New Church Policy?

[smac97]

45 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.

Sure they do.  A married man in 2005 might be perfectly happy with his sex life, and so not particularly worried about the "boundaries" of the Law of Chastity relative to adultery.  But by 2022 his marriage has soured, the man has developed a wandering eye, and the "boundaries" come into view.  The boundaries were always there.

I have been happily married for more than 25 years now.  Lots of struggles and difficulties, but also much joy and happiness.  Knowing about and staying well within the "boundaries" of acceptable behavior relative to the Law of Chastity, to the Word of Wisdom, to my verbal communications, to my worth ethic, etc., has been an important ingredient in the success of our marriage.

I don't have to transgress the boundaries to find them useful.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

 

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

 

I don’t disagree with this part. It is the implications that are meaningful in saying whether or not it is a balanced law (balanced meaning the standard of behaviour is identical for both).

We are given a law not to steal. 

Is it truly the same law for a man who is starving and wants to steal food in order to eat as it is for a wealthy man who has more than he could spend in a lifetime who considers stealing a loaf of bread instead paying for a lark when it has such a different ending for both?  One obeys the law and dies of starvation. The other obeys the law and spends a little of the endless cash he possesses so nothing in his life actually changes. 
 

Is it not requiring something different of these two men?  And therefore is a different standard? Both have not stolen, but in the case of the wealthy man he was not required to sacrifice anything.  In the case of the starving man, to obey the law he had to sacrifice his own life. 

Edited April 20, 2022 by Calm

[The Nehor]

Quote

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.

Except when we do say they do not have any ability to control them and mark the record with “not accountable”. There is, of course, no middle ground between the two.

[Calm]

Smac, do you see everyone in the Church following the same standard no matter where they live when they agree to be “subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law”?

[smac97]

20 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Hey, Smac,

Most of your quotes are AFTER the priesthood ban was dropped, and Kimball’s not-so-subtle attempt to rest-con the fact that the practice was condemned by many before him is as feeble as it is laughable.

I don't really dispute that.  19th-century attitudes about interracial marriage were, in my view, obviously influenced by the same racist sentiments that undergirded the priesthood ban.

My larger point, though, is that the priesthood ban is distinguishable from the Law of Chastity because it (the ban) lacked scriptural/revelatory provenance, whereas the Law of Chastity has plenty of that.

20 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

The fact that you emphasize that you “have long been on record that the Priesthood Ban lacks any known or established revelatory provenance” shows you’re willingness to disavow those racist practices (for which I commend you).

Thanks.

20 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

But your attempts to differentiate your rationale about the law off chastity by suggesting it’s well founded in scripture is entirely irrelevant

Sorry, but that's not so.  The differentiation is pretty darn important in the Latter-day Saint paradigm.  If a particular concept is socially untrendy/unpopular and lacking in scriptural/revelatory provenance, then I am happy to be corrected.

But if a concept is socially untrendy/unpopular and heavily based on scriptural/revelatory origins, then that is a very different situation.

I'll repeat what I said back in August 2021:

Quote

I think we are in the midst of a period of turbulence and controversy within the Church not seen since the 1890s and the Manifesto.  I think we're in a refining phase, in a few different ways.

The Church is being "refined" in that it has been improving and clarifying its treatment of issues pertaining to sexual ethics, gender identity, etc., while simultaneously maintaining the doctrines of the Church, particularly pertaining to marriage, family and the Law of Chastity.

Individual members are being "refined" in that we are being forced to examine and re-examine what we believe, and why we believe it, and whether and why we should continue to exercise faith in Jesus Christ and in the Restoration.  Going along to get along, social/familial expectations, etc. are becoming less and less sufficient reasons to stay.  

Both the Church and individual members are being "refined" that we are increasingly being pressured, and in some ways even punished, for our religious beliefs.  Look at all the threats about BYU's accreditation.  It's not like the Church or BYU have substantively changed.  Accreditation has become weaponized.  

Both the Church and individual members are being "refined" because we are being commanded to believe some things that are, in increasing measures, unpopular.  The easy thing would be for the Church to capitulate.  To bend the knee.  To knuckle under.  Instead, the Church is working hard to be kind and accommodating, while also following divine mandates.  Meanwhile, individual members are, to an extent, are feeling that they face and either/or dilemma.  Either A) you ratify, celebrate and endorse homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage, or B) you are a bigot, a homophobe, a horrible person.  That is what we are being told over and over again.  It's a false dilemma, a Sophie's Choice, but one that is being foisted on us every day.

The individual members are being "refined" because we are being commanded to believe some things that are not only broadly unpopular, but can be unpalatable to us as individuals, and yet we are asked - even commanded - to accept these things anyway.  Our day is not the first time that the disciples of Jesus have been asked to live out-of-step with their neighbors, including those who are members of the faith.  I recognize that many things the Church of Jesus Christ teaches are difficult for its members and others to accept.  I hope each of us finds the happiness we are seeking.  That said, as much as we tend to emphasize the "love-one-another" aspect of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it's not as though everyone who has ever heard Christ's teachings did not ever have any problems with them.  Sometimes the Lord asks us to do difficult things, to accept difficult things.  Consider the Savior's "Bread of Life" sermon in John 6.  What was the result of it?

Quote

42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
 43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
...
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
...
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heardthis, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
...
66 ¶ From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

...

Jesus Christ said something that was not popular.  Many of those who heard it "murmured at him."  Many of those who heard it "strove among themselves."  Many of those who heard it "went back, and walked no more with him."  

Christ said and did things that were not well-received by the society around Him.  I'm quite okay with that.  I'm also quite okay with His servants doing the same thing.  I am of course interested in the reputation of the Church.  Our reputation affects our ability to fulfill various mandates from God, not the least of which is the Great Commission.  But preserving and ehnancing the Church's "reputation" cannot come at the expense of other mandates, such as upholding and proclaiming and teaching principles pertaining to marriage and the Law of Chastity.

Christ did not upend the moneychangers' tables in the temple because it was popular.  He did so because it was right.

Christ did not preach the "Bread of Life" sermon in John 6 because it was popular.  He did so because it was right.

Christ preached a gospel that was not going to be popular in the minds of an increasingly wicked world.  He knew that.  But He preached it anyway.  I think He knew beforehand that His message would alienate many people, including some otherwise good and decent people.  But He preached anyway.  I think He did so because those who were ready for His message needed to hear it, and needed to be gathered out of the World.  

Perhaps this is why He said: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."  Perhaps this is why He also said (several times, actually) : "Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words."  Christ also said: "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."  Christ also said "For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me."  

My dad and I were talking about these things a while back, some of which have been described as the "dark sayings of Jesus."  My dad noted that some people focus on the "sweetness and light" sayings of the Savior, which is probably fine - unless that focus is exclusionary.  Christ had warnings for us, after all.  Such as this: "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you."  And this: "The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil."   And this: "Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail."   And this: "For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory."

The hostile reactions of the World (and even some members of the Church) to the inspired leadership of the Brethren are, I think, not surprising.  To the contrary, they are the anticipated responses to prophetic counsel.  In a way, I find it grimly satisfying that the Brethren are saying and doing some things that, in my mind, are A) unpopular in the eyes of the World, and B) plainly in accordance with revealed truths and based on revelation.  

So yeah, we're in the midst of challenging times.  Very much so.

I participate on this board largely because I want to hear divergent points of view.  I am admittedly interested in ascertaining the best path forward for the Church as pertaining to homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage.  If the Lord wants us to adopt and embrace and ratify these things, then I want to know that.

The thing is, I just don't think that this is what the Lord wants, and you and yours have not been able to marshal evidence of this.  To the contrary, the more I have examined these issues the more I have come to believe that the Church's position - while still capable of improvement and refinement - is substantively correct and congruent with the Lord's will.

Jesus said some unpopular things during His ministry 2,000 years ago, and His followers were obligated to accept and propagate them.  The same thing, I think, is happening in our day.  

20 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

and completely side steps (read: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,

I don't really need to sidestep much about the priesthood ban, as I am not persuaded of its scriptural/revelatory provenance.  I have no particular obligation to defend something the truthfulness and divinity of which is unknown and unsettled.

Conversely, the scriptural/revelatory provenance of the Law of Chastity is, in my view, well-settled and quite clear.  Settled, clear, and unpopular.  I'm okay with that.

20 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

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

I think I did.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 21, 2022 by smac97

[Calm]

Smac, if someone were to make a law without taking into account the different consequences it has on various members of the population to be govern by it, would you consider it a wise law?

[smac97]

58 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon 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.

I can certainly cite quite a few sources as pertaining to the Law of Chastity.

As for defining "homosexual behavior," I think its meaning is fairly self-evident.

58 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

False.  Wildly, flagrantly untrue.  I am admitting nothing of the sort.

58 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

but rather it is implied through guidelines?

No.  Not "implied."  Explicit.

58 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

I don't have an ideosyncratic definition.  I go by what the Church teaches.  And the Church teaches that "homosexual behavior" is prohibited.

58 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

I already provided a large number of references.

58 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

I certainly have.

58 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

But it's not mine.  I'm not interested in such a pharisaical hairsplitting exercise.

That "homosexual behavior" cannot necessarily be defined with mathematical precision doesn't mean it cannot be defined at all.

58 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

I use it the same way the Church uses it (and, for the matter, the same way the Church uses broad terms like "adultery" and "fornication" and "lasciviousness" and so on).

58 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

I'm asking where the line is.

Your question presupposes that there is a "line."  Again, just because "homosexual behavior" cannot necessarily be defined with mathematical precision doesn't mean it cannot be defined at all.

Look at our legal system, which includes a civil claim for "fraud."  There is no "line" involved, such as immediately and obviously demarcate "fraud" from non-fraud.  It is, instead, a word that in turn references an analytical framework that provides guidance for the finder of fact.

That doesn't mean that "fraud" as a concept doesn't exist.  Sure it does (I won a fraud case a few years ago).  It just means that insisting on a "line" between fraud and non-fraud is facile and unreasoned.

So it is, I submit, with you wanting some hyper-specific technical definition of what does, and does not, constitute "homosexual behavior."

58 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

I'm trying to remain clinical in my descriptors.  I'll leave the leering innuendos to you.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

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

Agreed. The 45 year old man who grooms his friend’s 16 year old daughter and has sex with her is exactly the same as a 16 year old boy who was infatuated with her and in his own way loved her having sex with her. I am sure God sees them as identical too.

Does this apply to all commandments? If I pay tithing gladly is it counted identically if I begrudged and mourned every dollar lost to it and hold a grudge against God for it. After all, feelings don’t matter. If I provide for my spouse and children does it really matter how I feel about them? I am doing what I am supposed to do. Why does it matter if I seem them as a bunch of ungrateful freeloaders?

I am not sure you have thought this “facts don’t care about your feelings” approach to the gospel through.

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

I don’t disagree with this part. It is the implications that are meaningful in saying whether or not it is a balanced law (balanced meaning the standard of behaviour is identical for both).

We are given a law not to steal. 

Is it truly the same law for a man who is starving and wants to steal food in order to eat as it is for a wealthy man who has more than he could spend in a lifetime who considers stealing a loaf of bread instead paying for a lark when it has such a different ending for both?  One obeys the law and dies of starvation. The other obeys the law and spends a little of the endless cash he possesses so nothing in his life actually changes. 
 

Is it not requiring something different of these two men?  And therefore is a different standard? Both have not stolen, but in the case of the wealthy man he was not required to sacrifice anything else.  In the case of the starving man, to obey the law he had to sacrifice his own life. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorn_in_the_flesh

[The Nehor]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

I don’t disagree with this part. It is the implications that are meaningful in saying whether or not it is a balanced law (balanced meaning the standard of behaviour is identical for both).

We are given a law not to steal. 

Is it truly the same law for a man who is starving and wants to steal food in order to eat as it is for a wealthy man who has more than he could spend in a lifetime who considers stealing a loaf of bread instead paying for a lark when it has such a different ending for both?  One obeys the law and dies of starvation. The other obeys the law and spends a little of the endless cash he possesses so nothing in his life actually changes. 
 

Is it not requiring something different of these two men?  And therefore is a different standard? Both have not stolen, but in the case of the wealthy man he was not required to sacrifice anything else.  In the case of the starving man, to obey the law he had to sacrifice his own life. 

This example is better.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This example is better.

I need to remember to keep my analogies simple. I try to cover everything with them and can make it difficult to focus on the most important point.

Edited April 20, 2022 by Calm

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Agreed. The 45 year old man who grooms his friend’s 16 year old daughter and has sex with her is exactly the same as a 16 year old boy who was infatuated with her and in his own way loved her having sex with her. I am sure God sees them as identical too.

I said nothing about any equivalence of this sort, and I reject it outright as offensive and false.  You are simply bearing false witness here.

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Does this apply to all commandments?  If I pay tithing gladly is it counted identically if I begrudged and mourned every dollar lost to it and hold a grudge against God for it. After all, feelings don’t matter. If I provide for my spouse and children does it really matter how I feel about them? I am doing what I am supposed to do. Why does it matter if I seem them as a bunch of ungrateful freeloaders?

With nary a scintilla of good faith in any of these questions, I decline to interact with you.

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am not sure you have thought this “facts don’t care about your feelings” approach to the gospel through.

The Law of Chastity is not altered by an individual's sexual feelings/inclinations.  The Law of Chastity creates boundaries intended to constrain those feelings.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

I would add that I consider the original post on the laughably named Freedom Forum to have over a 50% chance of being made up outrage porn for the deranged loons there to froth and stew over and announce yet again how fallen the current church is in between laments of how if only Hitler had been allowed to get further along on his genocide projects things would be better now.

[Daniel2]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't really dispute that.  19th-century attitudes about interracial marriage were, in my view, obviously influenced by the same racist sentiments that undergirded the priesthood ban.

My larger point, though, is that the priesthood ban is distinguishable from the Law of Chastity because it (the ban) lacked scriptural/revelatory provenance, whereas the Law of Chastity has plenty of that.

Thanks.

Sorry, but that's not so.  The differentiation is pretty darn important in the Latter-day Saint paradigm.  If a particular concept is socially untrendy/unpopular and lacking in scriptural/revelatory provenance, then I am happy to be corrected.

But if a concept is socially untrendy/unpopular and heavily based on scriptural/revelatory origins, then that is a very different situation.

I'll repeat what I said back in August 2021:

I participate on this board largely because I want to hear divergent points of view.  I am admittedly interested in ascertaining the best path forward for the Church as pertaining to homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage.  If the Lord wants us to adopt and embrace and ratify these things, then I want to know that.

The thing is, I just don't that's what the Lord wants, and you and yours have not been able to marshal evidence of this.  To the contrary, the more I have examined these issues the more I have come to believe that the Church's position - while still capable of improvement and refinement - is substantively correct and congruent with the Lord's will.

Jesus said some unpopular things during His ministry 2,000 years ago, and His followers were obligated to accept and propagate them.  The same thing, I think, is happening in our day.  

I don't really need to sidestep much about the priesthood ban, as I am not persuaded of its scriptural/revelatory provenance.  I have no particular obligation to defend something the truthfulness and divinity of which is unknown and unsettled.

Conversely, the scriptural/revelatory provenance of the Law of Chastity is, in my view, well-settled and quite clear.  Settled, clear, and unpopular.  I'm okay with that.

I think I did.

Thanks,

-Smac

You keep referring to “the priesthood ban.”

I didn’t compare same-sex marriage to “the priesthood ban.” I compared it to the church’s policies and leaders’ teachings on interracial marriage and it’s policies against sealing interracial marriage.

And regardless of the scriptural rationalizations you’re advancing to explain a practice, or the sincerity of Latter-day Saints’ beliefs, neither negates the reality of the double standard being applied.

You clearly are either not getting or side stepping my point. 
 

Edited April 20, 2022 by Daniel2

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

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

I don’t disagree with this part. It is the implications that are meaningful in saying whether or not it is a balanced law (balanced meaning the standard of behaviour is identical for both).

Implications and nuance notwithstanding, the Law of Chastity allows for a closed set of circumstances wherein sexual behavior is allowed (between a husband and wife), with all other circumstances prohibited.

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

We are given a law not to steal. 

Yep.  And if someone comes along and says "But I really want this widget," is he excused from the law's constraint?  Nope.

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is it truly the same law for a man who is starving and wants to steal food in order to eat as it is for a wealthy man who has more than he could spend in a lifetime who considers stealing a loaf of bread instead paying for a lark when it has such a different ending for both?  

Yes, it is.  But the Lord's judgment on the matter will obviously vary based on circumstances, motive, etc.

A starving man who steals a loaf of bread will, I think, fall within the atonement of Jesus Christ.  The law is there, but the transgression of it is swallowed upon by the mercies of our Lord.

Is there any comparable circumstance pertaining to homosexual behavior?  Where committing a sin (homosexual behavior) is compulsory?  A matter of life and death?  A lesser of two evils?  A Sophie's Choice?  Broadly speaking, I can't really think of any.

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

One obeys the law and dies of starvation. The other obeys the law and spends a little of the endless cash he possesses so nothing in his life actually changes.

Same law, disparate impact.

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is it not requiring something different of these two men?  

Such "Jews in the attic" or "Sophie's Choice"-style conundrums are not, in my view, valid examinations of morality because in those contexts agency has been undermined and corrupted. They are contrived and forced.  

That said, where X is generally considered a wrongful act, and where a person is coerced (here, by starvation and pending death) into doing X, that person will not, I think, be held accountable to God for having committed X because he (the person) cannot be said to have exercised his agency.  He did not make a knowing, volitional decision to do X.  He was forced.  He was coerced. 

But that's hardly the case with the run-of-the-mill "I am sexually attracted to someone of the same gender as me" scenario.  There is no threat.  No coercion.  No pending death.  No impossible choice.  No dilemma.

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

And therefore is a different standard?

Yes.  Same standard ("Thou shalt not steal"), with likely a very disparate impact.  The Lord will judge us individually.

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

Both have not stolen, but in the case of the wealthy man he was not required to sacrifice anything else.  In the case of the starving man, to obey the law he had to sacrifice his own life. 

See above.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

You keep referring to “the priesthood ban.”

Yes.

2 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I didn’t compare same-sex marriage to “the priesthood ban.”  I compared it to the church’s policies and leaders’ teachings on interracial marriage and it’s policies against sealing interracial marriage.

Again, 19th-century (and, sadly, some 20th-century) attitudes about interracial marriage were, in my view, influenced by the same racist sentiments that undergirded the priesthood ban.

I see no corollary as pertaining to the Law of Chastity.  I know that some folks feel that disagreement with homosexual behavior and SSM can only be explained as being based on hatred and bigotry.  I've been hearing that refrain for decades now.  But I really don't think that is the case.  At all, really.

I have found it interesting that even as the Church becomes less strident more conciliatory and compassionate on these matters, the opposing vitriol against it has not abated, and actually seems to be getting worse.

2 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

You clearly are either not getting or side stepping my point. 

You seem to think that I am obligated to defend past instances of racism.  I'm not.

You also seem to be implying that the Church's doctrines pertaining to homosexual behavior and SSM are rooted in hatred and bigotry, and that I must therefore - for the sake of consistency - reject those doctrines as I have rejected racist sentiments of the past.  But I reject the premise.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, Calm said:

Smac, do you see everyone in the Church following the same standard no matter where they live when they agree to be “subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law”?

Some follow this "standard" better than others.  And there may be extraordinary circumstances in which resisting a tyrannical government is appropriate.

Again, I am not seeing a corollary here re: homosexual behavior.  Are you suggesting that there are circumstances in which knowingly and intentionally violating the Law of Chastity would be congruent with God's will?  If so, could you lay out such a scenario?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 20, 2022 by smac97

[Navidad]

53 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

I probably wasn't clear in my point about the dances here. The LDS folks certainly had dances - lots of them. It appears the one dance that was banned by some bishops, especially in Colonia Dublan was the waltz. I know nothing - zero - nada about the waltz, but apparently it was a bit too touchy for some bishops to allow into the 1930s. They had some great fiddlers here back then. There is a gravestone of a J. T. Whetten in the Colonia Juarez cemetery that features an engraving of his famous fiddle. For over 18 years he was bishop of Garcia and on the Juarez stake presidency. He was also the official fiddler for dances for those years. I wonder if you can fiddle a waltz? That shows you the little I know about such things. One . . . Two . . .  Three . . . and is there a Four? Take care my friend!

[The Nehor]

Just now, smac97 said:

I said nothing about any equivalence of this sort, and I reject it outright as offensive and false.  You are simply bearing false witness here.

You can’t dogmatically asset that all that is important is compliance with the exact meaning of the law and then cry “unfair” when it is shown that holding all violations of the law equal is morally repugnant.

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

With nary a scintilla of good faith in any of these questions, I decline to interact with you.

You have to put “further” at the end of that or it becomes a paradox.

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Law of Chastity is not altered by an individual's sexual feelings/inclinations.  The Law of Chastity creates boundaries intended to constrain those feelings.

Then don’t act surprised when telling some who is only attracted to their own gender that they can have no romantic life at all (while pedantically explaining for the 50th time that the law is just and applies equally to all despite their feelings on the matter) goes over about as well as telling a clinically depressed person that their life would get better if they would just cheer up a little.

[smac97]

Just now, The Nehor said:

Quote

The Law of Chastity is not altered by an individual's sexual feelings/inclinations.  The Law of Chastity creates boundaries intended to constrain those feelings.

Then don’t act surprised when telling some who is only attracted to their own gender that they can have no romantic life at all (while pedantically explaining for the 50th time that the law is just and applies equally to all despite their feelings on the matter) goes over about as well as telling a clinically depressed person that their life would get better if they would just cheer up a little.

Way back I knew a man who was in a deeply unhappy marriage (they later divorced).  Although I certainly sympathized with his plight, there was no point at which I would have encouraged him or endorsed his decision to commit adultery.  As unhappy has he was, violating his solemn covenants to God would have made things worse.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Implications and nuance notwithstanding, the Law of Chastity allows for a closed set of circumstances wherein sexual behavior is allowed (between a husband and wife), with all other circumstances prohibited.

Yep.  And if someone comes along and says "But I really want this widget," is he excused from the law's constraint?  Nope.

Yes, it is.  But the Lord's judgment on the matter will obviously vary based on circumstances, motive, etc.

A starving man who steals a loaf of bread will, I think, fall within the atonement of Jesus Christ.  The law is there, but the transgression of it is swallowed upon by the mercies of our Lord.

Is there any comparable circumstance pertaining to homosexual behavior?  Where committing a sin (homosexual behavior) is compulsory?  A matter of life and death?  A lesser of two evils?  A Sophie's Choice?  Broadly speaking, I can't really think of any.

Same law, disparate impact.

Such "Jews in the attic" or "Sophie's Choice"-style conundrums are not, in my view, valid examinations of morality because in those contexts agency has been undermined and corrupted. They are contrived and forced.  

That said, where X is generally considered a wrongful act, and where a person is coerced (here, by starvation and pending death) into doing X, that person will not, I think, be held accountable to God for having committed X because he (the person) cannot be said to have exercised his agency.  He did not make a knowing, volitional decision to do X.  He was forced.  He was coerced. 

But that's hardly the case with the run-of-the-mill "I am sexually attracted to someone of the same gender as me" scenario.  There is no threat.  No coercion.  No pending death.  No impossible choice.  No dilemma.

Yes.  Same standard ("Thou shalt not steal"), with likely a very disparate impact.  The Lord will judge us individually.

See above.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm glad you said this. Until that point I was picturing you as Javert   These lyrics from Stars came to mind.

 

You know your place in the sky
You hold your course and your aim
And each in your season
Returns and returns
And is always the same
And if you fall as Lucifer fell
You fall in flames!

And so it must be
For so it is written
On the doorway to paradise
That those who falter and those who fall
Must pay the price!

Lord let me find him
That I may see him
Safe behind bars
I will never rest
Till then, this I swear
This I swear by the stars!

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Way back I knew a man who was in a deeply unhappy marriage (they later divorced).  Although I certainly sympathized with his plight, there was no point at which I would have encouraged him or endorsed his decision to commit adultery.  As unhappy has he was, violating his solemn covenants to God would have made things worse.

Thanks,

-Smac

Unless you encouraged him to remarry. Doesn't the Bible say that a man who takes another man's wife in marriage is committing adultery. But times, and the LoC change... so...

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A starving man who steals a loaf of bread will, I think, fall within the atonement of Jesus Christ.  The law is there, but the transgression of it is swallowed upon by the mercies of our Lord.

Also worth noting that the people upholding and defending the status quo of such a society that allows that to happen may find themselves living out Jesus’s tale of Lazarus and the rich man. The Old Testament prophets have a lot to say about societies where to be honest is to be a victim of those who are not.

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Is there any comparable circumstance pertaining to homosexual behavior?  Where committing a sin (homosexual behavior) is compulsory?  A matter of life and death?  A lesser of two evils?  A Sophie's Choice?  Broadly speaking, I can't really think of any.

I can. Bacha bazi practices come to mind though there are similar practices all over.

[Calm]

Smac, if you don’t understand something in my post, it would be a more effective use of your time to stop there and wait till I clarify, because I generally try to build on ideas I previously mention and there is a good chance that you won’t ‘translate’ the rest of my post in the way I am intending it to me and instead if you continue an argument, there is a good chance it will either be strawmen or something that is ignoring my own argument, which I will then ignore as it won’t move the argument forward.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm glad you said this. Until that point I was picturing you as Javert   These lyrics from Stars came to mind.

I actually had Jean Valjean in mind when responding to Calm's hypothetical about a starving man stealing bread.

Personalized taunts and insults are pretty standard when tese topics come up.  Ho hum.  The smiley face makes it okay, I guess.

Thanks,

-Smac