New Church Policy?

[Robert F. Smith]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

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.  

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.  ..................

Indeed, this very question is tearing the United Methodist Church to shreds just now.  The traditionalists versus the progressives.

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

....................."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.  ...............

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...................

However, granting all that, there is an even more pernicious problem confronting Western society:  Anomie.  Men and women are engaging less and less with each other.   With anyone.  More people live alone than at any time in human history.  Not only are they not marrying and having children, they are not even hooking up or having ordinary friendships.  Accompanying this dismal fact is that fertility levels are dropping fast.  Men's testosterone levels have likewise been dropping for decades.  Today, 60% of college students are women, 40% men, with the number of men dropping fast.  Same sex relationships are the least of our worries.  The real question is whether there will be any relationships at all.

A healthy and active Latter-day Saint community is one answer, but surely not the only one, and that can last only for so long before it too falls prey to overwhelming anomie.

Edited April 19, 2022 by Robert F. Smith

[smac97]

42 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Quote

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.

And yet I have not seen a coherent rejoinder to it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

39 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Quote

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

That doesn't mean they are "non-romantic."

Hence my use of the words "typically construed as."

39 minutes ago, ttribe said:

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.

Sure.  And there are some married men who have "secretly" stepped out on their wives.  

Are you suggesting that "getting away with" inappropriate behavior is somehow a justification for such behavior?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Quote

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.

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.

As, it seems, was yours.

Thanks,

-Smac

[strappinglad]

I guess that I am an old , weird fuddy-duddy, but holding hands with a girl often had a romantic component to it. Slow dancing with a girl definitely did. I really didn't do much of either until I was called as a dance instructor for the ward's youth. That calling was so out of the blue. I was taught the cha-cha , the waltz , the jive , etc. etc. and then taught the dances to others. As some have said, 2 girls dancing together out of necessity was fine, while 2 boys doing so would be = ewwww !!

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

I have.  By heterosexual couples.

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

Thanks,

-Smac

exactley, so what the fuss is all about homosexual dancing is mind numbingly stupid

[Duncan]

51 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

"classic strawman" as opposed to "non classical"? whatever.  Does your kind of people honestly think that two women dancing with each other for two minutes is considered homosexual behaviour? I don't. Where I come from homosexual behaviour means you have sex with someone of the same gender. Apparently dancing now is sexual in nature and must be forbidden? Stupid. What are you people afraid of? that holding hands or dancing will turn someone gay? because it doesn't? i'va shaken hands, hugged men, shared the same bed with a man-it didn't turn me gay any.

[ttribe]

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

Possibility:

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

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, he went and participated in the ultimate rites of a pagan one. Apostasy coupled with immorality. 

Interesting. Would you agree with me, though, that this is a rather novel interpretation relative to the general membership? I can't count the number of times I sat in a Sunday School or Priesthood meeting where Alma 39:5 was discussed that didn't emphasize the seriousness of sexual sin relative to murder. I can recall with clarity sitting in a disciplinary hearing for a young man sent home from his mission early because it came out that he hadn't been truthful about his pre-mission sexual activity and one of the Bishop's counselors reading this very verse in a very finger-wagging manner at this young man.

[smac97]

53 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Quote

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.

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

If I were to sum up, I think Alma 39 is a reference to

• A) someone in a position to influence others to good or to evil (perhaps the nature of this sin - the one Alma is referencing - is such that it is usually committed by those under covenant, as their misconduct goes against the "greater light" they have received, such that they are under greater condemnation - see D&C 82:3 ("For of him unto whom much is given much is required; and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation.")),
• B) who commits serious sin/transgression (which is often, though not always, sexual in nature),
• C) who does so in the context of gross hypocrisy or pretensions toward virtue, and
• D) whose misconduct damages or destroys the faith of others, or leads them substantially astray, etc.

I have previously discussed this topic here, here and here.

A hypothetical: Consider a husband and father who is a member of the Church.  He pays tithing and holds callings and attends Church and gives every indication that he is a devout and faithful and obedient member of the Church.  Secretly, however, he A) is verbally and emotionally very cruel and abusive to his wive, B) he is often vicious toward and physically abuses his children, and C) in his business dealings he trades on his supposed piety and social standing to persuade others to invest in highly dubious (but, for him, highly lucrative) investment proposals.

In time, items A, B and C all come out.  There is no sexual component here, but was this man "in a position to influence others?"  Did he commit other types of "serious sins?"  Did he do so under a veil of hypocrisy, feigning piety and obedience to God?  Are any of his victims adversely affected  vis-à-vis their relationship with the Lord?  The Lord's Church?  The Lord's servants?

Note how in Alma 39:11 Alma summarizes the ramifications of Corianton's sin: "{H}ow great iniquity ye brought upon the Zoramites; for when they saw your conduct they would not believe my words.”

Note also the "amends" Alma recommends to Corianton in verses 12-13:

Quote

12 And now the Spirit of the Lord doth say unto me: Command thy children to do good, lest they lead away the hearts of many people to destruction; therefore I command you, my son, in the fear of God, that ye refrain from your iniquities;
13 That ye turn to the Lord with all your mind, might, and strength; that ye lead away the hearts of no more to do wickedly; but rather return unto them, and acknowledge your faults and that wrong which ye have done.

Alma does not seem to be saying "Go to the Zoramites and humiliate yourself before them."  Rather, the advice seems to be more along the lines of "Go to the Zoramites and try to undo the injury you have done to them by your misconduct."  The focus in verses 11-13 is mostly on the Zoramites, not on Corianton.  On the effect Corianton's misconduct had on them.

The thing described by Alma in verse 5 ("these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost") are the deliberately sinful and hypocritical behaviors of those under covenant that result in leading others astray.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 19, 2022 by smac97

[ttribe]

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And yet I have not seen a coherent rejoinder to it.

Thanks,

-Smac

You've seen plenty of coherent rejoinders; you just won't acknowledge or value the impact of biology on the population to whom the rule is being applied.

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hence my use of the words "typically construed as."

Sure.  And there are some married men who have "secretly" stepped out on their wives.  

Are you suggesting that "getting away with" inappropriate behavior is somehow a justification for such behavior?

Thanks,

-Smac

Not at all. I'm simply pointing out that your reasoning has more holes than a sieve.

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As, it seems, was yours.

Thanks,

-Smac

Oh, quit being petty. My response to JLHPROF was part of getting his clarification.

Edited April 19, 2022 by ttribe

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Interesting. Would you agree with me, though, that this is a rather novel interpretation relative to the general membership

The footnote in the scriptures leads to adultery, fornication and one other (sexual immorality?), so it is not an official teaching and unlikely to be familiar to most as far as I am aware. 
 

I forgot to mention the reason Isabel is thought to be a pagan priestess is her name, it is not a complete jump in the dark. The name is associated biblically iirc with apostate religion (Jezebel maybe).  It was a decade or more since I came across it. Hopefully Robert or someone knows what I am talking about if anyone wants more info on it as I don’t want to go digging into biblical sexual immorality today.  
 

added:  I did a quick search on Isabel, priestess, and Book of Mormon and did confirm the idea is from Hugh Nibley…so more like two or almost three decades since I encountered it (I had his four part BoM text, but purged it unless it is sitting in the last box to go to the FAIR book auction).  Not saying he is the only one who came up with the idea, but just that is the source of my comment.

Edited April 20, 2022 by Calm

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Quote

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.

"classic strawman" as opposed to "non classical"? whatever. 

"Classic" as in "serving as a standard, model, or guide."

7 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Does your kind of people

My "kind of people?"  What does that mean?

7 minutes ago, Duncan said:

honestly think that two women dancing with each other for two minutes is considered homosexual behaviour?

That depends, I suppose, on the intent and context.

7 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I don't. Where I come from homosexual behaviour means you have sex with someone of the same gender.

By your reckoning, is a married main who steps out on his wife but does not have sex with his girlfriend is not committing adultery?  He can date her, make out with her, touch her all over, but none of that is considered "heterosexual behavior" violative of the Law of Chastity because it is not "hav{ing} sex"?

7 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Apparently dancing now is sexual in nature and must be forbidden? Stupid.

Indeed.  Your strawman is quite stupid.

7 minutes ago, Duncan said:

What are you people afraid of?

"You people" being . . . ?

7 minutes ago, Duncan said:

that holding hands or dancing will turn someone gay? because it doesn't? i'va shaken hands, hugged men, shared the same bed with a man-it didn't turn me gay any.

Repeating a strawman doesn't improve on it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

The footnote in the scriptures leads to adultery, fornication and one other (sexual immorality?), so it is not an official teaching and unlikely to be familiar to most as far as I am aware. 
 

I forgot to mention the reason Isabel is thought to be a pagan priestess is her name, it is not a complete jump in the dark. The name is associated biblically iirc with apostate religion (Jezebel maybe).  It was a decade or more since I came across it. Hopefully Robert or someone knows what I am talking about if anyone wants more info on it as I don’t want to go digging into biblical sexual immorality today.  

Well, now, when you put it that way it suddenly becomes a much more interesting topic! 😉

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

You've seen plenty of coherent rejoinders;

I have not.

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

you just won't acknowledge or value the impact of biology on the population to whom the rule is being applied.

I do not understand what this means.  

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Not at all. I'm simply pointing out that your reasoning has more holes than a sieve.

And yet I have not seen a coherent rejoinder to it.

Nobody is allowed to commit adultery.  Nobody is allowed to commit fornication.  Nobody is allowed to engage in homosexual behavior.  

That some have "gotten away with it" doesn't matter.  Secretive and undetected violations of the Law of Chastity are . . . still violations of the Law of Chastity.  That way my point.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

I could handle this topic better from those opposed to homosexual people being accepted if the message were, “It must be super hard, I wish it were different, but since it’s not, we have to go with what we believe God wants and all we can do is what the prophets direct us to do.”
 

Instead, we get this vitriol from the likes of the original post.  It’s the type of attitude that pushes me more to the left of center because I want no association with the attitude.  If that has me in the Telestial later, I guess that’s on me. 

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Classic" as in "serving as a standard, model, or guide."

My "kind of people?"  What does that mean?

That depends, I suppose, on the intent and context.

By your reckoning, is a married main who steps out on his wife but does not have sex with his girlfriend is not committing adultery?  He can date her, make out with her, touch her all over, but none of that is considered "heterosexual behavior" violative of the Law of Chastity because it is not "hav{ing} sex"?

Indeed.  Your strawman is quite stupid.

"You people" being . . . ?

Repeating a strawman doesn't improve on it.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

you bask in your own intelligence, you'll figure it out. We are talking about a youth dance here not two married people making out with someone other than their spouses, but nice try though. You see pretty much any behaviour leading to homosexuality. I don't. I was just on FB and saw Sister Aburto of the RS General Presidency hugging a woman by your reckoning she's cheating on her husband. In bringing in a new strawman-making out with someone other than your spouse doesn't help your homosexual pillaging party. Two 15 guys years dancing with each other isn't homosexual behaviour, anymore than Sis. Aburto hugging a woman means she's cheating on her husband.

[Vanguard]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

 

you bask in your own intelligence, you'll figure it out. We are talking about a youth dance here not two married people making out with someone other than their spouses, but nice try though. You see pretty much any behaviour leading to homosexuality. I don't. I was just on FB and saw Sister Aburto of the RS General Presidency hugging a woman by your reckoning she's cheating on her husband. In bringing in a new strawman-making out with someone other than your spouse doesn't help your homosexual pillaging party. Two 15 guys years dancing with each other isn't homosexual behaviour, anymore than Sis. Aburto hugging a woman means she's cheating on her husband.

I don't agree. As has already been said, church dances are - among other things - an acceptable socialization ritual for the purpose of acclimating our youth to engaging the opposite sex in constructive ways, in part, for the purpose of eventually forming a married unit. IMO, it's not about 'behavior leading to homosexuality'. But why would we set up those who are already oriented in that way for what will inevitably be a hard fall once they realize their LGBT orientation is not viewed as being on par as hetero-orientations? Otherwise, your many complaints don't seem to hit the mark.   

[Vanguard]

8 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I could handle this topic better from those opposed to homosexual people being accepted if the message were, “It must be super hard, I wish it were different, but since it’s not, we have to go with what we believe God wants and all we can do is what the prophets direct us to do.”
 

Instead, we get this vitriol from the likes of the original post.  It’s the type of attitude that pushes me more to the left of center because I want no association with the attitude.  If that has me in the Telestial later, I guess that’s on me. 

I agree with you. I don't see how this issue - and oh my haven't we kicked this issue around! - is to be resolved. If the church is to hold to it's stated position on gay unions and such, it makes no sense to toy with encouraging its expression in dances and other similar venues.

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I don't agree. As has already been said, church dances are - among other things - an acceptable socialization ritual for the purpose of acclimating our youth to engaging the opposite sex in constructive ways, in part, for the purpose of eventually forming a married unit. IMO, it's not about 'behavior leading to homosexuality'. But why would we set up those who are already oriented in that way for what will inevitably be a hard fall once they realize their LGBT orientation is not viewed as being on par as hetero-orientations? Otherwise, your many complaints don't seem to hit the mark.   

aka gay youth can't even go to a church dance. Sell that all over town. There is no new church policy to answer the OP. The "hard fall" was set up by the church by the way and its sad to hear that we want gay people in the church but not anywhere near heterosexuals because they might rub off on them. It's just a dance, the Smac 1897's of the world need to get over themselves and stop with the witch hunt's to root out any all sexual behaviour. 

[carbon dioxide]

Should fathers be banned from slow dancing with their daughters at their weddings?   Sometimes heterosexual girls hold hands just because that is what girls do.  We need to stop micromanaging behavior.  Teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves.  The law of chastity is clear and everyone knows what is in bound and out of bounds if they are honest with themselves. 

[teddyaware]

15 minutes ago, Duncan said:

aka gay youth can't even go to a church dance. Sell that all over town. There is no new church policy to answer the OP. The "hard fall" was set up by the church by the way and its sad to hear that we want gay people in the church but not anywhere near heterosexuals because they might rub off on them. It's just a dance, the Smac 1897's of the world need to get over themselves and stop with the witch hunt's to root out any all sexual behaviour. 

Where, if anywhere, would you draw the line when it comes to homosexual behaviors being permitted for Church members?

[Vanguard]

25 minutes ago, Duncan said:

aka gay youth can't even go to a church dance. Sell that all over town. There is no new church policy to answer the OP. The "hard fall" was set up by the church by the way and its sad to hear that we want gay people in the church but not anywhere near heterosexuals because they might rub off on them. It's just a dance, the Smac 1897's of the world need to get over themselves and stop with the witch hunt's to root out any all sexual behaviour. 

You seem to be addressing something that has not been expressed in this thread. I don't know of anyone who is suggesting gay youth cannot come to a dance or that they will 'rub off' on heterosexuals?

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Where, if anywhere, would you draw the line when it comes to homosexual behaviors being permitted for Church members?

sex

do you think the Brethren expressing love for each other means that they are all homosexuals?

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

You seem to be addressing something that has not been expressed in this thread. I don't know of anyone who is suggesting gay youth cannot come to a dance or that they will 'rub off' on heterosexuals?

read the OP, Rongo and JHLPROF's posts

[Vanguard]

12 minutes ago, Duncan said:

read the OP, Rongo and JHLPROF's posts

A couple of things - though I do not care for the tenor of the opening post, where does he (or rongo or JHLPROF) state that gay youth cannot come to dances or that they will 'rub off' on heterosexuals? And secondly, how are you pulling smac into this? Where did he state such a thing? Duncan - I think you're all over the board on this one. This issue is already very difficult - no need to conflate what others are saying. 

Edited April 20, 2022 by Vanguard