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

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

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

Just shows the arbitrary nature of said religious beliefs. Just like how Latter-day Saints abstain from coffee. Per current teachings (as far as I can tell), coffee is proscribed for unknown reasons. Coffee isn’t inherently evil or immoral, just something church members can’t do. 
 

Every other analogy commonly used has serious issues. Some violate consent (sex with children, or animals). Some violate promises of fidelity (adultery). People of all faith traditions and none condemn these practices for these reasons quite aside from peoples religious feelings. This makes these analogies fundamentally flawed. 

[Stormin' Mormon]

32 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Every other analogy commonly used has serious issues. Some violate consent (sex with children, or animals). Some violate promises of fidelity (adultery). People of all faith traditions and none condemn these practices for these reasons quite aside from peoples religious feelings. This makes these analogies fundamentally flawed. 

What about polyamory? It is a sexual behavior proscribed by the teachings of the church, does not violate consent, and has its own form of fidelity within the polycule. In the last few years, polyamory has made gains in social acceptance and has lost much of the ick factor it used to have.

Is that an analogy we can work with?

[kllindley]

52 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Just shows the arbitrary nature of said religious beliefs. Just like how Latter-day Saints abstain from coffee. Per current teachings (as far as I can tell), coffee is proscribed for unknown reasons. Coffee isn’t inherently evil or immoral, just something church members can’t do. 
 

Every other analogy commonly used has serious issues. Some violate consent (sex with children, or animals). Some violate promises of fidelity (adultery). People of all faith traditions and none condemn these practices for these reasons quite aside from peoples religious feelings. This makes these analogies fundamentally flawed. 

I agree that there are issues with the analogies. Or more accurately people who disagree with the church's position find issues with the analogies. Because an analogy isn't trying to say two things are equivalent. Maybe people just no longer understand analogies in general, but my suspicion is that the issue is much more intentional. 

Coffee or Kosher food seem like less objectionable analogies in the offensive sense, but are still problematic to those who oppose the church's position. They claim those analogies trivialize sexual orientation. Like it's one thing to choose to abstain from coffee or bacon, but completely unreasonable to ask someone to abstain from all hope of love and sexual fulfillment.  

In that sense, I don't really blame people in the church who feel like it's a hopeless cause to have our beliefs respected. They probably figure: Why should they bend over backwards to avoid offending the LGBT activists with any remotely inadequate analogy when the very belief itself is what is so reprehensible?

[Ryan Dahle]

4 hours 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.

If you read my statements in context, I think you will find that the description of sexual child abuse wasn't intended as a "perfectly analogous" comparison to homosexuality (as in, item A is basically the same as item B). I am fully aware of a variety of important differences, despite these behaviors belonging to the same general category of sexual sins, under orthodox Latter-day Saint views of sin. 

Rather, I used pedophilia and adultery because, generally speaking, they are sexual activities with which pretty much everyone on this board will likely agree are not morally acceptable (even when those engaging in such activities have strong, innate desires driving their behavior). In other words, I used them for comparison precisely because so many people feel differently about them in contrast to homosexuality (and not because I think they are precisely the same as homosexuality). And this was all part of a broader set of points that you will have to go back and read for yourself, if you want to understand it and engage. 

Thus, in the context in which I used the comparison, and for the purpose of me using it, I think it was perfectly appropriate. That is just how philosophical and especially ethical discussions work: the interlocutors compare and contrast all sorts of related thoughts and behaviors for different purposes, and any given proposed comparison can have drastically different implications, depending on the nuances of the surrounding statements. 

Edited September 7, 2023 by Ryan Dahle

[kllindley]

31 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

That is just how philosophical and especially ethical discussions work: the interlocutors compare and contrast all sorts of related thoughts and behaviors for different purposes, and any given proposed comparison can have drastically different implications, depending on the nuances of the surrounding statements. 

Sadly we are far from that in society generally. The dominant discourse simply refuses to engage in disagreement. Dissenting viewpoints are instead made entirely taboo. 

[kllindley]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

I had a whole response written to you and lost it. ☹️ I'm sure this won't be as complete or well-written as the first attempt. 

I honestly don't find any of the above analogies offensive personally. I think that there *are* analogous elements to those comparisons. I've never taken them to be proposed as equivalencies. 

Unfortunately, after more thought, I think the Kosher analogy would also be problematic to those who oppose the church's LoC position. 

I reject the very modern, Western notion of sexual orientation as essential (inborn, unchangeable, and central to a person's core identity).  I think that is what they ultimately find so offensive. They seem to hate the very idea that sexual orientation might actually be a pattern of attraction that, like other attractions or inclinations, can be resisted or indulged. 

I guess I've become jaded about trying to have a meaningful conversation with people who find my beliefs inherently invalid and so destructive that they must be silenced or eradicated. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

I reject the very modern, Western notion of sexual orientation as essential (inborn, unchangeable, and central to a person's core identity). 

You might remember I believe there is spectrum of sexual fluidity in both intensity and attraction varying over one’s lifetime with development of sexual expression being similar to the development of verbal language…we are typically born with a strong drive towards language, but what language we use is determined mostly by our surroundings, though one’s ability in its use may be in part biologically.  Also while learned, it does not imply it is a choice for a child to learn language, though learning additional languages when older may be a choice….though while I chose to learn a language I never got beyond the most basics.  I do not have a gift of languages except perhaps for math/logic when I was younger.

The recent research of Lisa Diamond and others as well as some theories that were popular in the 70s and 80s are the main influences on my position.

Edited September 7, 2023 by Calm

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

What about polyamory? It is a sexual behavior proscribed by the teachings of the church, does not violate consent, and has its own form of fidelity within the polycule. In the last few years, polyamory has made gains in social acceptance and has lost much of the ick factor it used to have.

Is that an analogy we can work with?

Probably comes too close to plural marriage for many. I have wanted to write a up a discussion on plural marriage, modern Christian polygamy, and polyamory here for discussion but haven’t found time to write it up.

[Malc]

13 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

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.

...

However, when someone claims that everyone, homosexual or heterosexual, is being treated equally, is it not almost inevitable that that comparison will be made?

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

If you read my statements in context, I think you will find that the description of sexual child abuse wasn't intended as a "perfectly analogous" comparison to homosexuality (as in, item A is basically the same as item B). I am fully aware of a variety of important differences, despite these behaviors belonging to the same general category of sexual sins, under orthodox Latter-day Saint views of sin. 

Rather, I used pedophilia and adultery because, generally speaking, they are sexual activities with which pretty much everyone on this board will likely agree are not morally acceptable (even when those engaging in such activities have strong, innate desires driving their behavior). In other words, I used them for comparison precisely because so many people feel differently about them in contrast to homosexuality (and not because I think they are precisely the same as homosexuality). And this was all part of a broader set of points that you will have to go back and read for yourself, if you want to understand it and engage. 

Thus, in the context in which I used the comparison, and for the purpose of me using it, I think it was perfectly appropriate. That is just how philosophical and especially ethical discussions work: the interlocutors compare and contrast all sorts of related thoughts and behaviors for different purposes, and any given proposed comparison can have drastically different implications, depending on the nuances of the surrounding statements. 

Sounds like the reasoning of a Nazi.

Don’t be offended. The comparison is perfectly appropriate. This is just how philosophical and ethical discussions work.

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Sounds like the reasoning of a Nazi.

Don’t be offended. The comparison is perfectly appropriate. This is just how philosophical and ethical discussions work.

Which is it though Nehor?  Is it ok to make these kinds of comparisons to make a point or is it not?  It can't be ok for you to do it to other people and then bad for other people to do something similar.  

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Which is it though Nehor?  Is it ok to make these kinds of comparisons to make a point or is it not?  It can't be ok for you to do it to other people and then bad for other people to do something similar.  

The specific comparison is dangerous because it is pervasive and is used to vilify people. The whole “groomer” hysteria. The comparison leaps naturally to people’s minds because people have been hammering in the correlation for decades. It is not a coincidence that pedophilia and bestiality show up in so many anti-lgbt arguments. They have been associated with each other deliberately by rhetoricians.

So in general it is good to make comparisons but when those comparisons are hinting at the modern equivalent of Blood Libel it is a different story.

[MustardSeed]

I have no right to comment, because I have not read carefully enough all of the replies. The following is my opinion only. 

1. Religious stance is that sex should only be had between a married heterosexual couple. 

Therefore, the argument becomes about married heteros vs everything else. SA gets thrown into the mix by definition. 
 

2. Woke stance is that sex should only be had by consensual couples.  
 

I prefer the latter because it protects underage brides, protects women who are married to abusive men, protects children, is compassionate towards people innately homosexual, and invites humans to mind their own business. 
 

in theory, the church could combine both by requiring legal marriage and consensual relationship to make room for the reality of homosexuality. I know that religious folks will panic and say well that’s a slippery slope.

to that I say, sex is the slippery slope, and we are already on it. Let’s widen the circle. 

Ps It bothers me that there is so little conversation in church about consent. It’s such an issue with regards to abuse, foul play, harm done - 

FWIW. 

 

Edited September 7, 2023 by MustardSeed

[The Nehor]

15 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

What about polyamory? It is a sexual behavior proscribed by the teachings of the church, does not violate consent, and has its own form of fidelity within the polycule. In the last few years, polyamory has made gains in social acceptance and has lost much of the ick factor it used to have.

Is that an analogy we can work with?

One thing I would add is that generally there isn’t fidelity within a polycule unless you are talking about a closed relationship. This is sometimes called poly-fidelity or a closed triad or quad or whatever. Poly people in general look down on closed “poly” relationships. Polycules are not usually all involved with everyone else. A polycule is usually a branching thing with people having their own independent relationships. Relationships where everyone is involved with everyone else are usually called triads or quads. They are considered to be advanced poly and are generally advised against. They routinely blow up in messy ways. A lot of novices try to form them thinking they are the easiest and safest form of poly. They are very wrong.

It is worth noting that ENM “Ethical Non-Monogamy” is an umbrella term covering consensual relationships outside one partnership. Poly is a subset within ENM. The two terms are often confused by people though. For example a couple that has an occasional threesome or separate hookups but doesn’t seek romantic relationship is ENM but not poly.

[Stormin' Mormon]

35 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The specific comparison is dangerous because it is pervasive and is used to vilify people. The whole “groomer” hysteria. The comparison leaps naturally to people’s minds because people have been hammering in the correlation for decades. It is not a coincidence that pedophilia and bestiality show up in so many anti-lgbt arguments. They have been associated with each other deliberately by rhetoricians.

So in general it is good to make comparisons but when those comparisons are hinting at the modern equivalent of Blood Libel it is a different story.

What if someone says that same sex behaviors are NOT like child molestation? You know, like Ryan did in the comment you objected to.

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Sounds like the reasoning of a Nazi.

Don’t be offended. The comparison is perfectly appropriate. This is just how philosophical and ethical discussions work.

Let's just end our conversation on this happy note, after such a good-faith effort towards mutual understanding and healthy dialogue. 

 

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

What if someone says that same sex behaviors are NOT like child molestation? You know, like Ryan did in the comment you objected to.

Caveats that they aren’t exactly alike are common.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Let's just end our conversation on this happy note, after such a good-faith effort towards mutual understanding and healthy dialogue. 

 

I am sorry I wasn’t civil enough for you while you were comparing me to a pedophile.

[Stormin' Mormon]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Caveats that they aren’t exactly alike are common.

It wasn't a caveat; it was the whole point of that particular paragraph.  He outlines how some people do compare homosexual desires to other inappropriate desires, and then rebuts that view and explains why it often gets pushback.  Hint: it gets pushback because homosexual desires are NOT THE SAME as pedophilia. 

[Ryan Dahle]

41 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am sorry I wasn’t civil enough

Apology accepted. I'm glad you feel remorse and have repented of your sins.  😉 

Edited September 7, 2023 by Ryan Dahle

[The Nehor]

26 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Apology accepted. I'm glad you feel remorse and have repented of your sins.  😉 

Nah, I didn’t actually repent. I have been told that if I repent and then do the sin again it gets harder to repent. So I have decided to hold off on repenting until I am sure I can stop. Being snarky on the internet is something I will probably do again.

[Malc]

32 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Nah, I didn’t actually repent. I have been told that if I repent and then do the sin again it gets harder to repent. So I have decided to hold off on repenting until I am sure I can stop. Being snarky on the internet is something I will probably do again.

I sincerely hope so!

[smac97]

20 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Just shows the arbitrary nature of said religious beliefs.

I think distinguishing between heterosexual and homosexual behavior is very rational, and not reasonably described as "arbitrary" (that is, "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system").  And not just in a religious context.

The Church has long taught this:

Quote

Our purpose in mortality is to become like our heavenly parents. Our divine understanding and use of sexual intimacy are essential to that process of becoming.

The law of chastity is an eternal law, given by our Heavenly Father to all His children in all ages. It remains in force and is as applicable today as it was in earlier times in history. As with other commandments, the law is given by Heavenly Father to bless and help His children achieve their divine potential. Obeying the law of chastity includes abstaining from all sexual relations before marriage and remaining completely faithful and loyal after marriage. Sexual relations are to be limited to marriage between a man and a woman.

That sounds like a "reason or system."

Quote

Heavenly Father intends that sexual relations in marriage be used to create children and to express love and strengthen the emotional, spiritual, and physical connections between husband and wife.

That sounds like a "reason or system."

Quote

In marriage, sexual intimacy should unite wife and husband together in trust, devotion, and consideration for each other. Sexual relations within marriage must respect the agency of both partners and should not be used to control or dominate.

We may wonder, though, “Why should I obey the law of chastity? Why does God care about my moral behavior?” To answer these questions, God has revealed doctrine that, if correctly understood, will motivate us to keep the law of chastity and choose to express our sexuality within the boundaries He has set. As with all of God’s commandments, the law of chastity is best understood within the context of Heavenly Father’s plan of salvation and exaltation (see Alma 12:32). Obedience to the law of chastity will bring extraordinary blessings.

That sounds like a "reason or system."

Quote

Exceptional Promises

All human beings are beloved spirit sons or daughters of heavenly parents with a divine nature and eternal destiny. The reason we have bodies is to build on that divine nature so we can ultimately realize our eternal destiny. Heavenly Father wants us to gain earthly experience, progress toward perfection, and eventually enjoy the fulness of happiness that He enjoys. He knows that for us to have this kind of enduring joy, we need to progress along the course He has established, obeying the commandments He has given.

Understanding that family relationships are to be perpetuated throughout the eternities after this life is vital. After mortality, the faithful are promised that “they shall pass by the angels … to their exaltation and glory … which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

“Then shall they be gods, because they have no end” (Doctrine and Covenants 132:19–20).

The doctrine of eternal families in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is unique among Christian traditions. We were not created solely to praise, adore, and serve some incomprehensible God. We were created by loving heavenly parents to grow up to become like them. Male and female spirits were created to complement each other. That is why gender is not fluid in the eternities—because it provides the basis for the ultimate gift Heavenly Father can give, His kind of life.

For us to realize this blessing, Heavenly Father commanded that sexual intimacy is to be reserved for marriage between a man and a woman. Marriage was intended by God “to mean the complete merger of a man and a woman—their hearts, hopes, lives, love, family, future, everything … to be ‘one flesh’ in their life together.” We cannot achieve the kind of life our Heavenly Father enjoys by ourselves or without a complete commitment to fidelity within a marriage to our husband or wife according to God’s plan

Not arbitrary, this

Quote

Distracting Philosophies and Satan’s Deceptions

 

Flawed reasoning and Satan’s deceptions have produced distracting philosophies that claim to eliminate the need for obeying God’s commandments, especially the law of chastity. Satan’s opposing voice is loud, and his philosophies are often enticing. In the Book of Mormon, some espoused these philosophies to deceive others and to profit from the deception. For example, Nehor taught the Nephites “that all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord … had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life” (Alma 1:4).

If we adopt Nehor’s philosophy, we have no incentive to curtail our sexual appetites because there are no eternal consequences. And if we violate the law of chastity? No worries, since those who followed Nehor “did not believe in repentance of their sins” (Alma 15:15). This enticing philosophy can be seductive, and many find it appealing; we can do whatever we want with no eternal consequences.

Other false teachers in the Book of Mormon preached that believing in Jesus Christ, His Atonement, and keeping His commandments is to “yoke yourselves” to “foolish things” and derives from the ridiculous “traditions of your fathers” (Alma 30:13, 14). Indeed, they proclaimed, looking forward to “a remission of your sins” is merely a mental or emotional problem, the “effect of a frenzied mind” (Alma 30:16). The inescapable conclusion of these teachings is that every man and woman succeeds in this life “according to [their] genius” and “strength” and that whatsoever a man or woman does is “no crime” (Alma 30:17). These false teachings promote disobeying the law of chastity because the concept of right and wrong is outdated.

No wonder these philosophies are still popular! No accountability for any choice sounds like the ultimate freedom. If we can avoid most worldly consequences by being discreet and careful, what is the harm? Against this backdrop, the law of chastity seems old-fashioned, prudish, or unnecessary.

Eternal Laws

God’s laws are not negotiable. He allows us to disregard them, but we are not free to create our own rules for the eternities any more than a person is free to create his or her personalized laws for physics. God wants us to be a qualified heir in His kingdom. To expect His heavenly inheritance while following a different course than He has outlined is naïve.

Before being called to full-time Church service, I (Elder Renlund) cared for patients with severe heart failure. In heart failure and transplant cardiology, there are defined, established courses to follow to obtain the best outcome: longer and better quality of life. Treating a patient in another way does not result in the best outcomes. It was astonishing that some patients tried to negotiate the treatment course. Some patients said, “I prefer not to take any medications,” or “I don’t want to have any heart biopsies after transplantation.” Of course, patients are free to follow their own course, but they cannot pursue an inferior course of action and expect the best outcome.

The same is true for us. We are free to choose our own course in life, but we are not free to choose the outcome that comes from following our own rules, no matter how many times someone says we can. Heavenly Father is not to blame when we do not receive blessings connected to the law of chastity because of disobedience.

In this dispensation, the Savior taught that eternal laws are not flexible and open for discussion. He said, “And again, verily I say unto you, that which is governed by law is also preserved by law and perfected and sanctified by the same.

“That which breaketh a law, and abideth not by law, but seeketh to become a law unto itself, … cannot be sanctified by law, neither by mercy, justice, nor judgment” (Doctrine and Covenants 88:34–35; emphasis added). We cannot substitute our own rules for eternal laws any more than a man who touches hot coals can decide not to get burned.

If we are not obedient, we will enjoy only “that which [we] are willing to receive, because [we] were not willing to enjoy that which [we] might have received” (Doctrine and Covenants 88:32). Obeying the law of chastity is one way we demonstrate that we are willing to do whatever it takes to receive all the extraordinary blessings associated with eternal families.

This is not arbitrary.

Quote

God’s Laws Are Always, in the End, Fair

 

Not all Heavenly Father’s children have the opportunity in this life to experience sexual intimacy in married relationships according to God’s law. Some will not have the opportunity to marry. Others are convinced that their unique circumstances make living the law of chastity so challenging and unfair that they can choose to ignore it.

Fairness, however, must be judged from an eternal perspective, from that of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. The Savior exhorted His people to withhold judgment on what is fair or unfair until that day when He makes up His jewels (see Malachi 3:17–18). The “jewels” the Savior references are those who, despite perceived or temporary unfairness or any other impediment, keep His commandments.

When our circumstances feel unfair to us, it is best to follow King Benjamin’s advice. He said, “I would desire that ye should consider on the blessed and happy state of those that keep the commandments of God. For behold, they are blessed in all things, both temporal and spiritual; and if they hold out faithful to the end they are received into heaven, that thereby they may dwell with God in a state of never-ending happiness” (Mosiah 2:41; emphasis added).

Ultimately, nothing compares to the infinite unfairness the Savior endured. Yet, if we are faithful, He will compensate us for any unfairness we experience, and we will achieve a state of never-ending happiness.

As we choose to keep the commandments of God, including the law of chastity, we will experience joy and “peace in this world, and eternal life in the world to come” (Doctrine and Covenants 59:23) because we will be part of an eternal family, with ancestors and posterity. As husband and wife are eternally sealed together by priesthood authority, they will be exalted and have a fulness of glory and eternal progeny.

Not arbitrary.

I'm not saying anyone is obligated to accept these principles, but to claim that they do not exist, and/or that they are "arbitrary," is plainly incorrect.

20 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Just like how Latter-day Saints abstain from coffee. Per current teachings (as far as I can tell), coffee is proscribed for unknown reasons. Coffee isn’t inherently evil or immoral, just something church members can’t do. 

Do you agree that there are some forms of sexual behavior/expression that are "inherently evil or immoral"?  

20 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Every other analogy commonly used has serious issues. Some violate consent (sex with children, or animals). Some violate promises of fidelity (adultery). People of all faith traditions and none condemn these practices for these reasons quite aside from peoples religious feelings. This makes these analogies fundamentally flawed. 

No analogy is perfect.  They are, after all, comparisons of traits shared by otherwise dissimilar things.

I think comparisons between same-sex sexual behavior and fornication are fairly apt.  Reasonable minds can disagree about whether sex outside of marriage is "inherently evil or immoral."

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Church has long taught this:

Quote

Our purpose in mortality is to become like our heavenly parents. Our divine understanding and use of sexual intimacy are essential to that process of becoming.

Help me understand this. Are you saying there is sex in heaven? What is the purpose of sex in heaven? Procreation? Like fluids exchanged, resulting in spirit babies? Like a woman’s role in heaven is non stop pregnancy and birth to endless babies? I’m just trying to understand what exactly the connection is between sexual intimacy in a fallen world and heaven. 

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Help me understand this. Are you saying there is sex in heaven? What is the purpose of sex in heaven? Procreation? Like fluids exchanged, resulting in spirit babies? Like a woman’s role in heaven is non stop pregnancy and birth to endless babies? I’m just trying to understand what exactly the connection is between sexual intimacy in a fallen world and heaven. 

I think that quote is speaking specifically about mortality.  But maybe you're asking Smac about something more than just that quote.  If so then ignore me.