BYU’s newly updated Honor Code is at odds with LDS Church’s LGBTQ rules

[Calm]

On 9/1/2023 at 4:22 PM, smac97 said:

On 9/1/2023 at 3:42 PM, Calm said:

Would you think it makes sense to say the impact of the Law of Chastity is the same for kids under ten years of age as it is for college kids?  

Broadly, yes.

This makes absolutely no sense to me when if there was no LoC, nothing would change for the preteen kids while the college kids’ life would have a massive adjustment for many.

There is the impact on the kids of their parents obeying the LoC, but I am speaking of direct impact only here.

Maybe we are defining impact differently?

Quote

Are these laws "unfair" because more men violate them as compared to women? 

Are you defining “impact” as whether or not something is logically fair/just?  For example, three apples are given to an adult and three apples are given to a nursing baby.  In one sense I suppose you could say the impact is the same because they have an identical gift.  However, I personally would never say the impact is the same because the baby does not benefit at all from the gift.  The apples will rot before they can eat them.  I am wondering if you are using impact in the first sense, if treatment is identical even if it ignores the attributes of the person being given the treatment, the impact is the same in your view?

Could you please explain your definition in detail of “impact” and how you see it in context, please.  Usually I can see where you are going with something, but your position seems nonsensical to me with that “broadly”.

For me impact means it has an effect, it changes behaviour, whether internal or external.

Edited September 3, 2023 by Calm

[Rain]

For those of you who feel attraction for the same sex and are trying or were trying to stay faithful to what the church teaches I am sorry it has been so hard on you. 

I love my husband dearly.  I felt I knew him from the moment I saw him and looked in his eyes.  I want to write "I can only imagine" how tough it has been for you, but honestly I don't ever want to even try to imagine what it would be like not to have him had it been that we are not to love the opposite sex (I know that's not very empathetic or compassionate, but just the thought of it is devastating to me).

I have no idea how it can fit in the Plan of Salvation idea the church has so I can say it definitely affects you more than it does me.

Edited September 3, 2023 by Rain

[smac97]

On 9/2/2023 at 11:49 AM, Calm said:

Maybe we are defining impact differently?

Maybe we are.  

Example #1: The Military Selective Service Act requires men, but not women, to register for military conscription.  It "impacts" men differently than it does women.

Example #2: On the other hand, Utah Code 76-5-102, which prohibits "{a}n actor" from committing assault in Utah, does not "impact" men differently than it does women.  Both men and women are held to the exact same standard in terms of proscribed/prohibited conduct.  That men are, as a practical matter, more likely to break this law is, in my view, neither here nor there.  Everyone, regardless of sex or propensity or whatever, is held to the same behavior standard.

So as to which of these laws is the Law of Chastity (and, by extension, the Honor Code) more similar?

On 9/2/2023 at 11:49 AM, Calm said:

Are you defining “impact” as whether or not something is logically fair/just?  

Not really.

On 9/2/2023 at 11:49 AM, Calm said:

Could you please explain your definition in detail of “impact” and how you see it in context, please.  Usually I can see where you are going with something, but your position seems nonsensical to me with that “broadly”.

I differentiate between children and adults.  Secular law draws vast differences in how the law applies to children - particularly "kids under ten years of age" - as compared to adults ("college kids").

Similarly, the Restored Gospel has an "age of accountability" concept that differentiates accountability under the law for children as compared to adults.

You asked: "Would you think it makes sense to say the impact of the Law of Chastity is the same for kids under ten years of age as it is for college kids?"

I responded: "Broadly, yes.  Practically, though, I think parents would question the wisdom/propriety of little kids engaging in behavior governed by the Law of Chastity (or the Honor Code)."

Children are, like adults, are obligated to obey the Law of Chastity.  Same standard.  However, "accountability" for violations of that standard will vary for children owing to their age, inexperience, etc.

The same cannot be said for young adults at BYU, all of whom know about, and agree to abide by, the Law of Chastity and the Honor Code well before matriculation.

On 9/2/2023 at 11:49 AM, Calm said:

For me impact means it has an effect, it changes behaviour, whether internal or external.

For me, "impact" has more to do with application, not with subjective and internalized reactions to prescriptive or proscriptive laws.

Again:

Quote

Feelings are Not Determinative of Morality (Where God Has Spoken):

This one is pretty straightforward, but it still gets glossed over.  A lot.

A married man doesn't get to have an adulterous affair because he desires it. 

A married man doesn't get to enter into polygamy because he desires it.

An unmarried person doesn't get to have sex because he desires it.

And, yes, members of the Church do not get to engage in homosexual behavior, even if they desire it.  

Desires are not determinative of the standard. God has prohibited adultery amongst His children. God has also prohibited same-sex behavior amongst His children. It is true that some of His children want to (and do) engage in adultery. This is wrong. It is also true that some of His children want to (and do) engage in same-sex behavior. This is wrong. The same standard applies to all church members.

This board is chalkablock full of threads and posts explaining how homosexual members are treated differently because they cannot fulfill their desires.  But if we take desires out of the equation, and simply look at the standard of behavior imposed on church members, we see that the same standard is applied across the board. Once we see that, all the various arguments presented in this thread, based as they are on homosexuals being downtrodden because of their unfulfilled desires, fail.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Similarly, the Restored Gospel has an "age of accountability" concept that differentiates accountability under the law for children as compared to adults.

We also have the concept of covenant obligation. Those who have not accepted baptismal covenants aren't bound by the Law of Tithing or the Word of Wisdom. I define 3 categories of law.

1. There are laws that every human covenanted to obey prior to mortality and are universal to all mortals.
2. There are laws that some willingly "subject" themselves to via additional covenants (with the associated additional blessings for keeping those covenants).
3. After mortality, we will choose to live in a Kingdom that conforms to our willingness to abide and keep the laws of that Kingdom.

Just to be clear, I'm not disagreeing with anything you wrote in your post. Just adding some additional questions. The Law of Chastity seems to be a mix of category 1 and category 2 laws. I don't consider a couple that are cohabitating in full fidelity to their partner as "living in sin" if they don't accept the Gospel. But, if one were to accept the Gospel than cohabitation without a marriage acknowledge by God would be sinful.

In this framework, would people argue that cohabitation with a same-sex partner be a category 1 or category 2 sin?

[Ryan Dahle]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

For me, "impact" has more to do with application, not with subjective and internalized reactions to prescriptive or proscriptive laws.

So it would appear that those conversing about the issues (@smac97 and @Calm) definitely have different views of "impact." A lot of it also probably has to do with the way that certain subjective desires are perceived as well as the way that homosexual behavior is perceived.

The current gospel view is that homosexual behavior is morally wrong and spiritually harmful. Therefore, desires to engage in this behavior, even if they arise from biological or psychological conditions largely out of one's control, are nevertheless to be viewed as something like temptations to commit sin. The law is there to help warn and protect individuals and communities against the harmful effects of these behaviors. Thus, homosexual attraction could be compared (as Smac has done) to other inappropriate desires (such as committing adultery or assault or some other widely eschewed behavior). One might also note that people don't generally have a lot of pity or sympathy or empathy for those who molest children, no matter how strong or authentic their subjective urgers to commit this behavior may be. Thus, it would appear that the positive perception of homosexual behavior and desires (in contrast to something like child abuse) is likely what is driving the pushback against Smac's views, not merely the subjectively perceived disproportional impact itself. 

In contrast to the above gospel view, those who indeed view homosexual behavior as morally acceptable and even something to be commended, will likely view homosexual desires in the same positive light. And from that perspective, any law against homosexual behavior won't seem like it is meant to protect individuals and communities from true spiritual harm, but rather to unfairly stifle their completely legitimate and appropriate desires. Thus, from this perspective, analogies to laws against adultery or child abuse would seem completely invalid.

Here is another interesting way of looking at impact that might shed light on the divergent views. One could certainly argue that the commandment against adultery disproportionately affects those who desire adultery compared to those who don't. And from a personal, subjective perspective that seems to be true. However, even from a subjective viewpoint (rather than a legalistic view) there are potentially different ways of viewing this disparate impact. Imagine, for a moment, that a man has been tempted to commit adultery for many years but chooses to never give in to the temptation. And imagine that part of his resolve to resist has come from the negative consequences that he knew would follow: not only would giving in to temptation harm his marriage, but he knew it would be a sin against God, reduce his capacity to serve God, and lead to Church discipline of some sort. And then imagine that eventually this temptation subsides, so that he no longer desires to commit adultery and he is grateful that he never did.

How might this individual look at the disproportionate impact of the law? Would he see it as an oppressive rule that unfairly stifled his innate desires, not allowing him to authentically carry out his very natural biological and social tendencies. Or would he see the disproportionate affects of the law as a blessing, helping save him from a temptation to commit harm that many other people might not fully understand or appreciate? If viewed from the latter perspective, the disproportionate impact would be seen as a blessing rather than as unfair oppression. The law might be seen as "targeting" him in order to help him resist evil, rather than merely as a vehicle to unfairly condemn him and limit his freedom to be himself. 

So, I think what this really all boils down to is whether or not we believe that God has truly prohibited homosexual behavior, as well as assumptions about why he has or hasn't done so. It isn't just the fact that the law of chastity seems (from a subjective viewpoint) to disproportionately impact gay and lesbian Latter-day Saints that seems to rile people up (as most people seem perfectly okay that the law disproportionately impacts those with desires to commit child abuse or other harmful acts). Rather, what seems to be driving the outrage against the disparate impact is the perception held among many people that the law of chastity itself is wrong and that homosexual desires and behavior are morally acceptable and commendable (and in no way spiritually harmful or truly against God's commandments in any way). 

Late Note: I might just add that I think that no matter one's personal weaknesses or sins, whether great or small, God has perfect empathy, sympathy, and love for his children. That is the whole point of the Atonement. And we should strive as best we can to follow in Christ's footsteps. I want to clarify that I am in no way advocating that gay or lesbian members of the Church don't deserve empathy, sympathy, or love. I think they deserve all three. I think they truly are disproportionately impacted by the law of chastity in a way that would be extremely difficult for those not in their situation to understand or appreciate. The fact that this disproportionate impact is caused by differences in their subjectively perceived desires or attractions (which to a large extent may be out of their control) does not invalidate its reality for their lives. 

I think the way forward, at least for those who uphold and believe in the law of chastity, is to help others to trust in God and to subjectively frame this disproportionate impact in a different light. 

Edited September 6, 2023 by Ryan Dahle

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

So, I think what this really all boils down to is whether or not we believe that God has truly prohibited homosexual behavior, as well as assumptions about why he has or hasn't done so. It isn't just the fact that the law of chastity seems (from a subjective viewpoint) to disproportionately impact gay and lesbian Latter-day Saints that seems to rile people up (as most people seem perfectly okay that the law disproportionately impacts those with desires to commit child abuse or other harmful acts). Rather, what what seems to be driving the outrage against the disparate impact is the perception held among many people that the law of chastity itself is wrong and that homosexual desires and behavior are morally acceptable and commendable (and in no way spiritually harmful or truly against God's commandments in any way). 

Yes, I think you are right and this is what it all boils down to. 

[MrShorty]

To take the Ecclesiast out of context, "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter:"

7 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

So, I think what this really all boils down to is whether or not we believe that God has truly prohibited homosexual behavior, as well as assumptions about why he has or hasn't done so.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

For me, "impact" has more to do with application, not with subjective and internalized reactions to prescriptive or proscriptive laws.

This is where we differ.  Impact has nothing inherently to do with laws, it can be used with anything that has an influence or effect on someone or something.

Impact to me is more like the meteor that hits the ground and leaves an impact crater where if the meteor burns up in the atmosphere, no impact.  I see that part of the LoC that deals with same sex behaviour ‘missing’ those who have no same sex attraction because it has no effect and hitting those who do.

These would be the definitions I am using, from google…

Quote

the effect or influence of one person, thing, or action, on another

Quote

have a strong effect on someone or something

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Rather, what seems to be driving the outrage against the disparate impact is the perception held among many people that the law of chastity itself is wrong and that homosexual desires and behavior are morally acceptable and commendable (and in no way spiritually harmful or truly against God's commandments in any way). 

You have, imo, well stated the dynamics of this and other similar conversations. 
 

Just to be clear though, I am not outraged against the disparate impact of the LoC. I do not understand it though I have my own speculation, but I accept it on faith it is the best path to choose to take for our relationships based on attraction.  Individually I would judge a same sex relationship in the same ways I judge an opposite sex one, it all depends on how much they help each other to grow towards God, how much they help each other in other ways, and how much they harm each other…something that would be difficult for me to know enough details to be fair in most cases, so I try not to judge unless there is obvious suffering from someone’s behaviour, as in the case of abuse or clear selfishness.  

My part in this conversation is motivated by my very strong belief that it is wise to recognize the difference in effect of that part of the LoC because telling someone struggling with it the effect of law is the same in that no one else can act romantically or sexually with someone of the same sex either will most likely be seen as clueless when it comes to their experience.  

People who give me advice about how I should live with my various disorders who don’t understand the effects of the disorders are wasting my time and I will generally ignore them and if they insist they are right like a few have over the years, I will avoid them, especially if their reaction in dismissing my claims their methods of exercise, diet, or supplements won’t work for me is to treat me as a hypochondriac or someone looking to use my disorder to get away with criminal behaviour (get drugs I don’t need), get attention, take advantage of people, dramatize my life, etc.  And I get angry at times when laws or rules are made without taking into account the needs of people like me (there are lots of horror stories of sufferers being cut off out of the blue from meds due to new restrictions they weren’t warned about even though studies show there is a low rate of abuse for us) or costs are exorbitant that make it more difficult to get treatments I know work or hope that they will.   Mostly I am weary that others make it so hard for me to be functional, each year making it harder for me to do right by myself and my loved ones, especially when they insist I live by their rules based on someone else’s behaviour and needs when it is detrimental to me or even destructive.****  

And it is so fun to deal with the guilt trip of those hurt by my reaction when all they were doing was trying to help. 

I assume at the very least someone who wants to live the LoC in all ways, but who struggles with some part of it will respond in a similar way at the very least.  Those who recognize what is being asked of them will have a better chance of being listened to, those who appear to dismiss consequences as not meaningful or relevant, will get ignored or worse depending on how intrusive they are.

If someone doesn’t believe you can at least somewhat understand their experience, they will have much less reason to believe you have anything helpful to say to them.  I believe an argument such as Smac is making is going to close many more doors than it will open, even for those trying to live the LoC.  I find it hard to believe it will open anyone’s minds to accepting the LoC in fact unless they do already and don’t really consider the implications of it.

***PS:  my analogy of chronic illness isn’t going to work at all for those who see same sex attraction as a normal and “best” way to live life, of course.  I see the analogy as only really relevant for those who do accept the LoC in that others are giving me advice on how to live without understanding what it is like and making laws and rules which deeply affect my life and my options on how I can live my life without taking into account the needs of myself and others like me in most cases.  I am not saying the LoC doesn’t take account of those with same sex attraction, I am saying the secondary policies surrounding it may very well be created without serious consideration of the impact.

Edited September 6, 2023 by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Quote

For me, "impact" has more to do with application, not with subjective and internalized reactions to prescriptive or proscriptive laws.

This is where we differ.  Impact has nothing inherently to do with laws,

Okay.  We are talking about "laws," though.  The Law of Chastity.  The Honor Code.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

it can be used with anything that has an influence or effect on someone or something.

Agreed.  But in the context of a "law," either prescriptive or proscriptive, the subjective "impact" is generally not determinative because if so, every law could be characterized (negatively/pejoratively) as having a "disparate impact."

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Impact to me is more like the meteor that hits the ground and leaves an impact crater where if the meteor burns up in the atmosphere, no impact.

Not sure how to analogize this to the Law of Chastity or the Honor Code.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I see that part of the LoC that deals with same sex behaviour ‘missing’ those who have no same sex attraction because it has no effect and hitting those who do.

Again, subjective "feelings" are not, in my view, dispositive.

The Utah state statute prohibiting assault has no more or less application to me than it does to someone more inclined to resort to physical violence.  That this other person may be more inclined to break this law does not, in my view, matter.  We are both held to the same standard.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

These would be the definitions I am using, from google…

Understood.  By your reckoning, then, every law has a "disparate impact."  That essentially eliminates the utility of the concept, IMO.  

We are here speaking of the Honor Code and the Law of Chastity.  Both are disparaged or criticized in some circles because they proscribe behavior that critics want to be allowed / condoned / celebrated.  Characterizing the Honor Code and the LoC as "unfair" to people who, individually and subjectively, chafe against it doesn't really work, particularly when this criticism is couched in a "BYU hates gay people" context.  The Honor Code and the LoC also prohibits fornication (an unmarried person having sex outside of marriage) and adultery (a married person having sex outside of marriage), but few people seem to bother condemning those prohibitions.

John, a heterosexual male BYU student, may subjectively be inclined to have sexual relations with a woman while not married.  Are we to condemn the Law of Chastity and/or the Honor Code because it prohibits such behavior?  No.  Is the Honor Code "unfair" to John?  No, because the prohibition applies to everyone.  That Jared, a fellow BYU student is "gay" (and who, therefore, is not inclined to have sexual relations with a woman) does not make the Honor Code "unfair" relative to John.

Now reverse the above.

Jared, a "gay" male BYU student, may subjectively be inclined to have sexual relations with a man.  Are we to condemn the Law of Chastity and/or the Honor Code because it prohibits such behavior?  No.  Is the Honor Code "unfair" to Jared?  No, because the prohibition applies to everyone.  That John, a fellow BYU student is heterosexual (and who, therefore, is not inclined to have sexual relations with a man) does not make the Honor Code "unfair" relative to Jared.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 6, 2023 by smac97

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That essentially eliminates the utility of the concept, IMO….

Characterizing the Honor Code and the LoC as "unfair" to people who

And you are missing my point.  I have never once called the Honor Code or LoC unfair.  My point is not a discussion about fairness or unfairness but the actual impact, what it is because speaking of that and not being dismissive of it as the same for straights and gays is what will create a greater chance of resonating with someone with same sex attraction or with those wondering why the Church requires it.

Something can be different, but still be appropriate.

And I don’t know how else to make my point, so will stop here.

Edited September 6, 2023 by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

My part in this conversation is motivated by my very strong belief that it is wise to recognize the difference in effect of that part of the LoC because telling someone struggling with it the effect of law is the same in that no one else can act romantically or sexually with someone of the same sex either will most likely be seen as clueless when it comes to their experience.  

I respectfully disagree.  I likewise have a fairly strong belief that it is unhealthy and incorrect to characterize the Law of Chastity as being unfair or unduly burdensome on some as compared to others.  The effect of doing is, in my view, to disparage the Law of Chastity (which we believe is divinely instituted), to mischaracterize it as unjust.  I just cannot get on board with that.  

It is not that I am "clueless" about the Law of Chastity.  It is, instead, that I see no value or utility in making gay folks (or unmarried folks, or any other group) out to be victims of it.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I assume at the very least someone who wants to live the LoC in all ways, but who struggles with some part of it will respond in a similar way at the very least.  Those who recognize what is being asked of them will have a better chance of being listened to, those who appear to dismiss consequences as not meaningful or relevant, will get ignored or worse depending on how intrusive they are.

I have not done this.  I acknowledge that the Law of Chastity is difficult to obey, particularly in our increasingly sexualized world.

Obedience to the laws God has given us is paramount.  The more we characterize a law as being unfair or unjust, the more incentive we give to our brothers and sisters to disregard it.  This is all the more troubling because the Law of Chastity is not unfair or unjust.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

If someone doesn’t believe you can at least somewhat understand their experience, they will have much less reason to believe you have anything helpful to say to them.  I believe an argument such as Smac is making is going to close many more doors than it will open, even for those trying to live the LoC.  

I think arguments predicated on the Law of Chastity being unfair/unjust are far more damaging.

I think arguments situating gay people (or any other demographic) as victims of the Honor Code is not doing anyone any good at all.  

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I find it hard to believe it will open anyone’s minds to accepting the LoC in fact unless they do already and don’t really consider the implications of it.

I find it unlikely that we can persuade anyone of the merits of the Law of Chastity (namely, its divine origins, its beauty, its preservation of the sanctity of sexuality in the ways God intends for us, its intended and actual benefits, etc.) when we disparage the Law as unjust and terrible.

The Lord has asked - commanded - us to keep sacred laws He has revealed through prophets and apostles.  We can and should acknowledge difficulties that can arise in obeying some of these laws, but I don't think we ought to do so in the context of disparaging the laws themselves.  He gave them to us for our benefit and learning, after all.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I likewise have a fairly strong belief that it is unhealthy and incorrect to characterize the Law of Chastity as being unfair or unduly burdensome on some as compared to others. 

And if that was what I was doing, that would be a problem.  Having different needs and responses and even being burdensome does not imply being unfair or unduly burdensome.  That you continue to rewrite my comments as making claims of unfairness is a sign you do not understand. 
PS:  I am not that good at stopping on a dime….I have to ease into it.

Edited September 6, 2023 by Calm

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

And you are missing my point.  I have never once called the Honor Code or LoC unfair.  

Okay.  That sure seems to be the context of the article in the OP.

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

My point is not a discussion about fairness or unfairness but the actual impact, what it is because speaking of that

And we seem to have played that discussion out.  You use "impact" in ways differently than I do.  I analogize the Law of Chastity to other laws, and you do not find that analogy compelling.  You analogize the Law of Chastity to courses of medical treatment, and I do not find that analogy compelling.

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

and not being dismissive of it as the same for straights and gays is what will create a greater chance of resonating with someone with same sex attraction or with those wondering why the Church requires it.

I am not "dismissive."  I acknowledge that the Law of Chastity is difficult.  What I find problematic is

• the (seeming) disparagement of the Honor Code in the OP, and the Law of Chastity implicitly (in the article and in this thread), and
• the generalized sentiment that people with same-sex attraction are unduly or unfairly burdened by, or even victims of, the Honor Code because they may have subjective desires that do not harmonize with the Law of Chastity, and
• the notion that the Law of Chastity holds all of us to the same behavioral standards is derived from ignorance, from a lack of empathy or understanding, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

And if that was what I was doing, that would be a problem.  Having different needs and responses and even being burdensome does not imply being unfair or unduly burdensome.  That you continue to rewrite my comments as making claims of unfairness is a sign you do not understand. 

First, I'm speaking generally.  Of the article in the OP.  Of the various comments in this thread.

Second, I think we are speaking past each other, so let's close up.  I'll leave the last word to you.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Just to be clear though, I am not outraged against the disparate impact of the LoC.

Thanks for making this point.

I was actually worried at the end of my post that I sort of lumped your views into a into a silo to which they didn't belong. My initial comments started off by addressing contrasting views of impact, held by you and Smac, but then much of the rest of my post was aimed much more broadly at different perspectives about impact (and weren't intended to be representative of your own specific views). Thanks again for the clarification and I apologize if my post inadvertently implied incorrect ideas about your own views (I wasn't careful enough about that and can see why it came across that way). 

[kllindley]

I think you are right, @Calm.  While I can see some value in stating that the behavioral standard of the Law ofh Chastity is the same for everyone, there is no question that the standard impacts different individuals differently. 

Does it do any harm to acknowledge that those who identify as gay, or experience predominantly same-sex attractions will have a different (and likely more difficult) experience in keeping the LoC? At the same time, I agree with @smac97 that it is disingenuous if BYU students to claim outrage at a behavioral standard that they knowingly agreed to follow. 

I think a potentially useful analogy (not equivalence!) here might be couples struggling with infertility and childlessness. They may understandably struggle to attend Church where there is such an emphasis on parenthood and family. Does it dilute the doctrine of parenthood for leaders and speakers to acknowledge the burden and pain that can come with infertility?  Now, if the expectation was that we quit talking about parenthood and its role in God's plan in order to avoid causing unpleasant feelings, I'm not on board. But openly acknowledging that some gospel principles are more difficult for certain people to follow, through no fault or character deficit of the person? Seems like a no-brainer to me. 

Now, some (many) people do seem to take that acknowledgement to be a starting point for advocating for the abandonment of the standard altogether.  I believe they do a lot of harm to the individuals who are genuinely in the middle of the struggle between the Restored Gospel/LoC and the very real experience of sexual attraction/orientation--probably an equal degree of harm as people who dismiss that struggle as unworthy of recognition.  I am sympathetic if someone, trying to defend the LoC from that sort of advocacy, misinterprets the genuine call for compassion and acknowledgement as an indication of further advocacy. 

I am not saying anything about anyone's motivation or intent. I'm just describing my perspective of the situation and discussion.

 

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That sure seems to be the context of the article in the OP.

I have been arguing against the usefulness of your argument, not the LoC.

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You analogize the Law of Chastity to courses of medical treatment, and I do not find that analogy compelling.

No, I analogize for some the discussion surrounding the LoC, the giving of advice on how to live it and the way some, such as yourself, defend it without taking into account its effects.  This analogy does not apply to those not seeking to live it or to the LoC itself.

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Thanks for making this point.

I was actually worried at the end of my post that I sort of lumped your views into an into a silo to which they didn't belong. My initial comments started off by addressing contrasting views of impact, held by you and Smac, but then much of the rest of my post was aimed much more broadly at different perspectives about impact (and weren't intended to be representative of your own specific views). Thanks again for the clarification and I apologize if my post inadvertently implied incorrect ideas about your own views (I wasn't careful enough about that and can see why it came across that way). 

 I thought you did well summarizing the issues, my comments are a very limited subtopic dealing with one defense of the LoC I have seen Smac and others use and haven’t seen the desired effect of it resonating or increasing understanding, so it is understandable to me that when speaking generally that distinction might be less obvious.

Edited September 6, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I think you are right, @Calm.  While I can see some value in stating that the behavioral standard of the Law ofh Chastity is the same for everyone, there is no question that the standard impacts different individuals differently. 

Does it do any harm to acknowledge that those who identify as gay, or experience predominantly same-sex attractions will have a different (and likely more difficult) experience in keeping the LoC? At the same time, I agree with @smac97 that it is disingenuous if BYU students to claim outrage at a behavioral standard that they knowingly agreed to follow. 

I think a potentially useful analogy (not equivalence!) here might be couples struggling with infertility and childlessness. They may understandably struggle to attend Church where there is such an emphasis on parenthood and family. Does it dilute the doctrine of parenthood for leaders and speakers to acknowledge the burden and pain that can come with infertility?  Now, if the expectation was that we quit talking about parenthood and its role in God's plan in order to avoid causing unpleasant feelings, I'm not on board. But openly acknowledging that some gospel principles are more difficult for certain people to follow, through no fault or character deficit of the person? Seems like a no-brainer to me. 

Now, some (many) people do seem to take that acknowledgement to be a starting point for advocating for the abandonment of the standard altogether.  I believe they do a lot of harm to the individuals who are genuinely in the middle of the struggle between the Restored Gospel/LoC and the very real experience of sexual attraction/orientation--probably an equal degree of harm as people who dismiss that struggle as unworthy of recognition.  I am sympathetic if someone, trying to defend the LoC from that sort of advocacy, misinterprets the genuine call for compassion and acknowledgement as an indication of further advocacy. 

I am not saying anything about anyone's motivation or intent. I'm just describing my perspective of the situation and discussion.

 

Very well stated and I agreed with all…as I understand it (nowadays I always see a possibility that I am misinterpreting  ).

[Nofear]

20 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Now, some (many) people do seem to take that acknowledgement to be a starting point for advocating for the abandonment of the standard altogether. 

Agreed. "How could a kind and loving God give people these feelings and then deny them expression of them!"
As you say, A) failure to acknowledge that it is a difficult position for some can be rather detrimental to many and at the same time, B) abandoning the Gospel of Jesus Christ is also extremely detrimental.

It some ways the cross-talk in this thread as saying, A) is a real issue and we should acknowledge that and the other saying B) truly matters, full stop. Both can be true.

[Ryan Dahle]

58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am not "dismissive."  I acknowledge that the Law of Chastity is difficult.  What I find problematic is

• the (seeming) disparagement of the Honor Code in the OP, and the Law of Chastity implicitly (in the article and in this thread), and
• the generalized sentiment that people with same-sex attraction are unduly or unfairly burdened by, or even victims of, the Honor Code because they may have subjective desires that do not harmonize with the Law of Chastity, and
• the notion that the Law of Chastity holds all of us to the same behavioral standards is derived from ignorance, from a lack of empathy or understanding, etc.

I think the bolded words are probably the only portions with which @Calm disagrees (f I understand her correctly).

Perhaps another way to look at it isn't about the law imposing an unfair or unequal burden upon the individuals, but rather that, at least in some cases, nature itself is creating the disproportionate burden. You seem to be looking at the LofC almost like the law of gravity. It affects all people equally, but the elderly or the unwell are often burdened by this law to an extent that healthy individuals aren't (and often can't fully imagine or empathize with). It isn't the law itself that is unfair or unequal, but rather various individuals' ability to abide by or function under the law (which may be due to nature or to their personal choices which lead to a lack of health or to both). 

I think all that Calm is saying is that if we go to a nursing home where people are upset about the unfairness of their not being able to walk freely as most people can, it may be wise to empathize with their plight rather than to focus on the fairness of gravity. On the other hand, to Smac's point, if residents of a nursing home truly are railing against gravity and emphasizing how unfair and unjust the law is, it may be helpful for some of them to recognize that the law itself actually isn't to blame, but that the undue burden comes from another source. Whether those suffering just need empathy or whether they may need more clarity about the true source of their plight may depend on their individual circumstances. Most people probably need both to some extent. 

One final point. I think that in the end, it is crucial to recognize that whether it is the law of gravity or the law of entropy (as human bodies eventually grow old and break down) that is causing someone's challenge (under the above scenario) then the burden can ultimately be traced back to the creator of these laws, especially if the lawgiver knew what he was doing and had the capacity to make things fair. In other words, the unfairness in relation to our varying capacities and burdens in relation to gravity ultimately is a product of God's intentional creative acts. It is how he intentionally designed the world. 

Similarly, if (1) God is the author of the law of chastity, and also (2) the creator of our mortal bodies, and (3) knew when he created our bodies that some people would have a harder time with the law of chastity than others for different reasons, and (4) he could have created our bodies differently so that no one would have an unequal burden in this area, and (5) if he could take away that burden at any time but chooses not to then, (6) we have to conclude that God is the ultimate sources of the unfairness (not BYU or the Church) and therefore that (7) we need to find a way to reconcile his unfairness with his justice and goodness or else (8) we must conclude that God is evil. 

This is why, for me, the argument that we know the LofC isn't from God (due to its blatantly obvious unfairness) is insufficient. The God I believe in has created the world so that disparities and unfairness confront us around every corner. True, many of the injustices of life are caused by other mortals. But underneath it all is a God who designed a world to test and try us, a place where bad things happen to good people simply because they get sick or because a hurricane destroys their home. Inequity and inequality is built into the system intentionally, so that one way or another we all get a pretty healthy taste of it. And God hasn't given the details for the vast majority of these disparities. Thus, for me, once we can solve the broader problem of evil, it seems like that same solution might very well be able to solve specific challenges to faith that fall under this general umbrella, such as the LofC. 

Edited September 6, 2023 by Ryan Dahle

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

God is the ultimate sources of the unfairness

This is not criticism, but an observation and explanation of my focus.  I think we get sidetracked when we start labeling the natural state of life as fair or unfair because that too often leads to us feeling victimized by life.  I think it is better to speak of conditions of life not created by mortal men in terms of what they are (saying it is hard to move is very different than saying it is unfair that it is hard for me/you to move).

I have hung out on a lot of different venues for medical conditions.  The venues that focus on how unfair life is do not seem as successful in helping people get useful answers.  They may feel validated and that is an important step, but if they aren’t happy, it isn’t going to help if they just stay in that mental place.  They need to see themselves as moving forward to something more desirable.

What humans do can be fair or unfair because of our prejudices and inequality of application and it’s important to examine human behaviour that way, but we may set ourselves up for unnecessary hardship if we treat all of life in those terms.

I do realize this is an ideal of mine, but I have seen language that works and language that doesn’t in motivating people to focus on what they can do and when it comes to nature, labeling it unfair in sympathy or fair in defending the state of things often backfires.  It sidetracks the conversation and the actors from accomplishing much of anything because you can’t often change the natural state of things, though it can be quite the opposite when you focus on the behaviour of humans, because you can change their laws.  God is included in the natural state of things in regards to his laws….though humans are misinterpreting his laws all the time.  When conversation gets limited to discussing whether or not something is fair or unfair over and over again, it is accomplishing very little imo.  Better to focus on how we can change things to make them work better for all involved.

Other than that, love your post.    It is tricky how to avoid the use of “unfairness” in order to avoid trigger what is almost a knee jerk reaction in some people in my experience, so it is understandable why it gets used so often.  You use it well, imo, as you are defining exactly what you mean by it.  Unfairness being why some are able to dismiss the LoC is a good point (because God is not unfair), but as far as I am concerned someone hasn’t been paying attention if they believe that if by “unfair” they mean disparity.

Edited September 6, 2023 by Calm

[Nofear]

22 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

This is why, for me, the argument that we know the LofC isn't from God (due to its blatantly obvious unfairness) is insufficient. The God I believe in has created the world so that disparities and unfairness confront us around every corner. True, many of the injustices of life are caused by other mortals. But underneath it all is a God who designed a world to test and try us, a place where bad things happen to good people simply because they get sick or because a hurricane destroys their home. Inequity and inequality is built into the system intentionally, so that one way or another we all get a pretty healthy taste of it. And God hasn't given the details for the vast majority of these disparities. Thus, for me, once we can solve the broader problem of evil, it seems like that same solution might very well be able to solve specific challenges to faith that fall under this general umbrella, such as the LofC. 

Sometimes I like to think of life like the ice bucket challenge that was in vogue a few years ago. Within the full temporal tapestry our mortal probation can be thought of as a brief dousing with cold water. It's about as pleasant as that too. Some buckets of ice are bigger than others, some colder and some warmer. While God is perfectly considerate of our situations in mortality, they also recognize that our vexations are pretty dang short in the scheme of things and that part of our challenge is to bear the dousing of ice water with some measure of grace.