not justify or rationalize adultery.  A young couple may have strong and real feelings for each other, but that does not justify or rationalize fornication.  And on and on and on.

The Law of Chastity is, I think, a very important doctrine in the Church.  There are all sorts of ways that an individual can lead a meaningful and beautiful life while adhering to it.  I acknowledge that people with SSA may have a hard time adhering to the commandments of God when society at large is telling them to ignore those commandments. I also acknowledge that lifelong celibacy can be difficult, particularly in the highly sexualized world we now live in (and again, numbers-wise there are far more heterosexual members struggling with it). Still, people can and do choose to obey God even when it is difficult.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

"Same sex pairing" is not the same thing as being gay (although there would be overlap on the Venn diagram). When Duncan says that this will not make someone 'more gay' or 'miraculously turn gay' he is absolutely correct.

Yep.  He's relying on absurd exaggeration and caricature, that's all.  Nobody but him has referenced "more gay or miraculously turn gay."  Classic strawman.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

But, the questions that never seems to be asked are - Why is this so serious in the LDS belief system? Why does the Book of Mormon elevate alleged sexual sin to be just below murder?

First, I reject the concept that sexual sin is "just below murder" in seriousness.

Second, I still think sexual sin is very serious.

Third, I think the answer to your question is likely rooted in or heavily influenced by Alma 39.

Fourth, I am not sure that the common approach to Alma 39 (v. 5 specifically) is altogether correct.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yep.  He's relying on absurd exaggeration and caricature, that's all.  Nobody but him has referenced "more gay or miraculously turn gay."  Classic strawman.

Thanks,

-Smac

Actually, JLHPROF provided a response that appeared to indicate that, in fact, someone could be turned gay. He later clarified that he did not mean that. So, really, your weighing in on the issue was unnecessary.

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

First, I reject the concept that sexual sin is "just below murder" in seriousness.

Second, I still think sexual sin is very serious.

Third, I think the answer to your question is likely rooted in or heavily influenced by Alma 39.

Fourth, I am not sure that the common approach to Alma 39 (v. 5 specifically) is altogether correct.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well, that would be news to me. What do you think it means, then?

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Well, that would be news to me. What do you think it means, then?

Possibility:

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/why-was-coriantons-sin-so-serious

Quote

They argue that Corianton’s sin was a composite of several elements, specifically sexual immorality by a priesthood leader that caused him to abandon his ministry and therefore neglect the spiritual needs of his flock, thereby leading them into apostasy. In effect, Corianton metaphorically “murdered” the testimonies of those he was commissioned to bring unto Christ when he was lured away by Isabel (cf. Alma 36:14).

This understanding of Corianton’s particular situation is strengthened by of the fact that in Alma 39:5, Alma speaks of “these things” (plural) being “an abomination in the sight of the Lord.” Apparently “these things” included not only Corianton committing sexual sin, but purposefully neglecting “the ministry wherewith [he] wast entrusted” (v. 4). Perhaps, then, “the more serious infraction was the resulting spiritual damage inflicted upon others who had witnessed Corianton’s sinful actions.”5

If Corianton’s only sin was committing sexually immoral acts, then it’s curious why Alma did not focus on that in the rest of the chapter. Instead of warning against sexual immorality, the remainder of Alma 39 focuses on such topics as “a description of the unpardonable sin—to knowingly deny the Holy Ghost.”6

 

Which makes a lot more sense to me.  Beating a person senseless seems a lot more vile than two kids fornicating. 
 

I also have read Isabel was a ritual prostitute for a pagan faith, Iow not only did Corianton forsake his own ministry to visit a prostitute, he went and participated in the sacred pagan rites with a pagan priestess.  Active apostasy coupled with immorality.  And how could he not be aware of the impact that would have on some of those he was to care for?  (Compare it to a missionary or branch president participating in sexual, Satanic rituals and what effect that might have on investigators and church members vs a young elder missionary having sex with a young investigator he was teaching).

Edited April 19, 2022 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

36 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

I don’t believe equating the same sex slow dancing of girls with the same sex slow dancing of boys is at all a valid comparison. Given that two men slow dancing in each other’s embrace has no precedence in American popular culture as something that would be viewed as asexual in nature, and not at all suggestive of romantic expression, it’s hard to imagine that the traditional non-suggestive slow dancing of two girls is in any way comparable to two boys slow dancing together. Additionally, it’s just as true that in today’s culture two men slow dancing together would instantly be understood to be an outward expression of same sex attraction.

When I was in school, two girls dancing together was viewed as acceptable because too many of the shy, clumsy and self conscious boys were reticent to ask a girl to dance. But I can guarantee that if two boys had ever slow danced together a near riot would have ensued. Do you really think that today two boys slow dancing in each other’s embrace would be seen a something non-indicative of same sex attraction?

And while it’s true that there are now plenty of pro same sex attraction members who would be delighted to see two boys slow dancing cheek-to-cheek, that doesn’t mean the general authorities would think it’s acceptable and in innocent harmony with the law of chastity.

Yes, all you say is quite true, much of it repeating what I said, but ignoring my question about boundaries.  Culture does change over time, and a good deal that was once acceptable is no longer.  On the margins of change, people see what they want to see, and (yes) something odd could cause an uproar.  There is plenty of hypocrisy in acceptance of one gender being allowed, but not the other.  At the same time, we seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room, which is the heterosexual kids slow-dancing together and maybe kissing and hugging, which is exactly what can lead to them having sex out of wedlock -- why are you reticent to discuss that?  What are the correct boundaries?  What in fact is "innocent harmony with the law of chastity"?

[bluebell]

I'm doubting that this is a new church policy and I also wouldn't be surprised if the stake presidents hear about it from the area authority (or whatever they are called now) and walks it back.

As long as church dances are seen as ways to get boys and girls to become comfortable with each other socially, in an effort to encourage heterosexual coupling at some point down the road, I think there is going to be pushback on anything that appears to encourage same sex coupling--regardless if the law of chastity is broken or not (and I'm not one who believes that SS romance, in and of itself, automatically constitutes breaking it.)--in the same way that heterosexual coupling is being encouraged.

As an aside, in this era, in the US at least, two girls slow dancing together platonically is not really a thing anymore.  Once gay and lesbian relationships became high profile, platonic same sex relationships that don't want to be perceived as romantic tend to be much less touchy than they were in previous generations.  This will be especially true in any stake that allows SS couples to dance because they are sexually attracted to each other.  How things used to be done 30-40 decades ago isn't all that relevant in this new normal.

I would imagine that the church would get rid of dances before it sanctioned SS coupling at them.  Guess we'll see.

[Nemesis]

None of this would have happened if they would have had me moderate the dance floor.  

 

-Nemesis 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Durangout said:

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.

Couldn’t the slippery slope work in the opposite direction? Permitting the slow dancing could lead the Church into legal trouble for not being even more permissive. 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, 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?

Gut reaction: Assuming this is true (and that someone asked the question for some reason as to what is permissible), what I find lacking in his judgment is that he didn't simply say, "The youth can dance with whomever they want to." If there is push-back, "What if they're same-sex attracted?" The response should be, "A) How would you know and is it your business?; B) the bishop(ric)s who know them better can counsel privately with them sooner or later on moral red flags as necessary." There do have to be adults in the room, even sometimes for the adults.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Nemesis said:

None of this would have happened if they would have had me moderate the dance floor.  

 

-Nemesis 

If only we could clone you to run the world.