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

[Ryan Dahle]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think we get sidetrack 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 think it may depend on the purpose of describing the unfairness. My goal in this portion of the post wasn't so much about identifying a good path forward, but rather was aimed towards recognizing the problem with using perceived "unfairness" as the ultimate measuring stick of goodness or divinity (hence why I used the term). I actually see the Plan of Salvation (as it has been revealed in multiple Restoration texts) as collectively developing a sort of comprehensive theodicy, which is intended to help us NOT see life as unfair and to NOT see ourselves as victims. 

But your point is well taken. I'm still struggling to figure out how to relate these ideas in a way that isn't off-putting or isn't easily misunderstood. 

[Ryan Dahle]

11 minutes ago, Nofear said:

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.

Yes. The fact that we chose to come here and that it is a relatively short portion of our eternal existence should definitely influence our perceptions of disparities and suffering. 

Edited September 6, 2023 by Ryan Dahle

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Yes. The fact that we chose to come here and that it is a relatively short portion of our eternal existence should definitely influence our perceptions disparities and suffering. 

It is a tremendous help to me generally speaking and it is so ingrained that it helps even in very bad times, but I would be cautious with those who do not bring it up themselves in the midst of their struggles as too often it can feel diminishing of what they are going through and that is not what they need in the moment.

Sometimes “this too shall pass” is what one needs to hear, others it is “what a hell it is you are going through”.  Not always easy to tell when each is right or something else is needed.  That is why it is so important to listen for understanding rather than listening to defend or to solve someone else’s problems for them.  And for those of us who believe, listen with the Spirit.  Rather than focusing on just being right, why not focus on being right and helpful?

A comment or an argument may be correct, but if its purpose is to be persuasive and it’s not persuading very many at all to believe it, is it a good comment/argument?

Edited September 6, 2023 by Calm

[kllindley]

9 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

But your point is well taken. I'm still struggling to figure out how to relate these ideas in a way that isn't off-putting or isn't easily misunderstood. 

Especially in a society where it seems that so many people are set on intentionally misunderstanding. It can be especially discouraging and frustrating to try to engage with good faith. 

[Rain]

12 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Yes. The fact that we chose to come here and that it is a relatively short portion of our eternal existence should definitely influence our perceptions of disparities and suffering. 

I think though we didn't really have a grasp of what that meant.  If we did then we wouldn't have much to learn.

[Ryan Dahle]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

It is a tremendous help to me generally speaking and it is so ingrained that it helps even in very bad times, but I would be cautious with those who do not bring it up themselves in the midst of their struggles as too often it can feel diminishing of what they are going through and that is not what they need in the moment.

True enough.

The truths that someone needs to most hear in any given moment can be difficult to discern, especially because sometimes people don't initially respond well to what they most need to hear or learn. Other than through inspiration, I think it is often very hard to know what the right thing to say is. Sometimes parents say things to their children that are rejected and initially turn their kids away from the parents. But later in life the children remember their parents' teachings and return (sort of like Alma the younger, who remembered the words of his father). On the other hand, sometimes we really can (and often do) say the wrong truths at the wrong time and unnecessarily push people away. 

And of course, sometimes we can say things that aren't even true or helpful at exactly the wrong time. Probably me more often than I would like to admit. 

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

But your point is well taken. I'm still struggling to figure out how to relate these ideas in a way that isn't off-putting or isn't easily misunderstood. 

Me too.  From what I see you are doing better than I am here.   

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

The truths that someone needs to most hear in any given moment can be difficult to discern, especially because sometimes people don't initially respond well to what they most need to hear or learn. Other than through inspiration, I think it is often very hard to know what the right thing to say is. Sometimes parents say things to their children that are rejected and initially turn their kids away from the parents. But later in life the children remember their parents' teachings and return (sort of like Alma the younger, who remembered the words of his father). On the other hand, sometimes we really can (and often do) say the wrong truths at the wrong time and unnecessarily push people 

The mire that is human relationships. The hardest thing for me to learn is when to not say anything at all and give my children (and others)space.  God does that a lot it seems.  Must be a useful tactic.

Edited September 6, 2023 by Calm

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

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.

And once again we have the pedophilia comparison. It is unavoidable. For many their brains see them as perfectly analogous so they immediately jump to the comparison. Again. And again. And again.

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And once again we have the pedophilia comparison. It is unavoidable. For many their brains see them as perfectly analogous so they immediately jump to the comparison. Again. And again. And again.

I think it’s similar to Godwins law. When somebody is trying to make a point about how horrible some thing is, they reach out to an extreme example that most people understand.  Likewise, I think when we are talking about desires that someone is born with that are controversial to act upon, the person reaches out to the extreme example that most people understand.

I agree it’s not good though.

Maybe we could come up with some other innate desires that people can be born with that are also controversial but which don’t include abusing children to use instead?  I think if people had some other examples to work with that they would stop using the comparison to pedophilia.
 

[kllindley]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it’s similar to Godwins law. When somebody is trying to make a point about how horrible some thing is, they reach out to an extreme example that most people understand.  Likewise, I think when we are talking about desires that someone is born with that are controversial to act upon, the person reaches out to the extreme example that most people understand.

I agree it’s not good though.

Maybe we could come up with some other innate desires that people can be born with that are also controversial but which don’t include abusing children to use instead?  I think if people had some other examples to work with that they would stop using the comparison to pedophilia.
 

I also have tried to find any number of analogies, but in my experience what most people object to is the very idea that there is anything analogous to sexual orientation except race. You can't talk about any desire that could be reasonably resisted or overcome. It has to be inborn, unchangeable, utterly inseparable from a person's core identity, morally neutral, and completely uncontroversial. 

I would love to be proven wrong. Will anyone propose a suitable analogy?

[Stormin' Mormon]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it’s similar to Godwins law. When somebody is trying to make a point about how horrible some thing is, they reach out to an extreme example that most people understand.  Likewise, I think when we are talking about desires that someone is born with that are controversial to act upon, the person reaches out to the extreme example that most people understand.

I agree it’s not good though.

Maybe we could come up with some other innate desires that people can be born with that are also controversial but which don’t include abusing children to use instead?  I think if people had some other examples to work with that they would stop using the comparison to pedophilia.
 

But if the new comparison is likewise controversial, won't the new comparison be just as offensive?  How do we compare one controversial issue with another controversial issue without giving offense?  This can be especially dicey when one party doesn't think "Issue A" SHOULD be controversial, so that any comparison to a similarly situated controversial issue is going to be offensive no matter what.  

And lest someone chime in to say that we shouldn't compare same sex behaviors to anything but same sex behaviors: that's just silly.  You don't learn anything by comparing two things that are exactly the same.  You do, however, learn a lot by comparing two things that have at least one thing in common, as long as you then explore why the two things are different despite that commonality.  It's not the commonality that sheds light on the discussion, but the differences.    

 

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

But if the new comparison is likewise controversial, won't the new comparison be just as offensive?  How do we compare one controversial issue with another controversial issue without giving offense?  This can be especially dicey when one party doesn't think "Issue A" SHOULD be controversial, so that any comparison to a similarly situated controversial issue is going to be offensive no matter what.  

And lest someone chime in to say that we shouldn't compare same sex behaviors to anything but same sex behaviors: that's just silly.  You don't learn anything by comparing two things that are exactly the same.  You do, however, learn a lot by comparing two things that have at least one thing in common, as long as you then explore why the two things are different despite that commonality.  It's not the commonality that sheds light on the discussion, but the differences.    

 

It's a hard challenge.  I think that any controversial comparison that doesn't include abusing children would be a huge improvement.  But I honestly don't know if there is one.  Hopefully we can come up with some options.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

And once again we have the pedophilia comparison. It is unavoidable. For many their brains see them as perfectly analogous so they immediately jump to the comparison. Again. And again. And again.

I saw it as discussing how people discuss homosexual attraction, not making the comparison himself, and you make the same point that the comparison gets made…and you also hate that it gets made and perhaps he doesn’t.  Maybe Ryan will clarify this.

[kllindley]

Just now, bluebell said:

It's a hard challenge.  I think that any controversial comparison that doesn't include abusing children would be a huge improvement.  But I honestly don't know if there is one.  Hopefully we can come up with some options.

I've tried adultery, alcohol use, theft, and porn use. A close friend tried specific food desires and was pilloried. 

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's a hard challenge.  I think that any controversial comparison that doesn't include abusing children would be a huge improvement.  But I honestly don't know if there is one.  Hopefully we can come up with some options.

This is why I went to how my medical disorder gets discussed by some, though I hoped I made it clear I was comparing the discussion and not the situations.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

And lest someone chime in to say that we shouldn't compare same sex behaviors to anything but same sex behaviors: that's just silly.

Why not choose the obvious? Committed same sex couple is analogous to committed herero couple? Seems simple. 
 

*Edited for error. Thanks Calm

Edited September 7, 2023 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Calm]

Just now, kllindley said:

I've tried adultery, alcohol use, theft, and porn use. A close friend tried specific food desires and was pilloried. 

All of these are negative examples in our greater society.  I think to be comfortably compare it would first need to be a behaviour that is generally approved of, but excluded in the Church.

I wonder if the principle of being kosher could somehow be used.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Committed same sex couple is analogous to same sex herero couple? Seems simple. 

You mean hetero couple minus the “same sex”?

Edited September 7, 2023 by Calm

[kllindley]

9 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Why not choose the obvious? Committed same sex couple is analogous to same sex herero couple? Seems simple. 

And completely denies the validity of any religious beliefs about the essentially complementary nature of sex. Which pretty much proves my point right? 

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Why not choose the obvious? Committed same sex couple is analogous to same sex herero couple? Seems simple. 

Bottomline for me, it is a matter of faith.  There are many circumstances in many faiths where celibacy is required.  In our faith, there is only one condition that allows for celibacy to be even be put aside, marriage between a man and woman.    Given more than half the adults in the Church are unmarried, we should stop treating celibacy as the exception that one endures until marriage, imo.

Rather than looking at desires outside of hetero marriage as wrong, I think a better way might be to view celibacy outside of heterosexual marriage as an opportunity for sanctification, just as marriage is.  Our glorification of marriage as the one true path to exaltation and the sooner on it the better makes every other path ‘less than’.  Perhaps some day we can avoid the ideals trap and treat whatever path God has given us with equal respect.  And that way perhaps we will become more aware of how we can support each person walk their path.

Do I know how to do this given a requirement of exaltation is marriage?  Part of the requirement for exaltation is to be resurrected and no one is demanding we be resurrected in the here and now, so I am thinking there is a way.

Edited September 7, 2023 by Calm

[kllindley]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

All of these are negative examples in our greater society.  I think to be comfortably compare it would first need to be a behaviour that is generally approved of, but excluded in the Church.

I wonder if the principle of being kosher could somehow be used.

Oooh. Kosher could be really good. I'm curious how that would be received. 

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Oooh. Kosher could be really good. I'm curious how that would be received. 

Would love to hear how you would approach it (by the way so happy to see you back here).  My brain has had enough work for today, I am hitting the pool and calling it day’s end when I get back, but want more than a vague notion to simmer overnight.

[Calm]

Nehor, Seeking, and others who dislike the comparison and my guess the usual ways the same sex part of the LoC is generally taught…

Whether or not you believe in the LoC same sex section, how would you teach it if you are/were a believer in it and want to persuade others to accept it and support those trying to live it?

Edited September 7, 2023 by Calm

[Stormin' Mormon]

56 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Why not choose the obvious? Committed same sex couple is analogous to same sex herero couple? Seems simple. 

If the point of a proposed analogy is to compare and contrast sexual behaviors that are proscribed by church teachings, then comparing committed hetero relationships to committed same-sex relationships is less than useful.

The hetero relationship is sometimes sanctioned, sometimes proscribed, depending on circumstances. But no set of circumstances will lift the proscription against same-sex relationships, no matter how committed. Unfair? Maybe. True? As to current Church policy, indubitably.

Is there an apt comparison to an always-proscribed sexual behavior that wouldn't be offensive? Anything to advance the cause of rational dialogue and engaged rhetoric would be helpful and appreciated.