Jana Riess: Who is leaving the LDS Church? Eight key survey findings.

[Emily]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not sure when and where you grew up.  But when and where for me (SLC 1960s and 1970s) gay was NOT derogatory.  What was derogatory was faggot, or fag for men, an lezzie for women.  Gay came into my vernacular to replace those awful terms I mentioned.  I am so sad I ever used the other.

Southwest 60s and 70s. And it was  specifically applied to homosexuals who lived a hedonistic lifestyle of prowling through bars and resorts looking for temporary sexual partners. 

I mean seriously, it was derived from the original meaning of the word "Gay" as being free, easy, showy, light hearted, etc.. and was originally applied to male prostitutes. The meaning has obviously shifted, but that doesn't mean everyone's perception followed the shift.

[smac97]

On 3/10/2024 at 1:40 PM, california boy said:

Quote

By way of example, this year I will be celebrating my 28th anniversary of being married to a wonderful woman.  I feel quite at ease declaring that I know that I love her, and that she loves me.  That's not an affectation or a "throwaway intensifier."  It would feel odd for me to say "I believe that my wife loves me," or "I hope she loves me."  At this point in my life, I know it.

While I totally disagree with your position on gay marriage,

Candidly, I'm not sure you know my "position on gay marriage."  We could test this, I suppose.  You would post what you think my position is, and then I could post what my position is (or vice versa), and then we could compare them.

On 3/10/2024 at 1:40 PM, california boy said:

I would like to ask you a simple question to see just how you are able to maintain the position you hold.  So here is the situation.  If Church leaders came out today and said that any couple whose last name starts with M will no longer be able to marry and all such unions with a last name that starts with M must be dissolved in order to be worthy of membership into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  

I reject the premise.  It is fallacious reasoning.  There is no such "situation" in view.  The constraints on sexual behavior as set forth in the Law of Chastity are wholly reasoned and reasonable.  They are not, as you want to infer, arbitrary or irrational (that is, comparable to constraints based on the first letter of a last name).

On 3/10/2024 at 1:40 PM, california boy said:

And furthermore, any such marriages will no longer be considered eternal marriages.

I reject this premise as well.  Same-sex marriage is, historically speaking, about five minutes old.  It has no historical pedigree, let along a religious/doctrinal one in the Church.  Same-sex marriage has never solemnized, and it appears it never will.

On 3/10/2024 at 1:40 PM, california boy said:

There will be no possibility of reuniting with your former spouse in the next life.

In the Latter-day Saint paradigm, "{a}ll covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power ... are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead."  (D&C 132:7.)

We have been given the means whereby a husband-wife relationship can survive death.  Those means are established by God, not by social trends, or legislative or judiciary bodies.  Parent-child relationships can also survive death, but such relationships are predicated on the husband-wife ones.

To date, we have not received any revelation that man-made "covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations" outside the foregoing parameters will survive death, and have instead been told that "all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead."

If and when we receive new revelations regarding same-sex relationships, I will pray about them and, in all likelihood, accept them.  I don't think this will ever happen.  Meanwhile, however, the purposes of opposite-sex sexual behavior - procreation and the strengthening of the union between husband and wife - are wholly absent from same-sex behavior.  And given the potency of sexual feelings and expression, I think the Law of Chastity is only going to become more important in the years ahead.

On 3/10/2024 at 1:40 PM, california boy said:

And here is the question.  

A question based on a series of premises which I wholly reject.

On 3/10/2024 at 1:40 PM, california boy said:

Since I believe your last name starts with M, would you be willing to divorce your wife, never kiss her again, never hold her hand again, never go on a date with her, never cuddle with her, never hug her, never be intimate with her EVER again, not in this life or the life to come, would you be willing to just walk away from that relationship, be celibate for the rest of your life and be given to another in the next life?

I decline to examine the Law of Chastity in a bubble.  If it is valid and from God, it is because we have received it, and continue to be taught it, by servants of God, by prophets and apostles.  It is but one facet of the Restored Gospel.  My obligation to obey it, then, is not a matter of preference or strong feelings nor is it a matter of acquiescing to arbitrary and capricious fiats of unaccountable despots.

In my worldview, the validity of a principle is not based on my emotions and preferences.  In my worldview, the Law of Chastity makes all sorts of sense, and is therefore neither arbitrary nor capricious.  In my worldview, the Brethren are not feckless tyrants tossing out random and whimsical decrees.

So again, I reject the premises of your post, as it suffers from the "complex question fallacy," which 

Quote

occurs when someone asks a question that presupposes the answer to another question that has not been established or accepted by the other person. For example, asking someone “Have you stopped cheating on tests?”, unless it has previously been established that the person is indeed cheating on tests, is a fallacy.

You have not established that the parameters of the Law of Chastity are arbitrary and capricious, but your question presupposes that they are.  You have not established that the prophets and apostles are unaccountable and feckless, but your question presupposes that they are.

On 3/10/2024 at 1:40 PM, california boy said:

I get that this does seem kinda random to just focus on people whose last name starts with M.  You know, kinda like randomly being gay and also asked to do the exact same thing.

It's not random at all.  You presupposition was intentional.

On 3/10/2024 at 1:40 PM, california boy said:

So what is your conviction now?  No problem?  You would give up your relationship with your wife because Church leaders asked you to?  No claim of revelation here, just a policy of the Church.

The Law of Chastity is revelatory, and not "just a policy of the Church."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Nobody knows that nobody knows God's will. You don't either. So yes whatever you say is whatever is in your head, and others think differently. What a wonderful day when you eventually realize you can share what is in your head without making it stink!  

I don't pedal my morals and positions to someone else as God's will.  Big difference.

[The Nehor]

On 3/9/2024 at 11:39 PM, smac97 said:

I think there is some substantial relevance.  There are plenty of people in the Church who are called upon, by circumstance and otherwise, to do or endure difficult things, even over a lifetime.  I think it is problematic to assert that same-sex attracted Latter-day Saints are unique in this regard because it is a posture that belittles and dismisses the difficult circumstances that others face.

Obedience to the commandments of God impact us all in many different ways.  I can't go along with the notion that members with SSA are uniquely put upon, or even the most put upon, in terms of following Jesus Christ.

Yes.  And plenty of heterosexual members are, in practical terms, likewise called upon to lead lives without romantic love and marriage.  And other Latter-day Saints live in grinding poverty.  Others face substantial medical or mental health issues.  And yet there is no narrative out there telling these folks that the Church hates them.

Yes, as an abstraction.  We all know Latter-day Saints who have this "possibility" or "goal" or "option" as an abstraction, who would love to be married if they could, but it hasn't happened, and it likely never will.  And during the time they are not married, they must be celibate.

I am not glossing over it.  I am just not finding it to be singular or unique or substantively distinguishable from the various types of struggles Latter-day Saints all over the world face.

It's not really an argument.  It's more a statement of fact.  And it is not a point to gloss over.  

"Disingenuous" as in "lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere"?  Nope.  I am quite frank and candid and sincere in stating this point.  

That other people have responded to it in the past does not move the needle for me.  I remain unpersuaded, particularly since these responses often end up as ad hominem insults.

That is simply not true.  There are all sorts of Latter-day Saints who may have romantic feelings for another person, but who are required to reject them to keep the Law of Chastity.

Moreover, all members are asked - nay, commanded - to not participate in same-sex marriage.  Every single one of us, not "only homosexual members."

With respect, I disagree.  It is a distinction, but one of degree, not kind.

Not so.  Everyone is required to abstain from same-sex marriage "completely" (theoretically, anyway).

I acknowledge that abstaining from sexual relations, or from a form of marriage that conflicts with the Restored Gospel, is difficult.

How is this "hopeful?"

Thanks,

-Smac

No, the comparison still doesn’t work. People enduring poverty and illness virtually all prefer enough to live on and health. You can argue poverty is an affliction to be endured but comparing it to voluntarily denying yourself something you desperately crave is just silly. The ill are choosing not to be healed? 

So no, you have it wrong both in degree and kind.

Yes, some people suffer more. That doesn’t help. You argue it is not a different kind of suffering while the people who ACTUALLY KNOW tell you it is. Why do you think you have some special insight into what it is like?

Of course you also ignore the other problem. The impoverished and the sick are helped and aided by church members. If you are queer people hide their kids from you and treat you as somehow tainted or contagious. You are something to be protected from. Do you know how else gets treated that way in Church? Abusers, predators, and the like. So in this one instance comparing queer people to being a pedophile works. This also explains why some church members throw out that comparison almost reflexively. Mentally they are in a similar or the same category. This is why queer people talk about the church hating them. They know they are perceived as a threat. That feels a lot like hate. You might be tolerated at a distance as long as you pretend you are “normal”.

There is a morbid irony about the followers of Joseph Smith insisting on normality. Especially sexual normality.

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I don't pedal my morals and positions to someone else as God's will.  Big difference.

You absolutely do pedal them. If you down vote this post like you usually do, that proves my point  !!!

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, Emily said:

Southwest 60s and 70s. And it was  specifically applied to homosexuals who lived a hedonistic lifestyle of prowling through bars and resorts looking for temporary sexual partners. 

I mean seriously, it was derived from the original meaning of the word "Gay" as being free, easy, showy, light hearted, etc.. and was originally applied to male prostitutes. The meaning has obviously shifted, but that doesn't mean everyone's perception followed the shift.

They pretty much all have accepted it. Reclaiming slurs is a long and glorious tradition in general and in the queer community generally. “Queer” is a reclaimed word. 

There are very few gay people who want to be referred to as “people with SSA”. If you use that term in the wild queer people will either have no idea what you or talking about or roll their eyes and mentally label you as a bigot.

Edit: There is also irony about church members pedantically trying to get people to stop calling them Mormons while picking their own descriptions for other groups.

Edited March 11, 2024 by The Nehor

[Emily]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

The problem with using same sex attraction or its variations interchangeably with gay or homosexual is that it has been used by enough people who were dismissive of LGBTQ + concerns and issues that those terms have acquired a negative connotation much like gay had for our earlier generation.  This is a more recent phenomenon and thus imo likely to be more present in people’s minds and therefore should probably be given a higher priority of concern when speaking with many people or with those one is not that familiar with.  In a smaller group, giving preference to avoiding the use of gay because you know someone there dislikes it makes sense.

I can see that happening.

Honestly, a person's sexual orientation rarely comes up in most of my conversations, why would it? But when it does, the person in question tends to say up front what label he/she prefers. "My partner and I are gay."

If it's expressed, "I like men." or "I like women", I tend to assume they don't appreciate labels at all. 

I will acknowledge that I've only heard SSA being used by members who experience attraction to their own sex. It's a term that makes sense to me so I prefer using it as the generic term because my brain has not transitioned away from the negative connotations of gay and homosexual and my nearest and dearest, who are the only SSA examples I have to work with, don't like the other labels. However, if someone wants to be called gay, queer, homosexual or maybe just by their first name with no label, that's the best term.

 

Edited March 11, 2024 by Emily

[Emily]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I discount your position/belief on this substantially if you are a believing Latter-day Saint that is heterosexual.  In fact I discount it substantially.

I'm starting to think that you don't know how to agree to disagree, because you just keep saying you disagree as if that is making a point. 

So you disagree. I'll continue to believe you are wrong. That's how it works. 😀

[smac97]

On 3/10/2024 at 1:11 PM, Teancum said:

Quote

I think there are presuppositions, biases, etc. that are labeled as "critical thinking skills."  I know many Latter-day Saints who are quite adept with actual and substantive "critical thinking skills" and remain happy and faithful Latter-day Saints.

I did not say that those who stay don't have critical thinking skills, now did I?  But once one uses them and deconstructs Mormonism, they tend to use the same skills when approaching other religions. And they also may be cautious because they have already been burned by one religious organization.  That is where I am at.

I understand.  But again, there are presuppositions, biases, etc. that are labeled as "critical thinking skills."

On 3/10/2024 at 1:11 PM, Teancum said:

See Smac you need to understand a few things. 

I suspect that this is the point in the discussion where you will presume to tell me what I think and feel.

On 3/10/2024 at 1:11 PM, Teancum said:

And I think struggle with this. It seems hard for you to have empathy. I doubt you have it for people like myself.  You certainly don't seem to have it for those with same sex attractions.

And there it is!

"Empathy" is a somewhat nebulous term.  This summary from Wikipedia is pretty good:

Quote

Empathy is generally described as the ability to take on another's perspective, to understand, feel and possibly share and respond to their experience.^[1][2][3] There are more (sometimes conflicting) definitions of empathy that include but is not limited to social, cognitive, and emotional processes primarily concerned with understanding others.^[2][3][4] Often times, empathy is considered to be a broad term, and broken down into more specific concepts and types that include cognitive empathy, emotional (or affective) empathy, somatic empathy, and spiritual empathy.^[2][3]

I think you conflate "empathy" with "agreement."

I also think you equivocate, using "empathy" as a "broad term" when you really mean it in a more narrowly-tailored one.

I also think you try to grant declarations "empathy" as a reward for people who agree with you, and withhold it as a punishment for those who do not.

On 3/10/2024 at 1:11 PM, Teancum said:

I never ever started out trying to pick Mormonism apart. As I have said numerous time here, I was all in. As much as you or any other member.  But for me, the claims of the founders of Mormonism just don't hold up.  If they do for you and other great.  They don't for me.

Merely stating a conclusion ("just don't hold up") doesn't tell us much.  

The claims of the Restored Gospel hold up very well for me.

On 3/10/2024 at 1:11 PM, Teancum said:

And they don't for most people who were not born in the faith who even casually start digging into it.  Since the information age the church's convert numbers show that, especially in industrialized nations. But whatever, really.  We all have to trod our own paths.

Your comment here reminds me of Davis Bitton's I Don’t Have a Testimony of the History of the Church.  Some excerpts:

Quote

The critics would have you believe that they are disinterested pursuers of the truth. There they were, minding their own business, going about their conscientious study of Church history and — shock and dismay! — they came across this, whatever this is, that blew them away. As hurtful as it is for them, they can no longer believe in the Church and, out of love for you, they now want to help you see the light of day.²

Let’s get one thing clear: There is nothing in Church history that leads inevitably to the conclusion that the Church is false. There is nothing that requires the conclusion that Joseph Smith was a fraud. How can I say this with such confidence? For the simple reason that the historians who know most about our Church history have been and are faithful, committed members of the Church. Or, to restate the situation more precisely, there are faithful Latter-day Saint historians who know as much about this subject as any anti-Mormon or as anyone who writes on the subject from an outside perspective. With few exceptions, they know much, much more. They have not been blown away. They have not gnashed their teeth and abandoned their faith. To repeat, they have found nothing that forces the extreme conclusion our enemies like to promote.

We need to reject the simple-minded, inaccurate picture that divides people into two classes. On one hand, according to our enemies, are the sincere seekers of truth, full of goodness and charity. On the other hand, in their view, stand the ignorant members. Even faithful Latter-day Saint scholars must be ignorant. Otherwise they are dishonest, playing their part in the conspiracy to deceive their people. This is the anti-Mormon view of the situation.

Can we see how ridiculous this picture is? It is a travesty on both sides. Many Latter-day Saints may not know their history in depth. But some of them know a good deal. As for Latter-day Saint scholars, as a group they compare favorably with any similar group of historians. It will not do to charge them with being dishonest. I happen to know most of them and have no hesitation in rejecting a smear of their character.

Acceptance or rejection of the Restored Gospel is going to turn on a variety of factors.  

On 3/10/2024 at 1:11 PM, Teancum said:

So sure, there are Latter day Saints, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses, Scientologists and on and on and on, that have excellent critical thinking skills.

So we can dispose of the notion that "critical thinking skills" lead people out of the Church?

On 3/10/2024 at 1:11 PM, Teancum said:

People believe all sorts of things for various reasons.

I entirely agree.  People also reject beliefs of all sorts for a variety of reasons.

On 3/10/2024 at 1:11 PM, Teancum said:

Like it or not, often those who are high end critical thinkers have a tough time using the same skills when digging into supernatural beliefs that they think are real. 

Like it or not, broad stereotypes about an inverse relationship between education and religious observance don't really work well, particularly in a Latter-day Saint context.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

 

The idea that highly educated people are less religious, on average, than those with less education has been a part of the public discourse for decades, but some scholars of religion have called this notion into question. ¹ And a new analysis of Pew Research Center surveys shows that the relationship between religion and education in the United States is not so simple.

On one hand, among U.S. adults overall, higher levels of education are linked with lower levels of religious commitment by some measures, such as belief in God, how often people pray and how important they say religion is to them. On the other hand, Americans with college degrees report attending religious services as often as Americans with less education.

Moreover, the majority of American adults (71%) identify as Christians. And among Christians, those with higher levels of education appear to be just as religious as those with less schooling, on average. In fact, highly educated Christians are more likely than less-educated Christians to say they are weekly churchgoers. ²

 

"{H}ighly educated Christians are more likely than less-educated Christians to say they are weekly churchgoers."

Huh.

Quote

Looking at the U.S. public as a whole, however, the answer to the question of whether more education is correlated with less religion appears to be yes. Among all U.S. adults, college graduates are considerably less likely than those who have less education to say religion is “very important” in their lives: Fewer than half of college graduates (46%) say this, compared with nearly six-in-ten of those with no more than a high school education (58%).

Highly educated Americans also are less inclined than others to say they believe in God with absolute certainty and to pray on a daily basis. And, when asked about their religious identity, college graduates are more likely than others to describe themselves as atheists or agnostics (11% of college grads vs. 4% of U.S. adults with a high school education or less).
...

In addition, among those who do identify as Christians, college graduates tend to be about as religiously observant as those with less education – and in some cases more so. For instance, more than half of college-educated Christians say they attend religious services on a weekly basis (52%), compared with 45% of Christians with some college experience and 46% of Christians with a high school degree or less.

Overall, 70% of Christians with college degrees have a high level of religious commitment on a scale incorporating four common measures of religious observance (worship attendance, frequency of prayer, belief in God and the self-described importance of religion in one’s life), as do 73% of those with some college and 71% of those with no college experience. ^3
...
Among Mormons, those who are more highly educated are not simply as religious as those with less education – Mormons with college experience are more religiously observant, on average, than Mormons with less education. Fully 92% of college-educated Mormons are highly religious, as are 91% of Mormons with some college. Among Mormons whose education topped out with high school, however, just 78% score high on the index of religious observance.

I think the Restored Gospel does quite well when you "dig" into it.  I think the interplay between this and other factors are what leads people to stay in the Church or leave it.

On 3/10/2024 at 1:11 PM, Teancum said:

Smart people believing something does not make it true. Not at all. 

Agreed.  Nor does smart people disbelieving something make it false.  Not at all.

On 3/10/2024 at 1:11 PM, Teancum said:

It is hard to take apart a belief that one has long held and one that the person holds dear.  Believe me. I know.

Next month will be my 20th anniversary on this board.  I have spent all sorts of time taking apart my beliefs.  Examining and re-examining what I believe and why.  Listening to people who disagree, and even dislike, my beliefs, and who are free with sharing their reasoning, sentiments, conclusions, etc.  And I have come away with a stronger faith, with more and better convictions regarding the reality and truth of the Restored Gospel.

Ironically, in the very process of listening to voices that contravene my beliefs, I am told that I do not listen, that I do not have empathy, etc.  In some quarters, to "listen" apparently means to agree.  To "empathize" means to subordinate my views for someone else's.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[LoudmouthMormon]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

From my perspective, for most people deciding whether it “works for you” is a complicated question with multiple tradeoffs. Do you feel at home at Church? Does the message make sense? Does it bring you peace and happiness? Do you enjoy the meetings? Are all of your friends there? Are you sick of the same lessons over and over? Deep down do you really believe it? How would your family react if you left (or stayed)? etc.

I'd agree to an extent.  The "deep down do you really believe it" part can be so deep down that it is a part of you that you couldn't change even if you wanted to.  An atheist once pointed out to me that his lack of faith and my faith had a lot of similarities.  He couldn't just make himself believe, any more than I could make myself disbelieve.  People do make journeys along the spectrum of belief, but it tends to be a slow evolving process.  Even if there's a sudden "a-ha" moment, they tend to be building up for years. 

Not every member of a faith has such a firm belief, but many do.   Including, obviously, many of the quarter-million gay Saints. 

 

Quote

Furthermore, just because somebody is currently giving it a good shot doesn’t mean they aren’t going to eventually take their life in a different path. I would suggest that in general, the Church is less attractive to LGBTQ than it is to straight people. 

First sentence is true for everyone.  The church makes up 1.6% of the US population.  Obviously, the church is less attractive to folks in general, or that percentage would be far higher, and our missionaries would be far more successful.   And if ~7% of the demographic is gay, and ~4% of mormons are gay, that's sort of the dictionary definition of "less attractive to LGBTQ than straight ppl"

 

Quote

There is a wikipedia page for LGBT Mormon people and organizations.” It lists living “Prominent LGBT Mormon people.” Eight of them are currently practicing, and 27 are former members.

That doesn't really establish much.  It certainly doesn't explain why 4 out of every 100 people in the poll are claiming to be gay and LDS.  (Unless it used to be 8 out of every 100, but nobody is claiming that.)  

It's equally supportable to make a claim like this: The more you showcase your sexuality and make it a part of your outward personality, the more likely you are to lose your religious faith.  My gay family member, for example, appears to have zero interest in being known or thought of as a "gay mormon".  He doesn't talk about it, he doesn't identify as part of any LGBT community.  He seems content to just be LDS and live his life.  I wonder how many of the quarter-million gay saints out there are similarly content?

[Emily]

23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There are very few gay people who want to be referred to as “people with SSA”. If you use that term in the wild queer people will either have no idea what you or talking a

I pretty much never have the occasion to use any of the terms "in the wild" so it's not a big concern. But if it did come up, I would use the term the general community seems to be comfortable with. 

And I believe I compared the shift of the word "gay" to "Mormon" myself, so I'm not entirely sure why you are acting like I don't understand how that works. 

I'm not sure where anyone got the idea that I'm telling people not to use gay. All I ever said was don't assume it's universally accepted and don't act like someone is homophobic if they dislike the word. 

Sentiments like telling someone they can't even use the word gay or questioning why they are using quotes (particularly when the context of the post clearly explained why I am hesitant to use the label without making sure it's acceptable) are critical reactions where no criticism was called for. 

 

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, Emily said:

I pretty much never have the occasion to use any of the terms "in the wild" so it's not a big concern. But if it did come up, I would use the term the general community seems to be comfortable with. 

And I believe I compared the shift of the word "gay" to "Mormon" myself, so I'm not entirely sure why you are acting like I don't understand how that works. 

I'm not sure where anyone got the idea that I'm telling people not to use gay. All I ever said was don't assume it's universally accepted and don't act like someone is homophobic if they dislike the word. 

Sentiments like telling someone they can't even use the word gay or questioning why they are using quotes (particularly when the context of the post clearly explained why I am hesitant to use the label without making sure it's acceptable) are critical reactions where no criticism was called for. 

 

What gay people out there think the term “gay” is homophobic? What?

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, however, the purposes of opposite-sex sexual behavior - procreation and the strengthening of the union between husband and wife - are wholly absent from same-sex behavior.

I think I can only give you half credit for that comment. The part about procreation seems accurate, but the part about strengthening the union between spouses seems incorrect. I cannot speak from personal experience (someone in a committed, monogamous same sex relationship would be better positioned to comment), but, based on what I see from sex therapists and similar, same sex couples have many of the same struggles in the bedroom that opposite sex couples have, and the bonding that comes from overcoming those difficulties seems to be just as real in same sex couples as opposite sex couples. It seems to me that half of your statement is incorrect.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

No, the comparison still doesn’t work.

I think it does.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

People enduring poverty and illness virtually all prefer enough to live on and health.

Sure.  But they often lack the means to facilitate those preferences.  And yet despite these privations and difficulties, they are still asked and expected to keep the commandments.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

You can argue poverty is an affliction to be endured

You dispute this?

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

but comparing it to voluntarily denying yourself something you desperately crave is just silly.

We are discussing keeping the commandments despite having difficulties in our lives.

We are discussing obeying the commandments even where our circumstances make that obedience difficult.

We are discussing obedience to the commandments even when societal voices are telling us that it's okay to disobey them.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The ill are choosing not to be healed? 

"The ill" are asked to keep the commandments, even when doing so is difficult.

A poor Latter-day Saint is asked to not steal, even though doing so may understandable, and even if societal voices say that stealing is okay.

A Latter-day Saint is asked to keep the Word of Wisdom, even though joining friends in drinking or doing drugs would make him more popular, and even though his friends are telling him that such religious constraints are stupid.

A 20-year old Latter-day Saint, at or near the peak of his sexual interests, is asked to constrain his behaviors to the parameters of the Law of Chastity, even though doing so is difficult, and even though all sorts of countervailing societal voices are encouraging him to ignore those constraints.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

So no, you have it wrong both in degree and kind.

I respectfully disagree.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, some people suffer more. That doesn’t help.

It provides context.

One of the more common ways to walk away from one's covenants is to listen to voices that tell you those covenants do not matter, or that they are unreasonable, or bad, and they should be rejected.  A good way to resist those voices is to place the commandments in context, to envision them as pieces of a larger picture.

The "special pleading" fallacy is "an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the special exception."  If we posit that the "general or universal principle" is the Law of Chastity, we immediately see all sorts of efforts to "cite something as an exception" to it "without justifying the special exception."  

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

You argue it is not a different kind of suffering while the people who ACTUALLY KNOW tell you it is. Why do you think you have some special insight into what it is like?

Let's review what I said:

Smac: Everyone in the Church "must reject" sexual behaviors that violate the Law of Chastity.

Bluebell: 

Quote

You've tried to make this argument before, and I get what you are saying and why you are saying it.  But it's starting to sound disingenuous because other people have responded to it in the past, outlining the problems with it.

Yes, everyone in the church must reject sexual behaviors that violate the law of Chastity, but only homosexual members are asked to reject marriage to a romantic partner in order to keep the law of chastity.

Again, that is a distinction with a huge difference that can't be ignored.

Smac: With respect, I disagree.  It is a distinction, but one of degree, not kind.

First, I'm not aware that Bluebell is gay.  So her say-so is not definitive.  It's her opinion, and she's entitled to it.

Second, difficulty in obeying the Law of Chastity is all over the place, with it being easy for some to being very difficult for others.  In the end, thought, these difficulties differ in degree, not kind.  

Third, I reject the "special pleading" that comes out nearly every time this topic comes up.  We could empathize and commiserate all day long, but we'd still end up back with the simple truth: Everyone in the Church "must reject" sexual behaviors that violate the Law of Chastity.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Of course you also ignore the other problem. The impoverished and the sick are helped and aided by church members.

That's not a problem.  I think it's wonderful that the Church is situated to help the impoverished and the sick.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

If you are queer people hide their kids from you and treat you as somehow tainted or contagious.

The Church teaches us to be kind and respectful to everyone.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

You are something to be protected from. Do you know how else gets treated that way in Church? Abusers, predators, and the like.

I think the Church and its members have spent the past many years working very hard to make same-sex attracted folks feel welcomed, valued, and safe.  This effort is impeded by countervailing societal voices that declare that the Church hates these people, that the Church is wrong to ask them to abide by the same behavioral standards as everyone else, that disregarding the constraints of the Law of Chastity is the better way to go, etc.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

So in this one instance comparing queer people to being a pedophile works.

I'll leave you to it.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

This also explains why some church members throw out that comparison almost reflexively.

"Some church members" including . . . The Nehor.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Mentally they are in a similar or the same category.

Speaking for yourself, okay.  

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

This is why queer people talk about the church hating them.

Poppycock.  

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

They know they are perceived as a threat. That feels a lot like hate. You might be tolerated at a distance as long as you pretend you are “normal”.

There is a morbid irony about the followers of Joseph Smith insisting on normality. Especially sexual normality.

No, we do not teach "normality."  We teach the Law of Chastity.

"Normality" is what the "If it feels good, do it"-style sexual ethics that the World teaches.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 11, 2024 by smac97

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think it does.

Sure.  But they often lack the means to facilitate those preferences.  And yet despite these privations and difficulties, they are still asked and expected to keep the commandments.

You dispute this?

We are discussing keeping the commandments despite having difficulties in our lives.

We are discussing obeying the commandments even where our circumstances make that obedience difficult.

We are discussing obedience to the commandments even when societal voices are telling us that it's okay to disobey them.

"The ill" are asked to keep the commandments, even when doing so is difficult.

A poor Latter-day Saint is asked to not steal, even though doing so may understandable, and even if societal voices say that stealing is okay.

A Latter-day Saint is asked to keep the Word of Wisdom, even though joining friends in drinking or doing drugs would make him more popular, and even though his friends are telling him that such religious constraints are stupid.

I respectfully disagree.

It provides context.

One of the more common ways to walk away from one's covenants is to listen to voices that tell you those covenants do not matter, or that they are unreasonable, or bad, and they should be rejected.  A good way to resist those voices is to place the commandments in context, to envision them as pieces of a larger picture.

The "special pleading" fallacy is "an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the special exception."  If we posit that the "general or universal principle" is the Law of Chastity, we immediately see all sorts of efforts to "cite something as an exception" to it "without justifying the special exception."  

Let's review what I said:

Smac: Everyone in the Church "must reject" sexual behaviors that violate the Law of Chastity.

Bluebell: 

Smac: With respect, I disagree.  It is a distinction, but one of degree, not kind.

First, I'm not aware that Bluebell is gay.  So her say-so is not definitive.  It's her opinion, and she's entitled to it.

Second, difficulty in obeying the Law of Chastity is all over the place, with it being easy for some to being very difficult for others.  In the end, thought, these varying degrees of difficulty are of degree, not kind.  

Third, I reject the "special pleading" that comes out nearly every time this topic comes up.  We could empathize and commiserate all day long, but we'd still end up back with the simple truth: Everyone in the Church "must reject" sexual behaviors that violate the Law of Chastity.

That's not a problem.  I think it's wonderful that the Church is situated to help the impoverished and the sick.

The Church teaches us to be kind and respectful to everyone.

I think the Church and its members have spent the past many years working very hard to make same-sex attracted folks feel welcomed, valued, and safe.  This effort is impeded by countervailing societal voices that declare that the Church hates these people, that the Church is wrong to ask them to abide by the same behavioral standards as everyone else, that disregarding the constraints of the Law of Chastity is the better way to go, etc.

I'll leave you to it.

"Some church members" including . . . The Nehor.

Speaking for yourself, okay.  

Poppycock.  

No, we do not teach "normality."  We teach the Law of Chastity.

"Normality" is what the "If it feels good, do it"-style sexual ethics that the World teaches.

Thanks,

-Smac

Oh, you are doing your ‘chop up sentences and respond to each phrase individually so you don’t have to actually engage with what is said’ schtick.

The usual sign that you have lost and are floundering for responses. I’ll take the win.

Edited March 11, 2024 by The Nehor

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

Meanwhile, however, the purposes of opposite-sex sexual behavior - procreation and the strengthening of the union between husband and wife - are wholly absent from same-sex behavior.

I think I can only give you half credit for that comment.

Okay.  Let's see it.

40 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

The part about procreation seems accurate,

Well, I'm glad we can agree on that.

40 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

but the part about strengthening the union between spouses seems incorrect.

This seems pretty well-established in the teachings of the Church, but I'm interested in what you have to say.

From the August 2020 Ensign: The Divine Purposes of Sexual Intimacy

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.

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. 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.

Building An Eternal Marriage Teacher Manual, Chapter 8: Intimacy in Marriage

Quote

The union of man and woman is sanctified in marriage and becomes an expression of the love, unity, and potential godhood of the couple. President Joseph F. Smith noted, “The lawful association of the sexes is ordained of God, not only as the sole means of race perpetuation, but for the development of the higher faculties and nobler traits of human nature, which the love-inspired companionship of man and woman alone can insure” (“Unchastity the Dominant Evil of the Age,” Improvement Era, June 1917, 739; or student manual, 139).
...
“Married couples … should understand that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a means of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife.” 

August 2020 Ensign: Conversations about Intimacy and Sex That Can Prepare You for Marriage

Quote

A lot of people use the word intimacy as a synonym for sex, but this can be incomplete and a little confusing. Intimacy refers to feelings of closeness created within emotional, intellectual, and physical areas of relationships. There are a few types of intimacy:

• Emotional intimacy is being open about all your feelings because you feel you have a safe environment.

• Intellectual intimacy is sharing ideas that are important to you or concerns that you are working through with someone who respects your opinions.

• Physical intimacy isn’t necessarily sexual. It can also be demonstrated through simple affection, like a hug, hand holding, or a kiss.

• Healthy sexual intimacy is a sacred union, a mutual giving and receiving of each other’s bodies in an environment of trust and respect to deepen loving marital bonds. The purpose of sexual intimacy is to create children and also to strengthen the emotional, spiritual, and physical connection between spouses.

The Eternal Family Class Preparation Material (Religion 200), Lesson 13: The Divine Gift and Sacred Responsibility of Sexual Intimacy

Quote

In Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness, “physical intimacy between husband and wife is intended to be beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love between husband and wife” (General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 38.6.5, ChurchofJesusChrist.org). Elder David A. Bednar of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles also explained, “Intimate relations are … one of the ultimate expressions of our divine nature and potential and a way of strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife” (“We Believe in Being Chaste,” Ensign or Liahona, May 2013, 42).

Thoughts?

40 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I cannot speak from personal experience (someone in a committed, monogamous same sex relationship would be better positioned to comment), but, based on what I see from sex therapists and similar, same sex couples have many of the same struggles in the bedroom that opposite sex couples have, and the bonding that comes from overcoming those difficulties seems to be just as real in same sex couples as opposite sex couples. It seems to me that half of your statement is incorrect.

I said: "Meanwhile, however, the purposes of opposite-sex sexual behavior - procreation and the strengthening of the union between husband and wife - are wholly absent from same-sex behavior."

Same-sex couples are missing either a "husband" or a "wife," so my statement seems to hold.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 11, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Oh, you are doing your ‘chop up sentences and respond to each phrase individually so you don’t have to actually engage with what is said’ schtick.

Oh, you are doing your "resort to taunts and insults in lieu of substantive evidence, reasoning, etc. so you don't have to actually engage with that is said" schtick.

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The usual sign that you have lost and are floundering for responses. I’ll take the win.

As you like.  I seldom find discussions with you worthwhile anyway.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

union between husband and wife - are wholly absent from same-sex behavior. 

? 
not sure where this is coming from. 
why wouldn’t homosexual sex in a relationship or marriage be comforting, loving, unifying and wholesome? 
 

Your statement sort of seems to suggest that homosexual sex is only illicit and limited to self gratification. Surely I misunderstand? 
 

Edited- I see what you’re doing.  You’ve stepped it back. Ok. 

Edited March 11, 2024 by MustardSeed

[The Nehor]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Oh, you are doing your "resort

No, my resort vacation is in the summer.

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

to taunts and insults

*raise my glass* To taunts and insults!

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In lieu of substantive evidence, reasoning, etc.

All you did was disagree. That is not evidence or reasoning.

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

so you don't have to actually engage

You do realize that you have been repeatedly told that engaging with your short and meaningless rebuttals of each sentence is all but impossible as they don’t contain anything that you can do more than disagree with right?

You aren’t providing anything to engage with. But go for it. Respond to your own post, pretend to be someone with my viewpoint, and respond to that post in a substantive and reasoned manner.

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

with that is said" schtick.

Yes.

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As you like.

Yes.

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

  I seldom find discussions with

Have you tried online message boards?

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

you worthwhile

Thanks, I like to think I am worthwhile.

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

anyway.

So new point.

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Thanks,

Why do I always suspect this is passive aggressive?

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

-Smac

You don’t have to sign your posts.

[MrShorty]

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I said: "Meanwhile, however, the purposes of opposite-sex sexual behavior - procreation and the strengthening of the union between husband and wife - are wholly absent from same-sex behavior."

Same-sex couples are missing either a "husband" or a "wife," so my statement seems to hold.

I guess as a tautology. If the only thing that makes your statement true is the semantic observation that same sex couples don't refer to themselves by the exact terms of "husband" and "wife," then, sure, your statement is technically "true," but the argument still ignores the power of sexual activity in binding any couple together.

[smac97]

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

That's definitely a glass-half-full way of looking at it.

From my perspective, for most people deciding whether it “works for you” is a complicated question with multiple tradeoffs. Do you feel at home at Church? Does the message make sense? Does it bring you peace and happiness? Do you enjoy the meetings? Are all of your friends there? Are you sick of the same lessons over and over? Deep down do you really believe it? How would your family react if you left (or stayed)? etc.

"Is it true?  Is the Church what it claims to be?"

If yes I'll stay despite sometimes not feeling "peace and happiness" (most of the time I do), or despite some of the meetings being boring or redundant (a lot of my classes in law school were "boring," but I was there to learn more than to be entertained, and the same goes for Church meetings).

I have "friends" who are in the Church, who are disaffected from it, and who have no association with it at all.

I have some family members who have left, and who I think would be thrilled if I joined them (one of them has specifically said as much).  Others would be saddened at my departure.

"Deep down do you really believe it?"  Well, yes.  I do.  I have studied it and tested it and concluded that that the Restored Gospel is what is claims to be.  I stay principally for that reason.

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

Furthermore, just because somebody is currently giving it a good shot doesn’t mean they aren’t going to eventually take their life in a different path. I would suggest that in general, the Church is less attractive to LGBTQ than it is to straight people.

I would agree insofar as "LGBTQ" people have adopted the "sexual identity" construct.  For those who have not adopted that construct, or else who have concluded that the Law of Chastity is an integral component of the Restored Gospel, the importance of obedience to this principle becomes more apparent, and hence more "attractive" (though still often difficult).

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

Of course people like, say, David Archuleta and Tyler Glenn once claimed that no, the Church is great, even if you happen to be gay. But it wasn’t surprising that they eventually left.

Well, either the Church and its teachings changed, or folks like David and Tyler changed their perspectives on the the Church and its teachings.

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

There is a wikipedia page for LGBT Mormon people and organizations.” It lists living “Prominent LGBT Mormon people.” Eight of them are currently practicing, and 27 are former members.

Maintaining both the "Latter-day Saint" and "LGBTQ" identities is clearly a very difficult thing.  I think more and more Latter-day Saints are setting aside the "LGBTQ"-style "identities," and are instead viewing sexual feelings in the ways that the Church espouses.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 11, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

I said: "Meanwhile, however, the purposes of opposite-sex sexual behavior - procreation and the strengthening of the union between husband and wife - are wholly absent from same-sex behavior."

Same-sex couples are missing either a "husband" or a "wife," so my statement seems to hold.

I guess as a tautology.

I don't see the tautology (that is, "the saying of the same thing twice in different words").  Could you point it out?

18 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

If the only thing that makes your statement true is the semantic observation that same sex couples don't refer to themselves by the exact terms of "husband" and "wife," 

The difference here is not just one of terminology.  A sexual relationship between a husband and wife has more than a "semantic" difference from a sexual relationship between two men or two women.  The former makes biological sense, the latter does not.  The former is intertwined with parenthood, the latter is not.  The former makes doctrinal sense (that is, it is compatible with the Restored Gospel), the latter does not.

18 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

then, sure, your statement is technically "true,"

My statement was about the Church's teachings.  Are you suggesting that the Church does not teach what I am saying here?

18 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

but the argument still ignores the power of sexual activity in binding any couple together.

"Any couple?"  Sure.  Unmarried couples can use sex to create emotional bonds.  But in the Latter-day Saint paradigm, unmarried sex is not one of "the purposes of opposite-sex sexual behavior."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 11, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Quote

union between husband and wife - are wholly absent from same-sex behavior. 

? 
not sure where this is coming from. 
why wouldn’t homosexual sex in a relationship or marriage be comforting, loving, unifying and wholesome? 

My statement was: "Meanwhile, however, the purposes of opposite-sex sexual behavior - procreation and the strengthening of the union between husband and wife - are wholly absent from same-sex behavior."

Same-sex relationships, by definition, do not involve "husband and wife."

6 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Your statement sort of seems to suggest that homosexual sex is only illicit and limited to self gratification. Surely I misunderstand? 

"Illicit" is very much a context-specific thing.  The legality of the behavior varies a lot by country/region.

Of course, I am not speaking of secular laws, but rather of the doctrines and teachings and commandments of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  The Church has no secular authority, and membership in it is entirely voluntary.  Per its teachings, same-sex feelings are not sinful, but acting on them is.  So in this religious "law" sense, "homosexual sex" is indeed "illicit."

As for "limited to self gratification," I don't know what you are referencing here, as I have said nothing about that.  Do same-sex couples engage in sexual behavior to strengthen their relationship?  Sure.  Is that one of the "purposes" of which I was speaking?  No.

6 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Edited- I see what you’re doing.  You’ve stepped it back. Ok. 

I'm not sure I've "stepped it back."  I thought my statement was fairly clear, but I have clarified it nonetheless.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Emily said:

"Gay" is a similarly ambiguous term. Rightly or wrongly, the word was a slur to older generations, a political movement or participant in hedonistic culture in my generation, and also a word with it's own functional meaning of "lighthearted and carefree". 

For me, "Same sex attraction" is more precise terminology, since it describes a person's sexual inclination without implying anything about what they do with that attraction. Homosexual would also be more accurate, but I'm aware that it's not the preferred term in every social circle.   I should probably just stick with, "attracted to the same sex" in any situation where I don't know the particular preference of the person/people I'm talking to -- but it's kind of like using the entire name of the church in a conversation. The official name gets to be a mouthful so I end up using "LDS" or "the church" or some other shorter nomenclature that isn't quite as accurate or accepted and yes, in certain circumstances when using those terms, I would use quotes.

I personally don't know anyone who minds being called gay.  Universally, it is the preferred term most gay men prefer to be labeled if that is necessary.  I'm not saying that there is no one who prefers to not be called gay, but that is definitely an outliner.  If that is the term your friend truly wants to use, then I think you should respect his wishes.  

I do know a LOT of gays who bristle at the term Same Sex Attraction and find that term specifically to be offensive.  To most of us Same Sex Attraction is a term religious organizations tend to use to marginalize the gay community.  So if your goal is to not offend gay people, please stop using that term.  Gay or Queer are just fine.  If  however, your goal is to marginalize gay people,  and use terms that are generally for the vast majority of gay people do find offensive, go ahead and continue to use Same Sex Attraction.  My personal experience of people insisting on using the term Same Sex Attraction, want to imprint their own political view on gays and have no real sincere reason to try and use preferred language.

If you are having trouble understanding the correct terms to use, I would recommend checking the GLADD style sheet.  While there is no official spokesman for the LGBT community, GLADD comes about the closest.  

Addressing your question specifically, here is what they say.

Quote

Gay
An adjective used to describe a person whose enduring physical, romantic, and/ or emotional attractions are to people of the same sex (e.g., gay man, gay people). Sometimes lesbian (n. or adj.) is the preferred term for women. Avoid identifying gay people as “homosexuals” an outdated term considered derogatory and offensive to many lesbian and gay people. Ask people how they describe themselves before labeling their sexual orientations.

Quote

 

Queer
An adjective used by some people, particularly younger people, whose sexual orientation is not exclusively heterosexual (e.g. queer person, queer woman). Typically, for those who identify as queer, the terms lesbian, gay, and bisexual are perceived to be too limiting and/or fraught with cultural connotations they feel do not apply to them. Once considered a pejorative term, queer has been reclaimed by some LGBTQ people to describe themselves. However, it is not a universally accepted term even within the LGBTQ community, so use caution when using it outside of describing the way someone self-identifies or in a direct quote. When Q is seen at the end of LGBT, it typically means queer. In a setting for support, particularly for youth, it may mean questioning. Ask people how they describe themselves before labeling their sexual orientation.

 

 

[california boy]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Candidly, I'm not sure you know my "position on gay marriage."  We could test this, I suppose.  You would post what you think my position is, and then I could post what my position is (or vice versa), and then we could compare them.

I reject the premise.  It is fallacious reasoning.  There is no such "situation" in view.  The constraints on sexual behavior as set forth in the Law of Chastity are wholly reasoned and reasonable.  They are not, as you want to infer, arbitrary or irrational (that is, comparable to constraints based on the first letter of a last name).

I reject this premise as well.  Same-sex marriage is, historically speaking, about five minutes old.  It has no historical pedigree, let along a religious/doctrinal one in the Church.  Same-sex marriage has never solemnized, and it appears it never will.

In the Latter-day Saint paradigm, "{a}ll covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power ... are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead."  (D&C 132:7.)

We have been given the means whereby a husband-wife relationship can survive death.  Those means are established by God, not by social trends, or legislative or judiciary bodies.  Parent-child relationships can also survive death, but such relationships are predicated on the husband-wife ones.

To date, we have not received any revelation that man-made "covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations" outside the foregoing parameters will survive death, and have instead been told that "all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead."

If and when we receive new revelations regarding same-sex relationships, I will pray about them and, in all likelihood, accept them.  I don't think this will ever happen.  Meanwhile, however, the purposes of opposite-sex sexual behavior - procreation and the strengthening of the union between husband and wife - are wholly absent from same-sex behavior.  And given the potency of sexual feelings and expression, I think the Law of Chastity is only going to become more important in the years ahead.

A question based on a series of premises which I wholly reject.

I decline to examine the Law of Chastity in a bubble.  If it is valid and from God, it is because we have received it, and continue to be taught it, by servants of God, by prophets and apostles.  It is but one facet of the Restored Gospel.  My obligation to obey it, then, is not a matter of preference or strong feelings nor is it a matter of acquiescing to arbitrary and capricious fiats of unaccountable despots.

In my worldview, the validity of a principle is not based on my emotions and preferences.  In my worldview, the Law of Chastity makes all sorts of sense, and is therefore neither arbitrary nor capricious.  In my worldview, the Brethren are not feckless tyrants tossing out random and whimsical decrees.

So again, I reject the premises of your post, as it suffers from the "complex question fallacy," which 

You have not established that the parameters of the Law of Chastity are arbitrary and capricious, but your question presupposes that they are.  You have not established that the prophets and apostles are unaccountable and feckless, but your question presupposes that they are.

It's not random at all.  You presupposition was intentional.

The Law of Chastity is revelatory, and not "just a policy of the Church."

Thanks,

-Smac

You didn't have to write an entire page of Fisked response.  You could have just said, I don't like the question and prefer to dodge it.  I am not surprised by your answer.  When the analogy goes to something that could possible relate to you, it is understandable you would want to wiggle out of answering a simple what if question.