New Church Policy?

[JLHPROF]

26 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yes of course This is why the Church initially adopted the awful November 2015 policy. The were ticked that the SC allowed same sex marriage nationally. So they wanted to make sure members did not become tolerant.  But then they back peddled.  
Maybe but I doubt it.
And make people like you rage, wring your hands and gnash your teeth.

Dude you can do whatever you want in your church.  But don't suppose anyone needs to accept your religion's definition of sin because you think God says so.  YOu need more than that.  But I know conservative religious people are happy to impose what they think God says on the general public.

So correct. I do not believe homosexual relations are sinful.
What same religion?

Yes I know you think you know better than even your leaders. As I have said before we all have a straw that will break our spiritual backs apparently.

That's a lot of parsing.  You've been hanging around with with SMAC. 

I want to be clear that I'm neither raging nor wringing my hands nor gnashing my teeth.  I am not angry about this in any way.
It's simply wrong.  If I allowed myself to get upset every time someone does something wrong, even within the membership, I'd give myself an aneurysm.
And frankly, I'm far more upset by the doctrines and ordinances of the gospel that get altered than I am by the declining morality.  Morals are between individuals and God.  Doctrine and ordinance restored for the last time are far more significant, even the most moral person can't return to God without obeying his laws and ordinances.

I am however curious just how far the Lord will allow the Church to regress from the truths restored to Joseph Smith before he steps in.  I've had plenty of debates with those who think SSM will never be allowed in the Church.
I think the Church will eventually claim that revelation.  But it may be the last straw for the Lord if they do.
So yes, those faithful members who are posting here will likely get their wish one day.  And it won't anger me any more than I was before.  I've already said previously that while I'm still a believer I've just about had it with the so-called progress and continuing revelation.

The day will probably come when my inactivity will become complete.

 

[Buckeye]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

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? 

I was referencing the scriptural instruction to not call good things evil. 
 

From your post, can I take it that you agree gay marriages are good (even if not best)? That would be a welcome development and one I would hope to see in the church. My heterosexual marriage/sealing is good too but no where near celestial yet. I can’t expect better fruit from gay marriages than from my own. 
 

In the long run, do you think gay people stay gay? If so, I’d recommend gay marriage to them all since none of them will qualify for exaltation under current church doctrine. Either their orientation changes or the doctrine changes. It’s apparent the church has given up on changing anyones orientation in this life.
 

So my honest answer for gay members is to find the most happiness in this life and continue searching in the next. If we find that orientations can change in the next then we can revisit getting back on the covenant path then. But inasmuch as the covenant path only offers isolation here it’s not a plan of happiness for gay members. 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours 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?

No.

It is no longer "legal matrimony" it is matrimony within the LAW, yes, but the law of God.

Get thee to the temple. 

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

If a married man is "romantically attracted to" someone other than his wife, those feelings do not operate to exempt him from the Law of Chastity.

If an unmarried woman is sexually attracted to her boyfriend, those feelings do not operate to exempt her from the Law of Chastity.

And so it goes.  The Law of Chastity prohibits adultery.  And fornication.  And homosexual behavior.  For everyone.  

But the law of chastity is not just about who you can’t have sex with, it is also about who you can have sex with, how you can become sexually fulfilled in appropriate ways and it is there it is unbalanced because it only allows one to marry the opposite sex and those who are solely attracted to the same sex have no desire to do so, they cannot become sexually fulfilled with someone of the opposite sex (since I believe in sexual fluidity, this doesn’t fully address my understanding, but there is a percentage of those who experience attraction to the same sex that are not only limited to that attraction, they are not sexually fluid in their lifetime either so at a simplified level, this group has no opportunity to find someone they are sexually attracted to within the bounds of the law of chastity in this life).

An analogy could be a college cafeteria.  It offers a perfectly balanced nutritional meal, the same identical one to everyone.  You can only have one serving of each during dinner hours.  There are those who protest that while they like what is offered and they take a selection of each offering, they want more (adultery).  It is reasonable to turn these down because all their needs are filled and any more will provide them with too many calories and this be unhealthy for them. There are those who want to eat the food and plan to as soon as they can get there, they may be having car trouble though; no need to change because it is what is desired even though they can’t eat it yet (single in mortality, but straight in attraction).  Arrangements will be made though for them to eat when they get there since they didn’t have a choice of attending during dinner hours.  There are those who want to eat before mealtime; it makes sense to deny them that opportunity because eating before you are physically hungry is not healthy (fornication).  Then there are those who want swordfish instead of the salmon that is offered, but are content to eat at the same time and in the same amounts so they don’t have excessive calories.  The ones following the cafeteria nutritionist’s instructions believe eating the swordfish as unhealthy in and of itself (potentially too much mercury) and so refuse to offer as a substitute.  However, some of those who want the swordfish dislike the taste of tilapia so much it makes them ill to eat it (it is debated whether this is an actual allergy to tilapia or a psychosomatic disorder).  Some of this group also have their own ways of testing swordfish and by their measures it is not dangerous to consume. Since those who are made ill by the tilapia go without this important daily protein, their diet and calorie intake isn’t as healthy as those who consume all the selections offered.

To claim the menu is balanced for all ignores the fact that some are currently unable to eat an major portion of it.  They can certainly survive without it, but they will not have the chance to be as healthy as those who eat it all.  For the group refusing tilapia in the belief it will harm them, to offer swordfish only may still indeed have their best interests at heart because of the belief the swordfish is toxic with mercury and it is more dangerous to consume than to go without any fish at all, but given consuming the tilapia also makes these diners ill, it cannot be claimed the meal is perfectly balanced for them simply because they have the same options in front of them as everyone else.

Edited April 20, 2022 by Calm

[bluebell]

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Feelings are not determinative here.  If a married man is "romantically attracted to" someone other than his wife, those feelings do not operate to exempt him from the Law of Chastity.

If an unmarried woman is sexually attracted to her boyfriend, those feelings do not operate to exempt her from the Law of Chastity.

And so it goes.  The Law of Chastity prohibits adultery.  And fornication.  And homosexual behavior.  For everyone.  

 

I put "in general" in that post to cover these kinds of obvious exceptions.  I thought about spelling it all out but then hoped that people would understand what I was saying without having to do that.  But it appears that you didn't understand so I'll clarify:

Of course feelings are not solely determinative here, but they are determinative in general and that is what is being discussed.  There are bounds on how we interact with those we are sexually attracted to, that the Lord has set, and we are to stay within those bounds. 

However, the bounds for homosexual members are different than they are for heterosexual members, because the boundary for them prohibits all sexual interaction while the boundaries for heterosexual members doesn't.

It seems incredibly weird (and a little insincere) to argue that that isn't the case when it so clearly and obviously is the case.  

Quote

The standards exist to endorse certain behaviors and prohibit others.  Feelings are not determinative.

Except that the standards exist to endorse certain behaviors and prohibit others for whom there is sexual interest.  The standards only exist because sexual interest is an inherent part of any equation where standards are applicable.

Quote

Nobody is allowed to engage in adultery, or fornication, or homosexual behavior.  

Some members are allowed to engage in sexual activity with people they are sexually attracted to, and other members are prohibited from engaging in sexual activity with people they are attracted to.  Standards exist to govern activity that people want to do.  To attempt to apply the 'no homosexual behavior' standard to straight people isn't a logical or reasonable argument because it ignores the reason that we have standards in the first place.

You have to divorce the standards from their very reason for existing to make your argument work, and that is why the argument looks desperate.  You are mangling the "why" of standards in an attempt to force them into an application that is irrelevant to their existence.

And why?  What does it matter if the church has different standards for heterosexual and homosexual members, if those standards come from God?   You don't have a problem with God treating men and women differently; so why is it a problem to you if He treats heterosexual and homosexual members differently?

 

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

prohibits all sexual interaction

Prohibits all sexually fulfilling sexual interaction…they can still have meaningless or frustrating sex.  It seems like for some people, being physically capable of having sex with the “approved option” though is the only necessary meaning.  Being at least potentially or partially emotionally able to connect with the person you are having sex with appears to be irrelevant for some.

Edited April 20, 2022 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

No.

It is no longer "legal matrimony" it is matrimony within the LAW, yes, but the law of God.

Get thee to the temple. 

 

So they changed the definition again, right? 

People keep talking about the definitiveness of the LoC yet we see through history many changes, yet few or no revelations.

No thanks  

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

No.

It is no longer "legal matrimony" it is matrimony within the LAW, yes, but the law of God.

Get thee to the temple. 

 

Not really.

Heterosexual couples who are married outside of God's law are still allowed to have sex with each other without breaking the law of Chastity.  What determines whether they are within the bounds of keeping the law of Chastity is whether or not they are legally married according to the community where they live. Not whether or not they are married by God's law. 

A heterosexual couple could be married by a minister from the church of satan and they would still be within the law of Chastity to consummate the marriage.

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, Navidad said:

I think I have mentioned on this forum before that Mennonites are completely opposed to premarital sex because it leads to dancing!

That's cute but is that for real?  Is it a joke?

Can you provide some written evidence of that as a "doctrine" or whatever the proper term would be?

Just wondering- that would be very strange and inconsistent to me if you are serious.

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Quote

Again, homosexual behavior is categorically prohibited in the Church.  

CFR - I'd like to see a definitive revelation or scripture that defines the LoC in this way. If you, or even an apostle changes the definition of the LoC it doesn't become law.

Okay.  Conversely, I'd like to see a "definitive revelation or scripture that" prohibits the consumption of meth and heroin, and also prohibits the viewing of pornography and the use of sex dolls.

Apparently the first "not" in D&C 58:26 is being overlooked: "For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward."

Meanwhile, a few resources:

Here:

Quote

What is the Church’s position on homosexuality? Is it OK to be friends with people who have homosexual feelings?

 

The Church opposes homosexual behavior, and we reach out with understanding and respect to people with same-gender attraction.
...
The Church teaches that human sexuality has a purpose in Heavenly Father’s plan. In order for us to be happy and to fulfill that purpose, we are commanded to live the law of chastity. Homosexual behavior is contrary to that purpose and violates God’s commandments.

And here (repeated many, many times) :

Quote

Same-sex attraction refers to emotional, physical, or sexual attraction to a person of the same gender. The experience of same-sex attraction is not the same for everyone. Some people may feel exclusively attracted to the same gender, while others may feel attracted to both genders.

The Church distinguishes between same-sex attraction and homosexual behavior.

Here:

Quote

Those who experience same-sex attraction or identify as gay can fully participate in the Church. As a Church policy says, “If members feel same-gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders should support and encourage them in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control unrighteous thoughts. These members may receive Church callings. If they are worthy and qualified in every other way, they may also hold temple recommends and receive temple ordinances.”

Here:

Quote

Summarize Leviticus 17–18 by explaining that the Lord commanded the people to avoid idolatrous practices, forbade marriages of close relatives, and identified homosexual behavior and other sexual perversions as an abomination. Israel was to “keep [God’s] ordinances” (see Leviticus 18:4) and remain undefiled.

Here:

Quote

Invite a student to read Genesis 18:20 aloud. To help students discover what “very grievous” sin was being committed by people in Sodom and Gomorrah, invite them to silently read Genesis 19:4–5 and Jude 1:7. (If students have the Latter-day Saint edition of the King James Version of the Bible, you might also want to draw their attention to Genesis 18:20, footnote b). After sufficient time, explain that these verses in Genesis 19 and Jude 1 help us understand that the “very grievous” sin mentioned in Genesis 18:20 was homosexual behavior. This behavior was widely accepted and practiced among the inhabitants of Sodom and nearby cities (see Jude 1:7). The prophet Ezekiel spoke of additional sins that plagued the inhabitants of Sodom. He declared that they were full of “pride” and “idleness” and that although they had a “fulness of bread,” they rejected “the poor and needy” (see Ezekiel 16:49–50).

• Based on Genesis 18:20, how does the Lord view all sexual transgression? (As a “very grievous” sin. Write the following truth on the board: All sexual sins, including homosexual behavior, are very serious.)

...

Explain that in order to understand why all sexual sins, including homosexual behavior, are serious sins, we must understand the doctrine behind the purposes of marriage and family in Heavenly Father’s plan. To help students understand this doctrine, invite a student to read aloud the following statement by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (you may want to provide a copy for each student). Ask students to listen for doctrinal truths that can help us understand why homosexual behavior is a serious sin.
...
Explain that there is a difference between same-sex attraction and violating the law of chastity by participating in homosexual behavior.
...

President Dallin H. Oaks of the First Presidency taught the following about same-sex attraction and homosexual behavior:

“The distinction between feelings or inclinations on the one hand, and behavior on the other hand, is very clear. It’s no sin to have inclinations that if yielded to would produce behavior that would be a transgression. The sin is in yielding to temptation. Temptation is not unique. Even the Savior was tempted. …

“I think it’s important for you to understand that [homosexual] … is not a noun that describes a condition. It’s an adjective that describes feelings or behavior. …

“Everyone has some challenges they have to struggle with. [Same-sex attraction is] a particular kind of challenge that is very vexing. It is common in our society and it has also become politicized. But it’s only one of a host of challenges men and women have to struggle with, and I just encourage you to seek the help of the Savior to resist temptation and to refrain from behavior that would cause you to have to repent or to have your Church membership called into question. …

“… Homosexual feelings are controllable. Perhaps there is an inclination or susceptibility to such feelings that is a reality for some and not a reality for others. But out of such susceptibilities come feelings, and feelings are controllable. If we cater to the feelings, they increase the power of the temptation. If we yield to the temptation, we have committed sinful behavior. That pattern is the same for a person that covets someone else’s property and has a strong temptation to steal. It’s the same for a person that develops a taste for alcohol. It’s the same for a person that is born with a ‘short fuse,’ as we would say of a susceptibility to anger. If they let that susceptibility remain uncontrolled, it becomes a feeling of anger, and a feeling of anger can yield to behavior that is sinful and illegal.

“We’re not talking about a unique challenge here. We’re talking about a common condition of mortality. We don’t understand exactly the ‘why,’ or the extent to which there are inclinations or susceptibilities and so on. But what we do know is that feelings can be controlled and behavior can be controlled. The line of sin is between the feelings and the behavior. The line of prudence is between the susceptibility and the feelings. We need to lay hold on the feelings and try to control them to keep us from getting into a circumstance that leads to sinful behavior” (Dallin H. Oaks, “Interview with Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Lance B. Wickman: ‘Same-Gender Attraction,’” Dec. 12, 2012, mormonnewsroom.org).

Here:

Quote

“Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance.

Here:

Quote

The First Presidency has declared that “there is a distinction between [1] immoral thoughts and feelings and [2] participating in either immoral heterosexual or any homosexual behavior.” Although immoral thoughts are less serious than immoral behavior, such thoughts also need to be resisted and repented of because we know that “our thoughts will also condemn us” (Alma 12:14). Immoral thoughts (and the less serious feelings that lead to them) can bring about behavior that is sinful.
...
 

Our doctrines obviously condemn those who engage in so-called “gay bashing”—physical or verbal attacks on persons thought to be involved in homosexual or lesbian behavior.

We should extend compassion to persons who suffer from ill health, including those who are infected with HIV or who are ill with AIDS (who may or may not have acquired their condition from sexual relations). We should encourage such persons to participate in the activities of the Church.

Applying the First Presidency’s distinction to the question of same-sex relationships, we should distinguish between (1) homosexual (or lesbian) “thoughts and feelings” (which should be resisted and redirected), and (2) “homosexual behavior” (which is a serious sin).

We should note that the words homosexual, lesbian, and gay are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. We should refrain from using these words as nouns to identify particular conditions or specific persons. Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual behavior.
...
In their 14 November 1991 letter concerning the importance of the law of chastity, the First Presidency declared: “Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual contact, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior, is sinful.”
...
At the same time, we should always distinguish between sinful acts and inappropriate feelings or potentially dangerous susceptibilities. We should reach out lovingly to those who are struggling to resist temptation. The First Presidency did this in their 14 November 1991 letter. After reaffirming the sinful nature of “fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior,” the Presidency added...
 

Here:

Quote

Like other violations of the law of chastity, homosexual behavior is a serious sin. Latter-day prophets have spoken about the dangers of homosexual behavior and about the Church’s concern for people who may have such inclinations. President Gordon B. Hinckley said:

“In the first place, we believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. We believe that marriage may be eternal through exercise of the power of the everlasting priesthood in the house of the Lord.

“People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that 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.

“We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1998, 91; or Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71).

The Church has never categorically proscribed heterosexual behaviors, and has instead articulated guidelines as to when such behaviors are appropriate and when they are not.

But "homosexual behavior" has been categorically prohibited for, well, a very long time.

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Claiming that it is prohibited by the church is more accurate than claiming it is categorically prohibited by the LoC, but that's not even completely accurate.

Gotta love critics and dissidents telling the Church what its beliefs and doctrines are.

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

CFR a churchwide source or commandment or scripture stating what is and what isn't allowed behavior for SS couples.

See above.

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Don't cite BYU. It's not the same thing. Don't cite FTSoY because that is not doctrine or commandment to the church.

Gotta love the "No True Scotsman" and "Moving the Goalposts" schtick.

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

At what point does a SS relationship become sinful?

At what point does a same-sex relationship become "homosexual behavior"?  

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

handholding, kissing, spending time together crafting or going to the movies and dinner? As Calm mentioned in a post, feelings of affection and attraction can grow be simply spending time with another person. Is that also sinful? Show me where the church definitively draws this line.

See?  You're doing the pharisaical nitpick thing again.

Is there a "line" drawn relative to the Word of Wisdom and the recreational use of meth?  Heroin?  Shrooms?  Have there been - in your words - "definitive revelations" specifically prohibiting such things?  If not, does that mean such recreational use is just fine for members of the Church?

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

And your use of "Behavior" instead of "sx" is an insidious way of broadening the LoC to cover non-sxual relationships.

Oh, malarky.  "Homosexual behavior" has been used by the Church for a very long time.  "Same sex behavior" seems far less used.

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You keep making this claim about penetrative but I've never said anything of the sort.

Sure you did.  You quoted a definition of "adultery" as pertaining to sexual intercourse.  How is that not a reference to penetrative sex?

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Prohibits all sexually fulfilling sexual interaction…they can still have meaningless or frustrating sex.  It seems like for some people, being physically capable of having sex with the “approved option” though is the only necessary meaning.  Being emotionally able to connect with the person you are having sex with appears to be irrelevant for some.

Wanting to have sexual interaction with someone is the reason that the Lord has given us boundaries in the first place.  Boundaries are unnecessary when you don't want to have anything sexual to do with the other person.

[The Nehor]

“that sexual sin—the illicit sexual relations of men and women—stands, in its enormity, next to murder”

But other illicit sexual relations aren’t? Uh-oh.

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  Conversely, I'd like to see a "definitive revelation or scripture that" prohibits the consumption of meth and heroin, and also prohibits the viewing of pornography and the use of sex dolls.

I don't have one. It doesn't exist. I never claimed it did. On the other hand you claim the church's stance against "homosxual behavior" as part of the LoC yet can't cite a source. Nor will you define "homsxual behavior" and call me a Pharisee when I ask about it.

Apparently the first "not" in D&C 58:26 is being overlooked: "For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward."

Meanwhile, a few resources:

Here:

And here (repeated many, many times) :

Here:

Here:

Here:

Here:

Here:

Here:

The Church has never categorically proscribed heterosexual behaviors, and has instead articulated guidelines as to when such behaviors are appropriate and when they are not.

So, now you seem to be admitting that the church does not have a prescribed prohibition on homsxual behavior but rather it is implied through guidelines? Why not just admit that your definition of the LoC as it relates to "homosxual behavior" doesn't exist in any definitive or categorical way.

But "homosexual behavior" has been categorically prohibited for, well, a very long time.

Still waiting on the CFR here. Restating your opinion doesn't fulfill it.

Gotta love critics and dissidents telling the Church what its beliefs and doctrines are.

Yet you haven't been able to provide a reference to back up your point.

See above.

Gotta love the "No True Scotsman" and "Moving the Goalposts" schtick.

At what point does a same-sex relationship become "homosexual behavior"?  

Yes- that was my question. You keep choosing to use the phrase 'homosxual behavior" but seem unwilling to define it or explain where that line is.

See?  You're doing the pharisaical nitpick thing again.

I'm asking where the line is. You can't provide one, yet you just asked the exact same question above.

Is there a "line" drawn relative to the Word of Wisdom and the recreational use of meth?  Heroin?  Shrooms?  Have there been - in your words - "definitive revelations" specifically prohibiting such things?  If not, does that mean such recreational use is just fine for members of the Church?

Stop changing the subject. Try answering the question.

Oh, malarky.  "Homosexual behavior" has been used by the Church for a very long time.  "Same sex behavior" seems far less used.

Sure you did.  You quoted a definition of "adultery" as pertaining to sexual intercourse.  How is that not a reference to penetrative sex?

I believe you just enjoy saying "penetrative sx". Enjoy.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited April 20, 2022 by HappyJackWagon

[JLHPROF]

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So they changed the definition again, right? 

People keep talking about the definitiveness of the LoC yet we see through history many changes, yet few or no revelations.

No thanks  

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Wanting to have sexual interaction with someone is the reason that the Lord has given us boundaries in the first place.  Boundaries are unnecessary when you don't want to have anything sexual to do with the other person.

What commandments has God given us that the vast majority of us naturally/instinctually do anyway?

The only one I can think of are cannibalism and murder, but that may simply be because I already live in a culture where that those are taboo.  There have been societies where murder isn’t taboo, cannabilism is seen as spiritual, and even offering up babies for human sacrifice was seen as a privilege, not a horror.

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Not really.

Heterosexual couples who are married outside of God's law are still allowed to have sex with each other without breaking the law of Chastity.  What determines whether they are within the bounds of keeping the law of Chastity is whether or not they are legally married according to the community where they live. Not whether or not they are married by God's law. 

A heterosexual couple could be married by a minister from the church of satan and they would still be within the law of Chastity to consummate the marriage.

Oh yes, I agree, I never meant, nor said, that "God's Law" only applies to temple marriages.  Heterosexual sex outside of marriage I think would still be wrong "according to God's law" because it is prohibited by Biblical commandments.   If someone has legal authority to marry people, no matter what church or beliefs they have, they are still at least partially under "God's Law" as I see it since the marriages they perform are legal.   That means a marriage license.  If they qualify to get a marriage license, the marriage is a real marriage under the law- they get taxed as if married etc.   That's why the recognition of ssm by governmental authority was such a big advance for gay folks- and "shocking" to conservatives because it appeared as if it threw "God's Standard" - heterosexual only marriage- under the bus.

But I believe that what is happening now is that the church is now recognizing that "legal law" is not necessarily seen as "God's law" anymore.   But for us, that distinction has been there all along- smoking marijuana (assuming the WOW is God's law) is prohibited, but legal in a few states.   So it''s an interesting philosophical divergence to weirdos like me that are into questioning everything, and noticing stuff like that. 

I'm trying to remember how the paperwork was done when I was licensed to marry folks but can't remember.   I think one of the ward clerks did all that- but I do remember that we had to make sure that everyone involved including witnesses had to sign it, and get it back to the proper government office asap to make it "legal".

I just remember though that it was VERY weird for me that the govt. had anything to say at all about what I saw as an ecclesiastical function, and that I had governmental authority in that tiny way.   ME?   An agent of the government??  🤢 

 

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

What commandments has God given us that the vast majority of us naturally/instinctually do anyway?

The only one I can think of are cannibalism and murder, but that may simply be because I already live in a culture where that those are taboo.  There have been societies where murder isn’t taboo, cannabilism is seen as spiritual, and even offering up babies for human sacrifice was seen as a privilege, not a horror.

At the risk of reopening a can of worms the commandment not to kill yourself might fit.

[Amulek]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

What commandments has God given us that the vast majority of us naturally/instinctually do anyway?

Rest from our labors - though, admittedly, I sometimes struggle with limiting that to only one day per week.

 

Edited April 20, 2022 by Amulek

[Navidad]

26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

That's cute but is that for real?  Is it a joke?

Can you provide some written evidence of that as a "doctrine" or whatever the proper term would be?

Just wondering- that would be very strange and inconsistent to me if you are serious.

It is a decades old - famous Mennonite joke! Having said that, I must add that I have only been an attendee at two dances in my entire life, both here in our village within the last six years or so. My wife and I sat and watched everyone dancing the Norteño style of dancing around and around the room. I have enjoyed my LDS friends here in the colonies talk about the raging debates here in the 1920s and 1930s over whether or not this or that bishop would allow waltzing at the LDS dances. Apparently waltzing was considered too provocative for the church sponsored dances. Historically the LDS folks who came here in the 1880s and 1890s were among the ultraconservative folks in the church.

[smac97]

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

I put "in general" in that post to cover these kinds of obvious exceptions.  I thought about spelling it all out but then hoped that people would understand what I was saying without having to do that.  But it appears that you didn't understand so I'll clarify:

Of course feelings are not solely determinative here, but they are determinative in general and that is what is being discussed. 

With respect, I disagree.  Feelings are not determinative as to prohibited behavior under the Law of Chastity.  There is no caveat like "Thou shalt not commit adultery, unless you really like her..."

Adultery is prohibited behavior, regardless of the feelings of the individuals involved.  Those feelings do not matter.

Fornication is prohibited behavior, regardless of the feelings of the individuals involved.  Those feelings do not matter.

Homosexual behavior is prohibited behavior, regardless of the feelings of the individuals involved.  Those feelings do not matter.

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

There are bounds on how we interact with those we are sexually attracted to, that the Lord has set, and we are to stay within those bounds. 

Exactly.  It is those bounds, not "feelings," that are determinative.

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

However, the bounds for homosexual members are different than they are for heterosexual members, because the boundary for them prohibits all sexual interaction while the boundaries for heterosexual members doesn't.

With respect, I disagree.  The bounds, the prohibitions, are precisely the same for everyone.  Nobody gets to commit adultery, nobody gets to commit fornication, and nobody gets to engage in homosexual behavior.  

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

It seems incredibly weird (and a little insincere) to argue that that isn't the case when it so clearly and obviously is the case.  

It is not "clearly and obviously {} the case."

For me, it's sort of "incredibly weird" that you and others have to resort to verbal contortions to create one Law of Chastity for heterosexual members and a separate, more onerous Law of Chastity for gay members.

There is only one Law of Chastity, and it applies to all of us.  That it has disparate impacts on us does not mean that there are two separate based-on-sexual-orientation laws.  That, in my view, is "so clearly and obviously the case."

There are plenty of never-married, divorced and widowed members of the Church.  More than half of the adult members of the Church are unmarried, and hence are unable to engage in sexual behavior.  And yet all of us are held to the same standard, despite the disparate impact that standard has on each individual.

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

Except that the standards exist to endorse certain behaviors and prohibit others for whom there is sexual interest. 

The "standards" are the same for everyone.  Nobody gets to commit adultery, nobody gets to commit fornication, and nobody gets to engage in homosexual behavior.  

There is no separate standard for people who have feelings or inclinations toward a particular behavior.  Such feelings/inclinations obviously vary from person to person, but they do not vary the Law of Chastity, which remains the same for everyone.

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

The standards only exist because sexual interest is an inherent part of any equation where standards are applicable.

Some members are allowed to engage in sexual activity with people they are sexually attracted to,

No.  No.  This is flagrantly incorrect.  The "bounds" of the Law of Chastity are not based on "sexual activity with people they are sexually attracted to."  If that were the case, then there would be virtually no instances of adultery or fornication (since those who engage in such behaviors are "sexually attracted to" each other).

Instead, the correct statement should be: Some members are allowed to engage in sexual activity within the bounds of marriage between a husband and wife."

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

and other members are prohibited from engaging in sexual activity with people they are attracted to. 

Yes.  A married man is "prohibited from engaging in sexual activity with people they are attracted to" (people other than is wife).

An unmarried man is "prohibited from engaging in sexual activity with people they are attracted to" (everyone).

Everyone is "prohibited from engaging in sexual activity with people they are attracted to" who are of the same sex.

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

Standards exist to govern activity that people want to do. 

Exactly.  But my point is that "what people want to do" (their feelings/inclinations) are not determinative of whether the Law of Chastity applies or not.

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

To attempt to apply the 'no homosexual behavior' standard to straight people isn't a logical or reasonable argument because it ignores the reason that we have standards in the first place.

You and yours are suggesting that there are two separate and distinguishable standards for sexual behavior in the Church, one for "heterosexual" members and one for "gay" members.

I reject that.  There is, instead, one standard that applies to all of us.  That I have no same-sex inclinations does not matter a whit because I am prohibited from homosexual behavior no matter what I feel.  The same goes for adultery.  The same goes for fornication.

There are plenty of unmarried heterosexual members of the Church who have little or no interest in sexual activity, which means that complying with the Law of Chastity is not particularly difficult for them.  Does that mean, then, that they are held to a different "standard?"  Of course not.  It's the same standard, with disparate impacts on individual members.

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

You have to divorce the standards from their very reason for existing to make your argument work, and that is why the argument looks desperate. 

I'm not on the side trying to fabricate a second Law of Chastity.

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

You are mangling the "why" of standards in an attempt to force them into an application that is irrelevant to their existence.

I am saying that there is one set of standards that applies to all of us.  That's all.  I reject the notion that there is a separate and distinct standard for gay members, for unmarried members, for asexual members, and so on.  I reject this because the standard is not based on the individual's feelings or inclinations.

The Law of Chastity prohibits adultery.  This does not change where the individual has feelings that, if acted upon, would constitute adultery.

The Law of Chastity prohibits fornication.  This does not change where the individual has feelings that, if acted upon, would constitute fornication.

The Law of Chastity prohibits homosexual behavior.  This does not change where the individual has feelings that, if acted upon, would constitute homosexual behavior.

I am not saying anything unique or original here.  Pres. Oaks has rejected the "special pleading" that some folks are trying to foist onto the Law of Chastity:

Quote

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Let’s say my 17-year-old son comes to talk to me and, after a great deal of difficulty trying to get it out, tells me that he believes that he’s attracted to men — that he has no interest and never has had any interest in girls. He believes he’s probably gay. He says that he’s tried to suppress these feelings. He’s remained celibate, but he realizes that his feelings are going to be devastating to the family because we’ve always talked about his Church mission, about his temple marriage and all those kinds of things. He just feels he can’t live what he thinks is a lie any longer, and so he comes in this very upset and depressed manner. What do I tell him as a parent?

ELDER OAKS: You’re my son. You will always be my son, and I’ll always be there to help you.

The distinction between feelings or inclinations on the one hand, and behavior on the other hand, is very clear. It’s no sin to have inclinations that if yielded to would produce behavior that would be a transgression. The sin is in yielding to temptation. Temptation is not unique. Even the Savior was tempted.

"Temptation is not unique."  Yep.  Some folks are, relative to the Law of Chastity, "tempted" toward porn, or toward adultery, or toward fornication, or toward . . . homosexual behavior.  None of this is "unique" because, well, the Law of Chastity applies to all of us.

Quote

I think it’s important for you to understand that homosexuality, which you’ve spoken of, is not a noun that describes a condition. It’s an adjective that describes feelings or behavior. I encourage you, as you struggle with these challenges, not to think of yourself as a ‘something’ or ‘another,’ except that you’re a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and you’re my son, and that you’re struggling with challenges.

Everyone has some challenges they have to struggle with. You’ve described a particular kind of challenge that is very vexing. It is common in our society and it has also become politicized. But it’s only one of a host of challenges men and women have to struggle with, and I just encourage you to seek the help of the Savior to resist temptation and to refrain from behavior that would cause you to have to repent or to have your Church membership called into question.

Same-sex attraction is "only one of a host of challenges men and women have to struggle with."

Yep.

Quote

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: So you are saying that homosexual feelings are controllable?

ELDER OAKS: Yes, homosexual feelings are controllable. Perhaps there is an inclination or susceptibility to such feelings that is a reality for some and not a reality for others. But out of such susceptibilities come feelings, and feelings are controllable. If we cater to the feelings, they increase the power of the temptation. If we yield to the temptation, we have committed sinful behavior. That pattern is the same for a person that covets someone else’s property and has a strong temptation to steal. It’s the same for a person that develops a taste for alcohol. It’s the same for a person that is born with a ‘short fuse,’ as we would say of a susceptibility to anger. If they let that susceptibility remain uncontrolled, it becomes a feeling of anger, and a feeling of anger can yield to behavior that is sinful and illegal.

We’re not talking about a unique challenge here. We’re talking about a common condition of mortality. We don’t understand exactly the ‘why,’ or the extent to which there are inclinations or susceptibilities and so on. But what we do know is that feelings can be controlled and behavior can be controlled. The line of sin is between the feelings and the behavior. The line of prudence is between the susceptibility and the feelings. We need to lay hold on the feelings and try to control them to keep us from getting into a circumstance that leads to sinful behavior.

Re: same-sex attraction, "{w}e're not talking about a unique challenge here."  It is instead "a common condition of mortality" to have "feelings {that} can be controlled and behavior {that} can be controlle."

Yep.

Quote

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: If we were to look back at someone who had a ‘short fuse,’ and we were to look at their parents who might have had a short fuse, some might identify a genetic influence in that.

ELDER OAKS: No, we do not accept the fact that conditions that prevent people from attaining their eternal destiny were born into them without any ability to control. That is contrary to the Plan of Salvation, and it is contrary to the justice and mercy of God. It’s contrary to the whole teaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which expresses the truth that by or through the power and mercy of Jesus Christ we will have the strength to do all things. That includes resisting temptation. That includes dealing with things that we’re born with, including disfigurements, or mental or physical incapacities. None of these stand in the way of our attaining our eternal destiny. The same may be said of a susceptibility or inclination to one behavior or another which if yielded to would prevent us from achieving our eternal destiny.

Same-sex attraction is not unique.  We are obligated to resist it the same way we resist any other "susceptibility or inclination to one behavior or another which if yielded to would prevent us from achieving our eternal destiny."

Quote

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: A little earlier, Elder Oaks, you talked about the same standard of morality for heterosexuals and homosexuals. How would you address someone who said to you, ‘I understand it’s the same standard, but aren’t we asking a little more of someone who has same-gender attraction?’ Obviously there are heterosexual people who won’t get married, but would you accept that they at least have hope that ‘tomorrow I could meet the person of my dreams.’ There’s always the hope that that could happen at any point in their life. Someone with same-gender attraction wouldn’t necessarily have that same hope.

ELDER OAKS: There are differences, of course, but the contrast is not unique. There are people with physical disabilities that prevent them from having any hope — in some cases any actual hope and in other cases any practical hope — of marriage. The circumstance of being currently unable to marry, while tragic, is not unique.

It is sometimes said that God could not discriminate against individuals in this circumstance. But life is full of physical infirmities that some might see as discriminations — total paralysis or serious mental impairment being two that are relevant to marriage. If we believe in God and believe in His mercy and His justice, it won’t do to say that these are discriminations because God wouldn’t discriminate. We are in no condition to judge what discrimination is. We rest on our faith in God and our utmost assurance of His mercy and His love for all of His children.

Yep.

I've been trying to say what Pres. Oaks was saying throughout the above interview.  He said it better than I did.

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

And why?  What does it matter if the church has different standards for heterosexual and homosexual members, if those standards come from God?   

The truth matters.  If you were to day that the Church "has different standards for {married and unmarried} members," I would agree with you to an extent because a married person is allowed to have sex, whereas an unmarried person is not.

But nobody is allowed to engage in homosexual behavior.  There is simply no "different standard" here.  Nobody can engage in adultery, or fornication, or in homosexual behavior.

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

You don't have a problem with God treating men and women differently; so why is it a problem to you if He treats heterosexual and homosexual members differently?

I have said that the Law of Chastity creates a single standard that applies to all members of the Church.  Same standard, disparate impact.

As for "God treating men and women differently," see 1 Cor. 12.  The Lord has, in some what, different roles in mind for infants as opposed to children over 8, and for adults as opposed to children, and so on.  But as regarding the Law of Chastity, nobody is allowed to engage in homosexual behavior.  Nobody.  Ever.  At all.  Regardless of feelings or inclinations or sexual orientation.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 21, 2022 by smac97

[mfbukowski]

33 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So they changed the definition again, right? 

People keep talking about the definitiveness of the LoC yet we see through history many changes, yet few or no revelations.

No thanks  

I'm IN this church because it allows for continuing - AND PERSONAL revelation because I have seen so many screwy beliefs suddenly imposed on folks who then drink the cool aid!

Time again for Moroni 10, James 1, and Alma 32.

If you don't like change and being in a LIVING church, it's probably not the right place for you anyway!

Gotta follow your heart!   And it ain't up to you to challenge other's revelations any more that it is right for me to tell you that YOUR HEART is wrong.

Tollerance of ambiguity is a big deal in psychology.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/tolerance-of-ambiguity 

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Rest from our labors - though, admittedly, I sometimes struggle with limiting that to only one day per week.

 

Resting…yeah, I see a lot of nonresting activities going on myself on the Sabbath.
 

 I definitely have always had a problem with shifting my brain and body from active problem solving to actual rest and not just a different set of problems.  Whether this is natural to me, part of my overactive brain or trained into me by the work first, play/rest second (which really means never because the work is never done) approach of my parents, I don’t know.  My dad actually divided his time very well, but he focused on teaching us the work part and Mom never appeared to actually want to just have frivolous fun and the older I get and more aware of needs, the harder it gets to let go even for a short time and enjoy doing simple pleasures that don’t further goals without guilt.  You would think having fun is a skill you could easily pick up and it likely comes naturally as a child even, but if you rarely give yourself permission to have fun, you can actually forget how to do it (personal experience as well as watching people around me).  Same goes for actual rest imo and not just conking out from exhaustion or even turning off your on switch (is that actually possible without drugs?).  Rest is an active choice.  A skill, maybe it can even be a talent….speaking as someone who lacks it. 
 

I justify board time because it stretches my brain, hopefully keeping it flexible longer as well as cutting down on medication by providing distraction. Plus at times people thank me for helping, so I can assume I am benefitting others occasionally which is more than would happen if I was reading educational books in bed instead. 

Edited April 20, 2022 by Calm

[Daniel2]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

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:

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 

Hey, Smac,

Most of your quotes are AFTER the priesthood ban was dropped, and Kimball’s not-so-subtle attempt to ret-con the fact that the practice was condemned by many before him and The Church’s treatment of interracial couples as subclass is as feeble as it is humorous if it weren’t so sobering.

It’s well documented and known that many leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints treated interracial marriage (with blacks) differently that treated same-race marriage.  And since you decided to go the “copy and paste” route, look—I can do that, too, including citations, to demonstrate this was so:

[quote]
Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. (1805-1844):

“Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species...”

- Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., January 2, 1845, History of the Church, v. 5, pp. 21-218

Prophet Brigham Young (1801 -1877):

“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. The nations of the earth have transgressed every law that God has given, they have changed the ordinances and broken every covenant made with the fathers, and they are like a hungry man that dreameth that he eateth, and he awaketh and behold he is empty.”

- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 10, p. 110

Prophet George Albert Smith (1870 – 1951):

“Your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and white races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient patriarchs until now.... there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this area, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.”

- LDS First Presidency (George Albert Smith), letter to Virgil H. Sponberg (critic of the anti-black ban), May 5, 1947, quoted in Lester E. Bush, Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview, p. 42

Apostle Mark E. Peterson (1900 – 1984):

“We must not inter-marry with the Negro. Why? If I were to marry a Negro woman and have children by her, my children would oil be cursed as to the priesthood. Do I want my children cursed as to the priesthood? If there is one drop of Negro blood in my children, as I have read to you, they receive the curse. There isn't any argument, therefore, as to inter-marriage with the Negro, is there?”

- Apostle Mark E. Peterson, “Race Problems – As They Effect the Church,” Address given at the Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, delivered at BYU, August 27, 1954

Apostle Bruce R. McConkie (1915 – 1985):

“However, in a broad general sense, caste systems have their root and origin in the gospel itself, and when they operate according to the divine decree, the resultant restrictions and segregation are right and proper and have the approval of the Lord. To illustrate: Cain, Ham, and the whole negro race have been cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste apart, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should not intermarry.”

- Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 114

Others:

“Brigham Young made a very strong statement on this matter when he said, ‘... shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.' God has commanded Israel not to intermarry. To go against this commandment of God would be to sin. Those who willfully sin with their eyes open to this wrong will not be surprised to find that they will be separated from the presence of God in the world to come. This is spiritual death.... It does not matter if they are one-sixth Negro or one-one hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is still the same.... To intermarry with a Negro is to forfeit a ‘Nation of Priesthood holders.'”

- Elder John L. Lund, The Church and the Negro, pp. 54-55, 1967

[/quote]

In addition to the quotes above, your deflection ignores the reality that the Church itself didn’t allow temple sealings (and eternal marriage, itself) for interracial marriages prior to 1978, regardless of what the handbook says today or post ‘78.

The fact that you emphasize that you “have long been on record that the Priesthood Ban lacks any known or established revelatory provenance” shows your willingness to disavow those racist practices (for which I commend you). But your attempts to differentiate your rationale about the law off chastity by suggesting it’s well founded in scripture is entirely irrelevant and completely side steps (aka is a red herring) the central point of my post, which was this: to apply your same misguided logic that “there is no double standard” to an obviously racist and clearly a double standard regarding interracial marriages (even if you reject those teachings and prohibitions today as not divine, scriptural, or in the church handbook—again, all red herrings) that was once frequently taught by many former LDS leaders over decades (and all sustained during their lifetimes as God’s living prophets, seers, and revelators) and which the church itself excluded from its highest and holiest of ordinances of temple/eternal marriage.

Your religious devotion to current leaders has seemingly blinded you to that central point of mine, which you didn’t even address.

Edited April 20, 2022 by Daniel2

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, Navidad said:

It is a decades old - famous Mennonite joke! Having said that, I must add that I have only been an attendee at two dances in my entire life, both here in our village within the last six years or so. My wife and I sat and watched everyone dancing the Norteño style of dancing around and around the room. I have enjoyed my LDS friends here in the colonies talk about the raging debates here in the 1920s and 1930s over whether or not this or that bishop would allow waltzing at the LDS dances. Apparently waltzing was considered too provocative for the church sponsored dances. Historically the LDS folks who came here in the 1880s and 1890s were among the ultraconservative folks in the church.

Love the joke- I figured that was it, because we have those too. 

I believe some of what you mentioned historically was more of local culture, because I don't recall anything I have seen about prohibiting dancing in LDS culture, but I was raised Catholic.   I do know thought that my wife's parents attended LDS dances in the '40's and that they were VERY mainstream LDS,  pioneer stock, 8 kids, all still with temple recommends with at least 4 bishops and a couple of stake presidencies among their descendents, many High Council guys etc.

But who knows- I was never part of that culture.

[smac97]

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

But the law of chastity is not just about who you can’t have sex with,

Agreed.  But as far as there being one or multiple standards of sexual behavior, one for heterosexual members and a separate one for homosexual members, I reject that.

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

it is also about who you can have sex with, how you can become sexually fulfilled in appropriate ways

Okay.  But of these myriad "appropriate ways," exactly 0.00% of them involve homosexual behavior.

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

and it is there it is unbalanced because it only allows one to marry the opposite sex and those who are solely attracted to the same sex have no desire to do so, they cannot become sexually fulfilled with someone of the opposite sex

Same standard, disparate impact.

There are plenty of unmarried heterosexual members who, to obey the Law of Chastity, must abstain from sexual behavior.  So they have quite a struggle, too, but that doesn't mean there is a separate "Law of Chastity" for them.

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

An analogy could be a college cafeteria.  It offers a perfectly balanced nutritional meal, the same identical one to everyone.  You can only have one serving of each during dinner hours.  There are those who protest that while they like what is offered and they take a selection of each offering, they want more (adultery).  

Okay.

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is reasonable to turn these down because all their needs are filled and any more will provide them with too many calories and this be unhealthy for them.

Okay.

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

To claim the menu is balanced for all

I don't know what "balanced for all" means.

Basically, the Law of Chastity allows sexual behavior between a husband and wife, and prohibits all other sexual behaviors.  There are nuances (nonconsensual sexual behavior between husband and wife would not be allowed, nor would consensual adultery (open marriages), etc.), but this is the basic framework.

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

ignores the fact that some are currently unable to eat an major portion of it.  They can certainly survive without it, but they will not have the chance to be as healthy as those who eat it all.  

I don't think this analogy holds.  Unmarried, divorced, and widowed members also can't "eat a major portion of" the offerings.  And yet that's the gig.   

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

For the group refusing tilapia in the belief it will harm them, to offer swordfish only may still indeed have their best interests at heart because of the belief the swordfish is toxic with mercury and it is more dangerous to consume than to go without any fish at all, but given consuming the tilapia also makes these diners ill, it cannot be claimed the meal is perfectly balanced for them simply because they have the same options in front of them as everyone else.

Sorry, I'm not following your analogy.

The Lord has said that His children can engage in sexual behavior only as between a husband and wife.  Everyone else must do without.

Thanks,

-Smac