New Church Policy?

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

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.

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.  

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:

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

No- they are not welcome. A straight couple could come to church and hold hands. They could go to a dance and actually dance. LGBTQ cannot hold hands or dance etc.

The difference between LGBTQ and hetero cohabitating couples is that there is a path forward for the straight couple. The only path for the LGBTQ is a lifetime of loneliness where the church wouldn't even allow them to date chastely because apparently any expression of SSA is somehow a violation of the LOC

 

[HappyJackWagon]

14 hours ago, teddyaware said:

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

It's hard to believe this is a serious question.

There is a Law of Chastity which prohibits sxual relationship outside the bonds of legal matrimony. 

That would seem like a reasonable line for both straight and gay. No?

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Buckeye said:

Count me as one of those progressives. My grandparents and parents were taught that interracial marriage was sin. But they watched the good fruit of those marriages, prayed for direction, and repented. 

My generation is doing the same with gay marriage. Evil trees do not produce good fruit. As I’ve seen their fruit is good, I’ve prayed for direction and repented. That repentance has brought me enormous peace on an issue that still troubles so many members. The divine intervention is there for all who seek it. 

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

[rongo]

2 hours ago, Buckeye said:

Another trend is there are a lot fewer slow dances than when I was a youth. Maybe 5-6 per dance. Also fewer line dances. 

Completely aside from the main topic here, I find the variation in approaches to youth dances to be fascinating. My former stake (we moved a month ago, but had been in that stake for ca. 20 years) had a lot of line/group dances (which made it easy for the shy kids and the wallflowers) and a lot of slow dances (which offered lots of opportunities to ask different people to dance, and slow dances are foolproof [deacon shuffle] ). Very few fast dances (which are intimidating for the shy kids, wallflowers, and people who feel totally self-conscious freestyling). It sounds like your stake's approach would be uncomfortable for a lot of those youth (and maybe/probably vice versa). 

Area roulette strikes again!  

[HappyJackWagon]

The thing that strikes me as odd in this conversation, and frankly every other conversation about enforcing what is perceived as righteousness and worthiness, is that in a church that believes in multiple glories and believes in repentance, and even post-mortal repentance, and eternal progression, there is so much reliance on personal judgement in the here and now. The LDS church should be the most open, most welcoming churches in the world because the possibility of setting ones life right with God is always available, even in the next life. We have teachings such as "the eye of the shepherd is upon them" which states children of sealed couple will never be lost. There is always hope so there really is no need to panic.

There is every reason to hope for good results for everyone who accepts Christ. Yet, instead of living according to that hope many members seem to act like eternal damnation will follow everyone who makes a mistake or sins in a way they find particularly grievous. To me, that sounds like individuals who don't fully accept the grace of Christ or the gospel of repentance. They would rather judge now and set rules to prevent anyone from making any mistake, at the risk of alienating people completely from a knowledge of Christ.

Yep- IMO many on this board and the church in general is letting the tail wag the dog. Instead, everyone could literally focus on their own personal relationship with deity. No judgement of others is required for that. We each could also focus on the 2nd commandment of loving our neighbors. No judgement required for that either. Instead, many seem to discount the 2 great commandments in favor of judgement and therefore exclusion which is, admittedly based on a simple and incomplete understanding of God.

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Until it's Church wide.  Today's stake president is tomorrow's apostle.  It's the thought process that's changing.

And that is a wonderful thing!

[teddyaware]

29 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's hard to believe this is a serious question.

There is a Law of Chastity which prohibits sxual relationship outside the bonds of legal matrimony. 

That would seem like a reasonable line for both straight and gay. No?

So am I correct when I say that it isn’t until the irrevocable law of chastity, as recently powerfully reiterated by President Oaks, is somehow sidestepped and CHANGED to allow for sexual relations between ‘married’ individuals of the same same sex that you will draw the line? 

[Durangout]

18 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So judge people so they know what is really bad? 

And what happens if they don't get that message? They accept people who commit sins and inadvertently keep the 2nd great commandment? Or perhaps they sin themselves. OK. So then what?

They either repent or continue to sin. If they continue to sin perhaps they repent later. If they don't repent later perhaps they repent in the next life and continue progression eternally? So then what? The unworthiest of sinners take a little extra time at the dawn of eternity to be found worthy of God.

The idea that God needs us to pass earthly judgement so that people are already worthy when they come to him is impossible. We will all die sinners. We can choose to believe that our sins are less abhorrent to God than others but regardless post-life repentance will be necessary so it seems like the only benefit of judging people now is a possible head-start in eternity.

On the other hand, we judge people now, pretending to understand God's will and judgement, and turn people away from Jesus, thus delaying their eternal progression whilst simultaneously failing to follow the 2nd great commandment.

About a month ago, E Christofferson gave an excellent address at BYU in which he discussed one of the great problems in The Church and wirld today.  He explained that the worldly have supplanted the 1st Great Commandment for the 2nd Great Commandment.  So much so that they accept sin in the name of love.  Which of course is not love at all.  

Many I see here would benefit from it.

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/d-todd-christofferson/the-first-commandment-first/

[Ragerunner]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I grew up where the only relationships ever portrayed in books, movies, the media, and church were heterosexual relationships. A gay relationship was disgusting, never talked about in polite company and the idea of living a happy and fulfilling life with someone you loved, if you were gay was not even remotely possible.  The book most commonly quoted was by Spencer W. Kimball, who called all homosexuals abominations and portrayed every single one of us as being vile and evil whether they acted upon it or not.  I grew up at a time where police would raid bars that the suspected gay men gathered, beat them with billy clubs and drag them off to jail on a regular basis even  in San Francisco.  It was totally acceptable to bully a kid that was even suspected of being gay.  You could beat them up and never get in trouble for it.  It was a time where the worst insult you could give someone was to call them gay. I grew up at a time where civil rights for gays didn't exist.  

ah, the good old days.

My concern is there are political and religious forces looking to bring back ‘those good old day’ of hate. 

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

So am I correct when I say that it isn’t until the irrevocable law of chastity, as recently powerfully reiterated by President Oaks, is somehow sidestepped and CHANGED to allow for sexual relations between ‘married’ individuals of the same same sex that you will draw the line? 

Man- that sentence makes a lot of twists and turns.

Is this "irrevocable LoC" of which you speak the same LoC that has changed multiple times regarding polygamy and was stated quite simply as sxual relationships between those who are legally married. I know that definition has recently been changed again, but... come on.

At its most basic the LoC prohibits unauthorized sxual relationship. So if there is no sxual relationship (whether gay or straight) then it would seem the LoC is being kept. But what you seem to be implying is that the LoC expands beyond just sxual relationships. I believe you and the church are the ones changing the wording to match your current needs.

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, Durangout said:

About a month ago, E Christofferson gave an excellent address at BYU in which he discussed one of the great problems in The Church and wirld today.  He explained that the worldly have supplanted the 1st Great Commandment for the 2nd Great Commandment.  So much so that they accept sin in the name of love.  Which of course is not love at all.  

Many I see here would benefit from it.

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/d-todd-christofferson/the-first-commandment-first/

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.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No- they are not welcome.

Yes, they are.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

A straight couple could come to church and hold hands. They could go to a dance and actually dance. LGBTQ cannot hold hands or dance etc.

"LGBTQ" are asked to follow the same moral and behavioral standards as everyone else.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The difference between LGBTQ and hetero cohabitating couples is that there is a path forward for the straight couple.

A distinction without a difference.  The "path forward" is . . . a choice.  An individual can choose to obey the commandments, or not.

And in any event, everyone is welcome to attend.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The only path for the LGBTQ is a lifetime of loneliness

What a strange thing to hear from the "it's not just about sex" crowd.

There are plenty of heterosexual people who are never-married, divorced or widowed.  They too are welcome in the Church.  They don't face a "lifetime of loneliness" because they cannot engage in sexual behavior or enter into prohibited forms of marriage.

And again, everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, is constrained from these things.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

where the church wouldn't even allow them to date chastely because apparently any expression of SSA is somehow a violation of the LOC

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 a violation of the Law of Chastity?  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[CA Steve]

23 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

So am I correct when I say that it isn’t until the irrevocable law of chastity, as recently powerfully reiterated by President Oaks, is somehow sidestepped and CHANGED to allow for sexual relations between ‘married’ individuals of the same same sex that you will draw the line? 

No.

And you might educate yourself (I could stop there) about a logical fallacy called moving the goal posts.

Here's an easy one for you.

Can any two people hold hands without breaking any of God's laws?

[filovirus]

30 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The thing that strikes me as odd in this conversation, and frankly every other conversation about enforcing what is perceived as righteousness and worthiness, is that in a church that believes in multiple glories and believes in repentance, and even post-mortal repentance, and eternal progression, there is so much reliance on personal judgement in the here and now. The LDS church should be the most open, most welcoming churches in the world because the possibility of setting ones life right with God is always available, even in the next life. We have teachings such as "the eye of the shepherd is upon them" which states children of sealed couple will never be lost. There is always hope so there really is no need to panic.

There is every reason to hope for good results for everyone who accepts Christ. Yet, instead of living according to that hope many members seem to act like eternal damnation will follow everyone who makes a mistake or sins in a way they find particularly grievous. To me, that sounds like individuals who don't fully accept the grace of Christ or the gospel of repentance. They would rather judge now and set rules to prevent anyone from making any mistake, at the risk of alienating people completely from a knowledge of Christ.

Yep- IMO many on this board and the church in general is letting the tail wag the dog. Instead, everyone could literally focus on their own personal relationship with deity. No judgement of others is required for that. We each could also focus on the 2nd commandment of loving our neighbors. No judgement required for that either. Instead, many seem to discount the 2 great commandments in favor of judgement and therefore exclusion which is, admittedly based on a simple and incomplete understanding of God.

I gave you a thumbs up. I agree with almost everything in this post. I just want to push back a little bit. We actually do have judges in the Church. They are the stake presidents and bishops. I think they have the right to choose which boundaries should and should not be set up at church dances. They may get pushback from higher up. And there do need to be boundaries set other than just "Thou shalt not commit adultery". I think in all fairness this is a tricky situation, because we aren't sure yet what those boundaries should be at church dances for SS attraction. Just look at all the different responses in this thread alone.

At what point are we allowing vs. fostering SS feelings? We are taught that SS marriages do not lead to eternal salvation, so I don't think we should be fostering a path that leads to lesser blessings.

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, filovirus said:

I gave you a thumbs up. I agree with almost everything in this post. I just want to push back a little bit. We actually do have judges in the Church. They are the stake presidents and bishops. I think they have the right to choose which boundaries should and should not be set up at church dances. They may get pushback from higher up. And there do need to be boundaries set other than just "Thou shalt not commit adultery". I think in all fairness this is a tricky situation, because we aren't sure yet what those boundaries should be at church dances for SS attraction. Just look at all the different responses in this thread alone.

At what point are we allowing vs. fostering SS feelings? We are taught that SS marriages do not lead to eternal salvation, so I don't think we should be fostering a path that leads to lesser blessings.

@HappyJackWagon is a former Bishop. Pretty sure he knows how that office works.

[Durangout]

18 hours ago, ttribe said:

Because it offends their (JLHProf and rongo) masculinity and makes them uncomfortable. That's the real answer, any way.

Under the corrupted society in which we find ourselves, both male and female same-sex dancing should be banned in The Church.  This is really very simple.  Anything else is promoting sinful behavior.  I realize that not all people think that homosexual relations are sinful, but that in and of it’s self is proof that we do live in a corrupted society.

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, they are.

"LGBTQ" are asked to follow the same moral and behavioral standards as everyone else.

A distinction without a difference.  The "path forward" is . . . a choice.  An individual can choose to obey the commandments, or not.

And in any event, everyone is welcome to attend.

What a strange thing to hear from the "it's not just about sex" crowd.

There are plenty of heterosexual people who are never-married, divorced or widowed.  They too are welcome in the Church.  They don't face a "lifetime of loneliness" because they cannot engage in sexual behavior or enter into prohibited forms of marriage.

And again, everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, is constrained from these things.

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 a violation of the Law of Chastity?  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Have you been paying attention to this thread? The OP bemoans the fact that LGBTQ individuals may dance. It's been discussed whether or not LGBTQ holding hands is breaking the LoC and you claim the behavioral standards are the same for both straight and gay. It feels like you are being purposefully obtuse.

They are welcome to attend as long as they don't act gay in any way. So in essence they are being told "come to church. you're welcome here. just don't put your arm around your partner, or dance with them, or hold hands because you are sinning and creating acceptance of sin which is also a sin."

Quote

What a strange thing to hear from the "it's not just about sex" crowd.

Again. Purposefully obtuse. That is the church's answer to them. Not mine. If I'm wrong, tell me how a SS couple can repent (according to the church) without living a life of loneliness.

 

You ask if a man who hasn't had sx with his non-wife has committed adultery. No. Adultery requires sx. But that doesn't mean he hasn't betrayed her trust with an emotional affair.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's nice that you think the BYU honor code applies to everyone but I think that is a You thing.

I think the principles underlying the Honor Code that are derived from the Law of Chastity apply to everyone.  That's not must a Me thing.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Your comment about applying the LoC doesn't make any sense when the LoC isn't being violated.

With respect, I think reasonable minds can disagree about that.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Hand holding is not a violation.  Dancing does not break the LoC Etc.

A married man stepping out on his wife, flirting, holding hands with, dancing with, making out with, etc. a woman not his wife.  This behavior would not be seen as "adultery" (or at least some inchoate form of it or incremental step toward it)?

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Hence the Double Standard.

There is no double standard.  Nobody is allowed to engage in homosexual behavior, or adultery, or fornication.  Nobody.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You (and many others) seem to broaden the LoC to anything that could be considered gay.  The problem is that isn't the LoC.

You (and many others) seem to want a pharisaical approach to the Law of Chastity.  As if it is a black-and-white, all-or-nothing kind of thing.

A married man can step out on his wife.  He can flirt with other women.  He can date them.  He can hold hands with them.  He can dance romantically with them.  He can make out with them.  He can touch their bodies.  He can do anything he wants except have penetrative sex with them, and not violate the Law of Chastity.  None of those things - by your reasoning - "could be considered" adulterous.

Is that a fair characterization of your position?

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That is an ad hoc of rules and policies being enforced on gay people.

Not so.  There is nothing "ad hoc" about the prohibition against "homosexual behavior."

The only thing "ad hoc" I see is the pharisaical stuff you are trotting out.  

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Your comment about patience and compassion are funny because they only apply to straight peoples lack of acceptance of LGBTQ people. 

I get that you and yours want to drive wedges between gay Latter-day Saints and their Church, and their fellow members.

I also get that you and yours are, sadly, often succeeding at this.  But not always.  When the Church is allowed to speak for itself, things can and do change.  

I previously laid out my thoughts on this topic here, in response to California Boy's claim that he is "really interested in what members that object to how this issues is being brought up mostly by other members like {Ryan} Reynolds think should happen":

Quote

Let's stop grossly mischaracterizing the Church's teachings and policies regarding LGBT folks.

Let's stop with the vitriolic and over-the-top rhetoric.

Let's stop with the efforts by you and yours to alienate young gay Latter-day Saints from their faith and their families by asserting - falsely - that we hate them, that we hate gay people and their children.

Let's stop putting the worst possible spin imaginable on the policy changes.

Let's stop having enemies and critics of the Church presume to speak for the Church to LDS children about what the Church teaches and believes, and let's stop saying horrible and false things to those children about the Church's teachings.

Let's stop having enemies and critics of the Church putting false words into the mouths of the leaders of the Church.

Quit working nonstop to publicly foment anger about and discord within and hate against the Church.

Let's give the Church some room to, you know, teach what it sincerely believes, and then let those teachings stand (or fall) on their merits.

Let's give the Church room and time to work with the policy changes (much as it has - with generalized success - with its nearly-identical policies regarding children of polygamous families).

I said all this in 2018.  Not much has changed.  You and yours continue to do, well, pretty much all of these things.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ragerunner]

39 minutes ago, Durangout said:

About a month ago, E Christofferson gave an excellent address at BYU in which he discussed one of the great problems in The Church and wirld today.  He explained that the worldly have supplanted the 1st Great Commandment for the 2nd Great Commandment.  So much so that they accept sin in the name of love.  Which of course is not love at all.  

Many I see here would benefit from it.

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/d-todd-christofferson/the-first-commandment-first/

The focus of this talk is how to live the first great commandment.

All the things he list are about focusing on our own individual self, not on trying to force others in our society to live the same standard that we may have set individually.

When dealing with others in society (the second great commandment) we should want to defend their agency as we would defend our own.

Members of the LDS church (because of our church’s historical experiences with politics and laws in the US) should be extremely concerned with laws/politics that attempt to force certain religious views/opinions.

We have plenty of history to show that doesn’t end well. Once these forces pick off some of the ‘low hanging’ apples we may be next.

Rolling back basic human rights/equality for some will only weaken our own rights.

Edited April 20, 2022 by Ragerunner

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, Durangout said:

Under the corrupted society in which we find ourselves, both male and female same-sex dancing should be banned in The Church.  This is really very simple.  Anything else is promoting sinful behavior.  I realize that not all people think that homosexual relations are sinful, but that in and of it’s self is proof that we do live in a corrupted society.

Interracial relationships were once considered sinful; would you like to go back to those days, as well?

[smac97]

6 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

There never was any double standard in the Church.  Nobody was allowed to engage in interracial romantic behaviors with individuals with negro blood, and everybody (both whites and blacks) were equally required to marry someone only of their own race.

See? No double standards there!

I love me a good, steaming cup of caricature and falsehoods in the morning.

First, the substance of your snideness is substantively false and misleading.  From FAIR:

Quote

Question: Is interracial marriage prohibited or condemned within the Church?

Spencer Kimball prior to the lifting of the priesthood ban: "There is no condemnation," but rather concerns about "the difficulty…in interrace marriages."

In an address to Native American students at BYU in January 1965, then-Elder Spencer W. Kimball explained that there is no condemnation of interracial marriage:

Now, the brethren feel that it is not the wisest thing to cross racial lines in dating and marrying. There is no condemnation. We have had some of our fine young people who have crossed the [racial] lines. We hope they will be very happy, but experience of the brethren through a hundred years has proved to us that marriage is a very difficult thing under any circumstances and the difficulty increases in interrace marriages.^[1]

Two years prior to the lifting of the priesthood ban, Spencer W. Kimball told a group of BYU students and faculty:

we recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background. Some of these are not an absolute necessity, but preferred; and above all, the same religious background, without question. In spite of the most favorable matings, the evil one still takes a monumental toll and is the cause for many broken homes and frustrated lives.^[2]

Here inter-racial marriage is not recommended, but not as an absolute standard—it is grouped with other differences (such as socio-economic) which might make marriage harder, but not as absolutely necessary to success as sharing the same beliefs.

The Supreme Court declared anti-miscegenation laws in the 16 remaining states that still had them unconstitutional in 1967.

Church spokesman after the lifting of the priesthood ban: "So there is no ban on interracial marriage"

After the priesthood ban was lifted, church spokesman Don LeFevre stated:

So there is no ban on interracial marriage. If a black partner contemplating marriage is worthy of going to the Temple, nobody's going to stop him... if he's ready to go to the Temple, obviously he may go with the blessings of the church."^[3]

The Church Handbook of Instructions say nothing concerning interracial marriages

On the LDS Church website, Dr. Robert Millet writes:

[T]he Church Handbook of Instructions... is the guide for all Church leaders on doctrine and practice. There is, in fact, no mention whatsoever in this handbook concerning interracial marriages. In addition, having served as a Church leader for almost 30 years, I can also certify that I have never received official verbal instructions condemning marriages between black and white members.^[4]

There have been leaders that have openly opposed miscegenation in any form

It is important to note that their have been leaders that have voiced their opinion against interracial marriage.

Among leaders that have been opposed to it in any form are Brigham Young, Mark E. Peterson, George Q. Cannon,^[5]J. Reuben Clark,^[6] Bruce R. McConkie,^[7] and Delbert Stapley.^[8]

Church leaders have generally followed the pattern of soft discouragement like that exhibited in Spencer W. Kimball's 1965 comment following the lifting of the priesthood and temple restrictions in 1978.

Second, I have long been on record that the Priesthood Ban lacks any known or established revelatory provenance, and that it was instead a policy that over the course of many years became sufficiently entrenched that it required a revelation to dislodge it.  I am very happy about that.

Third, the proscriptions pertaining to the Law of Chastity and marriage are, very much unlike the priesthood ban, set forth in the scriptures and in the continuing counsel of past and current prophets and apostles.

Fourth, if and when we receive a revelation about the Law of Chastity that alters it so as to ratify homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage, I will give the matter due consideration and, assuming I receive spiritual confirmation as to the truthfulness of the revelation, I will raise my hand to the square and sustain it.  Candidly, though, I just don't see this happening.  I don't think same-sex relationships are intended to be sexual/romantic.  I just don't see it as part of the Plan.  There is no indication anywhere that such behavior is acceptable to God, or will be.  And there is ample evidence that such behaviors are not acceptable to God.

Thanks,

-Smac 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yet, instead of living according to that hope many members seem to act like eternal damnation will follow everyone who makes a mistake or sins in a way they find particularly grievous. To me, that sounds like individuals who don't fully accept the grace of Christ or the gospel of repentance.

I think it was a real misstep to adapt the term “damnation” to anything that was less than a perfect oneness with God the Father in the next life.  How can a kingdom of glory be damnation, condemnation?  Even those in the Celestial Kingdom are labeled damned if they are not exalted.*** It makes no sense to me given the origin of the word.  

Instead of teaching joy in the eternities, we have created a sense that every state besides exaltation is a state of condemnation, even hellish, quite contrary to the doctrine that every heaven is a mansion prepared by God, every heaven a blessing and glory of God where there is no evil or sin and no eternal burning in hell.  All punishment and necessary sanctification is resolved before the final judgment and our being blessed, not cursed, with an eternal life in the appropriate heaven unless sons of perdition.

It is all very well to give the definition of “spiritual separation from God”, but “damnation” has the baggage of hellfire and brimstone and eternal suffering attached to it due to it is not a uniquely Latter-day Saint term even if we act like it is.

Fear driven progress will most likely end up short of exaltation imo as exaltation requires embracing God, not just rejection of evil out of fear of punishment.  And wanting exaltation out of a desire to avoid damnation isn’t going to provide the motivation to love others as is needed to be godly and to become one with God.  Fear is too self centered, imo.

***”The state of being stopped in one’s progress and denied access to the presence of God and His glory. Damnation exists in varying degrees. All who do not obtain the fulness of celestial exaltation will to some degree be limited in their progress and privileges, and they will be damned to that extent.” (From the church website under “Damnation”.)

Edited April 20, 2022 by Calm

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Have you been paying attention to this thread?

Womewhat.

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The OP bemoans the fact that LGBTQ individuals may dance.

If the OP bemoaned married men stepping out on their wives (but not having sex), would you find that objectionable too?

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's been discussed whether or not LGBTQ holding hands is breaking the LoC and you claim the behavioral standards are the same for both straight and gay. It feels like you are being purposefully obtuse.

I am not.

The same behavior standards apply to everyone.  No adultery.  No fornication.  No homosexual behavior.

You can play pharisaical games all you want, but I don't think they work.  The Law of Chastity is, like virtually every other commandment, based more on principles and less on "bright line rules."  Thus a married man cannot credibly say "Yes, I step out on my wife.  I have a hot girlfriend.  We hold hands, kiss, dance romantically, and so on.  But we don't have sex, so that's not adultery.  I am not violating the Law of Chastity."

There are all sorts of urban legends about BYU students trying to play with semantic distinctions and hypotheticals that would allow them to engage in sexual behavior and still not violate the Honor Code.  I can't help but wonder if folks like you are fans and advocates of such efforts.  

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

They are welcome to attend as long as they don't act gay in any way.

"Act gay?"  Stereotype, much?

Nobody is allowed to engage in homosexual behavior.  Sexual orientation does not matter a whit.  Same goes for adultery and fornication.  We are all held to the same standard.

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You ask if a man who hasn't had sx with his non-wife has committed adultery. No. Adultery requires sx. But that doesn't mean he hasn't betrayed her trust with an emotional affair.

So sexual behaviors that do not includes penetrative sex are not violations of the Law of Chastity?  That's your position?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bernard Gui]

This, more than any other issue, appears to be so divisive that our hope to be "one" may not be attainable in the foreseeable future. It's sad that the fundamental nature of the sacred relationship between man and woman is at the center of the divide.

Edited April 20, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[HappyJackWagon]

46 minutes ago, filovirus said:

I gave you a thumbs up. I agree with almost everything in this post. I just want to push back a little bit. We actually do have judges in the Church. They are the stake presidents and bishops. I think they have the right to choose which boundaries should and should not be set up at church dances. They may get pushback from higher up. And there do need to be boundaries set other than just "Thou shalt not commit adultery". I think in all fairness this is a tricky situation, because we aren't sure yet what those boundaries should be at church dances for SS attraction. Just look at all the different responses in this thread alone.

At what point are we allowing vs. fostering SS feelings? We are taught that SS marriages do not lead to eternal salvation, so I don't think we should be fostering a path that leads to lesser blessings.

Thank you for your response. I too shall push back a little  

For an LGBTQ person, what path does the church foster? What are their options? It seems the only church approved option would be to do absolutely nothing romantic in life and live and die alone. No hand holding, kissing, arms around the back. No emotional intimacy. Be alone. That's it. What else does the church have to offer LGBTQ persons? Serious question because i can't think of anything the church offers.

Also, while I'd agree that the church teaches such things I would argue that the church and its leaders have no knowledge of such things. They are making the best educated guesses they can based on their culture and history but as has been pointed out many times, there is NO revelation about how/where LGBTQ individuals or couples fit into Gods plan of happiness.