Deseret News Article: "Coming back to church while reconciling faith and sexuality"

[Teancum]

On 6/3/2024 at 6:52 PM, The Nehor said:

And we are back to anecdotes having value again folks. How do you not have whiplash?

@smac97anecdotes only count  for him when they confirm his bias. All others are invalid.

[Teancum]

On 6/3/2024 at 7:12 PM, smac97 said:

There is only one "Law of Chastity."  The same standard for all of us.  Same standard, disparate impact.

No.  You think there is one law of chastity that your church puts on hyper steroids.  And you seem bent insisting it does have universal application when you recently told me that you do not think this.  Which is it?

[Teancum]

On 6/3/2024 at 10:57 PM, LoudmouthMormon said:

Many of these people also give up and leave."
Yep.   And a lot stay.  A lot more than you feel comfortable acknowledging, apparently. 

"The church is a self-selecting group after a certain age."
Indeed.  And apparently, ~4% of current self-selecting current members are LGBTQ.
 

Yet again, you have no idea whether they are happy or not, in misery or joy, considering leaving or staying.  I am sure some are happy. I am sure some are not. I am sure some are in between. I am sure some will stay and some will leave. Some may take their lives, some may marry hetorosexually and end up in a failed marriage and so on.  Thus I give little credence to your seeming assertion the 4% of LDS are LBGTQ and are simply hunky dory. This seems to be the point you are attempting to make.

[Teancum]

On 6/3/2024 at 10:57 PM, LoudmouthMormon said:

And that survey makes it plausible that there are tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of current LDS folk in similar situations.

Again, you simply do not know at all and cannot conclude this from the data.

[smac97]

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

Since you think the "restored gospel" has God's divine sanction then yes you do present and argue as if it is a universal law applicable to all humans.  

I acknowledge that reasonable minds can disagree about the existence of God, the Law of Chastity, etc.  I do not "present and argue {the Law of Chastity} as if it is a universal law applicable to all humans."  The Law of Chastity is a teaching of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I concur.  But whether a law comes from God is not dependent on whether it is "universally excepted."

And because a religion claims it is from God does not mean it does. 

Sure.  Reasonable minds can and do disagree about such things.

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Or it is from God.

Which can only be take on faith. 

Most things are taken on faith, and many of those must be taken on faith.

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

The crutch that religion constantly has to rely on because that is mostly all it has when it comes to enforcing its rules. 

Yes, and thank goodness for that.  I am glad we live in a society where religious groups lack civil/punitive power in terms of "enforcing its rules."  Many people live in societies where that does happen.  

I am grateful that the Church's teachings are accepted through volitional, rather than coerced, obedience and acceptance.  D&C 134:10 is an important, and sometimes overlooked, precept.

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

In my view humanity would be well served if we learned to move beyond taking things on faith.

That seems overbroad.  Most things must be accepted without being empirically demonstrated.  Accepted as a matter of trust or hope or faith.

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Every society, both secular and sectarian, imposes constraints on sexual behavior.  The differences arise in the parameters of those constraints.

Yes this is true. 

Look at us!  Agreeing on something!  

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

The level of control and constraints and what is actually proper is what I am focusing on. As noted, the LDS Law of Chastity is sexual control on steroids. 

Respectfully, it is not.  The Law of Chastity's parameters on sexual behavior - within the confines of marriage, for the purposes of procreation and strengthening the union between husband and wife - make all sorts of sense.  And even then, the Church's real-world ability to enforce these parameters is very limited.  From D&C 134:10:

Quote

We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

Loss of church membership due to violations of the Law of Chastity is a pretty rare thing.  I have been involved in dozens of membership councils, not one of which has resulted in the individual's loss of church membership, and instead have generally resulted in intended-to-be-temporary restrictions on privileges (loss of temple recommend, no calling, cannot take the Sacrament, etc.).  Such councils also uniformly encourage the individual to repent and return to full fellowship.  The proceedings of such councils are, in almost all circumstances, kept strictly confidential.  No announcements, no shunning, no shaming.  And the proceedings are calm, quiet, civil and decorous.  No shouting, browbeating or anything of the sort.  And there is certainly no threat to or loss of "property or life ... {or} limb, or {} any physical punishment."

This, in your view, amounts to "sexual control on steroids?"  That's an off-by-a-country-mile bit of exaggeration.

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

Other religions are similar.  Islam is way over the top. 

Depending on the region, Sharia law can impose penalties for fornication such as lashes or even stoning.  Meanwhile, the Church specifically states that "we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them."

And yet these approaches are, in your view, "similar."  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about that.

“Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?” comes to mind.

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

Frankly, a person's sexual life is not anyone's business.

That depends on the community which the person chooses to join.  When I married my wife, my "sexual life" certainly became her business, because she and I are in the same community.  Meanwhile, it's none of your business because you and I do not share a community link.

Bill Clinton's "sexual life" involved, for a time, a young woman named Monica Lewinsky.  Was that "not anyone's business"?

When I served in the military, there were clear rules regarding sexual behavior.

Civil law can and does put constrains on "a person's sexual life" in workplace and other contexts.

And on and on and on.  If you belong to a community, there will be times and ways in which your sexual life is or can become someone else's business.  Some of these are imposed on you without your consent.  In the context of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, membership is a matter of voluntary association.  If you want to join the community and enjoy its benefits and blessings, there arise some duties and constraints.  If you do not want to accept those duties and constraints, then don't join or stay in the community.

This, in your view, amounts to "sexual control on steroids?"

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

Now I will qualify that I am {n}ot for outright licentious behavior.

Kinda hard to square this with your immediately previous statement that "a person's sexual life is not anyone's business."

If you are "not for outright licentious behavior," then you are making the "sexual lives" of other people your business. 

Again, every society, both secular and sectarian, imposes constraints on sexual behavior.  The differences arise in the parameters of those constraints.

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

But activity between consenting adults is not anyone's business.  Not yours. Not the business of a clergy leader, etc.

I know a person who, with his spouse, for a time got into into "swinging."  Partner-swapping, orgies, and so on.  This, in my view, amounted to "licentious behavior."  That is, behavior that is "promiscuous and unprincipled in sexual matters," or "lacking legal or moral restraints, especially disregarding sexual restraints."

Do you agree?  Was this behavior "licentious?"  Or was it not so because it was "activity between consenting adults"?

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Meanwhile, the Church as a bilaterally voluntary association, with either side (the group and the individual) able to sever the relationship at any time for any reason or no reason at all.

I never said otherwise. 

You have repeatedly characterized the Law of Chastity as "sexual control on steroids."

If membership in the Church is voluntary, then the Law of Chastity is not reasonably characterized as "sexual control on steroids."

If the Church treats violation of the Law of Chastity seriously, but then does all it can to preserve the individual's membership in the Church, then this cannot be reasonably characterized as "sexual control on steroids."

If the Church specifically prohibits itself from doing anything to a member who violates the Law of Chastity other than temporarily limiting privileges of (or, in rare cases, removing membership) (again, no physical punishment, no threat to life or limb, no shunning, no announcements/shaming, etc.), then this cannot be reasonably characterized as "sexual control on steroids."

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

Never the less for someone brought up as a Latter-day Saint, and who would be indoctrinated from inception with Mormonism's over the top focus in sexual behavior, will not find it easy to simply sever the relationship. 

I appreciate that, but so what?  The Church does not coerce compliance with the Law of Chastity.  The Church does not use physically or socially punitive measures if the Law is violated.  The Church treats such matters seriously, but does all it can to encourage the individual to repent and return to full fellowship.  The absolute worst thing the Church can do is temporarily impose limits on a members participation in the Church, or else remove the individual's membership (and even then, the individual is exhorted to repent and return).

This, in your view, amounts to "sexual control on steroids?"

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

Thus the conundrum for persons with non hetorosexual make up.

I respectfully disagree.

First, I don't see a "conundrum" (that is, "an intricate and difficult problem."  I agree that complying with the Law of Chastity is, or can be, difficult, but not that doing so is "intricate."  Rather, the Law is fairly straightforward: Sexual behavior is allowed between a husband and wife, and is otherwise prohibited.

Second, the Law of Chastity can be just as difficult for someone attracted to the opposite sex.

Third, if the notion of "sexual identity" is set aside, then then the concept of "non heterosexual make up" becomes something of a non sequitur.  

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

It is clear from the article you posted and countless other stories that this is extremely difficult to wrangel with for LBGTQ people. 

Plenty of Latter-day Saints who are attracted to the opposite sex also find difficulty in complying with the Law of Chastity.

But your point is well-taken.  A Latter-day Saint who has sexual impulses which, if acted upon, violate the Law of Chastity may well find that difficult.

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

A person with that orientation who is brought up in a secular home, or even in a religion that does not focus on controlling sexual behavior at least in the 21st century, will have a much easier time in navigating their sexuality.

Me previously: "Every society, both secular and sectarian, imposes constraints on sexual behavior.  The differences arise in the parameters of those constraints."

You previously: "Yes this is true."

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

I am quite happy western society has and is becoming more accepting and understanding of the variety of sexual orientations humans may have.

I am glad that individual autonomy has increased.  That said, I am quite happy to feel that God has revealed His design for us, and that we have the opportunity to study, explore, accept, and live in accordance with it.  And to do so even when the some voices in the world is saying that these parameters are terrible, evil, etc.

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

For its part, the Church seldom severs the relationship over violations of the Law of Chastity, even though such violations are quite serious. 

Yes currently. But you know as well as I do this was not alway the case and really is more a development over the past few decades.  I have witnessed discipline  of teens and young adults for premarital sex, even excommunication.

No matter what the Church does to improve and refine itself, some of its detractors will always manage to find fault.

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Many individuals sever the relationship for many different reasons, and the Church's can't do squat about it.  This does not, to me, sound like the Church "has great power over the individual."

Wow. Really? 

Yes.

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

You think it is easy after years of indoctrination to simply flip a switch and walk away? 

I am saying that the Church only has as much "power over the individual" as the individual chooses to allow.  The individual can walk away for any reason, or no reason whatsoever, and the Church can't do anything to stop it.  That does not sound like the Church "has great power over the individual."

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

If you do you are simply delusional.

Insults in lieu of substantive reasoning.

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

Yes the Church has extreme sway over its members and their behavior.

No, it does not.  The Church only has as much control over me as I choose to cede to the Church.  And even then, the level of control the Church exercises over me is nowhere near "extreme."

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

Walking away has huge consequences and can be emotionally devastating.

I acknowledge that.  But that does not support the risible and false claims you are making here.

A few years back my brother-in-law went through a terrible divorce.  He would have avoided it if possible.  But he lacked any legal or other authority to do so.  His (now former) wife wanted to divorce him, and that was that.  The "huge consequences" and "emotionally devastating" impact of the severance were unfortunate, but not because one party exercised undue or "extreme" control over the other.  Rather, much of the damage arose because the parties lacked the capacity to control each other.

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

I never wanted the Church to not be true.

Okay.  That is a separate discussion from whether or not the Church can or does exercise undue or "extreme" control over its members.  I contend that it does not.

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

But it is not.

I believe it is.

We both here are expressing statements of faith.

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

And it took me literally years to work through this and to find my way as my faith in Mormonism. Any believing active member devotes a huge portion of their time, money, thought, emotions and so on to the church.

Yes.  Hopefully they do so because they find value in belonging to that community.  I also devote huge amounts of time, money, thoughts, emotions, etc. to my wife and children.  I do so because I find my membership in that community valuable and worthwhile.

There are other communities and associations which I find to have lesser, little or no value, and so I spend less time (and money, and effort) on participating in or supporting them.

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

The parameters of the Law of Chastity are quite reasonable, and far from extreme. 

Yes they are extreme.

These parameters are quite reasonable.  They are not extreme.

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

These parameters can only be characterized as extreme ("on hyper steroids") in a comparative sense, with the other comparative parameters tending toward being lax, untethered to marriage, etc.

Well let's see-sin next to murder,

I generally dislike the notion of assigning gradations to sin, as such an exercise seems to lead to rationalizations/justifications for sins deemed "lesser."

Consider this article:

Quote

How we understand Corianton’s sin matters, given that Alma is placing it third in line behind murder and denying the Spirit. The fact that Corianton’s sin is commonly viewed as sexual immorality has ramifications. As Michael R. Ash (an I think fairly orthodox LDS writer) argues, “This verse seems to be the impetus for the LDS belief that sexual transgressions are second only to “murder” in the eyes of the Lord.”

Reading this verse, many people have developed (implicitly or explicitly) a hierarchy of sin which goes something like this:

1. Denying he Holy Spirit (a sin which Jesus says “will not be forgiven” in Matthew 12:30-32, Mark 3:28-30, and Luke 12:8-10)
2. Murder
3. Sexual immorality
4. Other sins (which would presumably not all be #4 in seriousness, so let’s say #4 to #Infinity).

I think this reading does a lot of damage – in part because it may cause people who are often already feeling shame, guilt, and godly sorrow for their sin to feel shame above what is necessary to spur them to reconcile with Christ.

But what if that reading of Alma 39 is all wrong? Is Alma really saying sexual immorality is third place in some scorecard of sin? Or is he saying something else?

My argument is that the “abomination” here is not just the liaison with Isabel, but Corianton’s wholesale abandonment of his ministry to engage in this liaison, the sinful example he set, and the terrible spiritual consequences this had for the Zoramites he was supposed to be preaching to. It was the “leading away” (which, of course, was part and parcel with the immorality).

This really resonates with me.

Quote

I think there is more than one way to interpret this verse – I can certainly see, given verse 4’s emphasis on Corianton’s affair with Isabel, why people come away with the interpretation they usually do. And I agree that sexual sin is serious; I would never want to see like an apologist for breaking the sacred law of chastity.

However, I think interpreting Corianton’s sin as leading people away from Christ is much more consistent with the text itself, as well as what we know about Heavenly Father. Below, I will outline seven reasons why.

#1: In context, it makes more grammatical sense

In verse 5, Alma’s “abomination” is a descriptor for “these things.” “Things” is plural – not singular. What are the things, plural? ...

In context it becomes clear that “these things” references several failings of Corianton Alma has just finished listing, and not just his sexual immorality, as serious as that was. In fact, Alma contrasts Corianton’s sin with that of others who also had sex with Isabel outside of marriage, emphasizing Corianton’s “ministry” as a key distinguishing feature of their failings and his.

...

Alma is impugning Corianton not just for sexual immorality, but for the fact that in seeking out sexual immorality – very intentionally, with someone who he paid to have sex with him by the sounds of it – he abandoned his own ministerial work among the Zoramites, the mission to save their souls.

I’m also not sure that we shouldn’t also include the sentences even before that – i.e. Corianton refusing to listen to his father the prophet, and his boasting. But let’s go for a more conservative reading, that’s still true to the grammatical structure of the verses:

“These things” = “most abominable”

“These things” = Forsaking the ministry (to go after Isabel)

#2: Alma diagnoses the main consequences of Corianton’s sin as hurting the missionary work

Alma’s words shortly thereafter make clear that it’s not just that Corianton abandoned his ministry for Isabel, but that in so doing he led away others from the gospel.

In diagnosing the symptoms of Corianton’s sin-sickness, Alma doesn’t simply say “You have gone outside of the bounds of your (future or present) marriage.” Nor does he say “You contributed to Isabel’s breaking the law of chastity.” Instead, he identifies as the main cause of Corianton’s sin, in v. 11,

“how great iniquity ye brought upon the Zoramites; for when they saw your conduct they would not believe my words.”

Whether the Zoramites saw Corianton’s words as hypocrisy (i.e. the Nephites are preaching chastity, while one of their missionaries is off with a prostitute) or whether it caused them to have even less faith in the authority of outside preachers, for whatever reason Corianton’s dalliance with Isabel led potentially repentant Zoramites to refuse the gospel being preached by the prophet.

Alma’s main focus here is how Corianton’s sin affected the ministry, not solely how it affected Corianton’s or Isabel’s chastity. Not that sexual sin is ever really isolated, but in this case it’s clear that what Alma is pointing to is not isolated to sex between two people. It’s about the broader web of relationships Corianton damaged as he abandoned missionary work to go sin, and essentially make a mockery of what his father was preaching.

If this was just about sexual sin, Alma’s sort of missing the wrong thing here as a father – he should be preaching about chastity and marriage. What father goes off about missionary success/failure if he’s mainly concerned his son has violated the law of chastity?

...

#3: Corianton’s amends match a sin of leading others astray more than solely the sin of immorality

Repentance often involves making amends. Of course, there’s not always amends to make, and what we’re getting at is more a changed way of living, but “amends” is a useful starting point for thinking about repentance, especially if your sin involved someone else. You stole a candy bar, you give it back and say sorry. And for us grown-ups, you harm someone’s feelings, you apologize; you caused harm to someone else, you bear your burden to undo the harm as much as is in your power. That’s what a changed person does.

Which is another reason Chapter 39 and for that matter 42 don’t really make sense from a “sex is the third worst sin” reading of Alma 39. Alma does suggest amends for Corianton’s “abominable” sin, but those amends fit better to the picture of Corianton having led others astray than just Corianton having engaged in unlawful sexual intimacy.

In verse 12-13, Alma, having pointed out the sin, makes the call for repentance,

“do good, lest [you] lead away the hearts of many people to destruction…refrain from your iniquities…[T]urn to the Lord with all your mind, might, and strength; that ye lead away the hearts of no to do wickedly; but rather return unto them, and acknowledge your faults and the wrong which ye have done.”

Corianton’s amends were to do good, turn to God, not “lead away” other people to do wicked (this gets mentioned not once but twice), and acknowledge what he has done to the Zoramites he was supposed to preach to.

...

#4: The promised reward fits the repentance

On that note, the end of Alma’s words to Corianton take on poignant meaning.

We often say “the punishment fits the crime.” Here the reward fits the repentance. Alma gives Corianton a significant promise, confident in his son’s repentance – and that promise is not sexual purity or celestial marriage.

In 42:31 Alma concludes his treatise, “O my son, ye are called of God to preach the word unto this people. And now, my son, go thy way, declare the word with truth and soberness, that thou mayest bring souls unto repentance, that the great plan of mercy may have claim upon them. God grant unto you even according to my words. Amen.”

Where Corianton had led people to death, he will now lead them to mercy and life. He will set right what he broke. A promise which indeed does come true, as we see in Alma 49:30, which credits the peace and prosperity of the Church to how they heed “the word of God, which was declared by Helaman, and Shiblon, and Corianton…”

#5: Alma compares Corianton’s sin to his own of leading others away from Christ

Alma explicitly compares Corianton’s sin to his own, using phrases and ideas drawn from his description of his own sins in Alma 36 (a speech given to Helaman, but which Corianton very well may have heard). We see this in a few different ways.

Harrowed up: In 39:7 Alma uses the phrase “harrow up your soul” in reference to his words against Corianton’s sin. In Chapter 36, Alma used this phrase describing his own feelings when confronting his pre-conversion sin:  “my soul was harrowed up” (36:12). This is very specific and brutal imagery – it seems unlikely this is purely coincidental.  

Hiding sins: In 39:8 Alma warns Corianton “ye cannot hide your crimes from God” and that they would “stand as a testimony against [him] at the last day.” In 36:15, Alma wants to be “banished and become extinct” so he will not be “brought to stand in the presence of my God.” The Book of Mormon often connects “last day” ideas with standing before God’s judgment (see Moroni 10 for example). So in both chapters, we get this idea of someone wanting to not be seen by God due to their terrible sin – an impossibility.

Led away – In 39:12, Alma implies Corianton “lead away” the people. This is of course exactly what Alma did. In 36:14, he even says he had “led them [God’s children]away unto destruction” and even compares it to murder (more on that in a second).

As far as we know, Alma the younger never committed sexual sin in his days prior to repentance (although who knows). But we do know most definitely that he led people away from the gospel and the Church – he spoke and acted against the gospel, and his influence seems to have been particularly potent given that he was the prophet Alma the elder’s son. The fact that Alma compares his own sin, in several ways, to Corianton’s suggests that he sees Corianton’s sin through the lens of his own – that of leading people astray.

#6: The rest of the chapters also fit the sin of leading people away very well

There are 91 verses in our modern pagination of Alma’s words to Corianton (Alma 39-42). Verse 1-14 are really Alma diagnosing the sin, consequences, and amends of Corianton’s iniquity. The other 77 verses are primarily Alma correcting doctrinal questions and misunderstandings of Corianton, primarily about judgment, mercy, and justice. There is way more doctrinal correction here than behavioral correction (but of course the two are intimately interconnected- metanoia, repentance, involves a new view of the world, of sin, and of God – thus of doctrine).

...

I think it also makes sense, however, as a response to sexual sin which has led people away from the gospel. Alma makes a very poignant point that “No, you’re not going to be fine in the afterlife because God is loving and will just erase your sin.” But he also makes the poignant point, “Neither are the people you led away – wickedness, which you have led them into, is serious business. You’ve brought misery on them.” Alma shows in many ways how important the work of saving souls is.

In all these ways – the description of sin, the diagnosis of its consequences, the amends, the promise after repentance, the comparison to Alma’s own spiritual journey – I think the text more easily accommodates a view that Corianton’s “most abominable” sin was leading people away from life-saving truth, in his pursuit of immorality, rather than solely or primarily immorality itself. What Corianton did – and what Alma is criticizing – was rather different than, let’s say, two teenagers “in love” making a very unwise choice to not wait until marriage. Corianton’s choice had a much broader influence.

#7: It just makes more sense

In this final point, I go beyond a simple “this fits better with the text” analysis to my own theological opinions, and here I realize I’m more out on a limb, but perhaps my thoughts will have some small value.

I think we get into very dangerous waters when we try to fix an absolute ranking to how God sees sins using our flawed human brains. I’m not at all convinced that we have an accurate understanding of God’s views on the magnitude of sins. Furthermore, any degree of sin fails at the standard of perfection we would need to earn eternal life on our own merits (Romans 3:23). So I think trying to rank sins based on our flawed human understanding is foolhardy.

...

Ranking sins is a somewhat shady areas of theology, trying to read the Lord’s Mind. But if we’re going purely off my common sense, I would say that as serious as what Corianton did was, there are other equally-and-also-more serious kinds of abominations one can commit in life.

Why This Matters

You might think this does not matter and we should not even bother with ranking sins. I would tend to agree, except we do, all the time. We try to gauge the relative seriousness of sins, and I think whether or not we can ever accurately do that without God’s omniscience I do think the value of discussing it is worthwhile in clarifying more about what we are repenting from and why. Understanding sin can help us understand why to flee from it.

I also think in this particular case, our common interpretation of this chapter as fornication-is-the-third-worst-sin is a very damaging interpretation, and also one that forecloses some of the potential of Alma 39. I’d like to explain what I mean by both.

Damaging Interpretation: Church members who break the law of chastity often understand (at least on some level) what the law of chastity is, and that it is serious. We have varying degrees of testimony and commitment to that sacred principle, but at least on some level people “get it” intellectually, whether or not it has percolated their soul fully. They get that it’s bad, or they wouldn’t be confessing to a Bishop. Often they “get it” so well that they get “it” way too much – they feel worthless or despondent over their sin.

It doesn’t take a genius to realize this approach to oneself is incredibly unproductive spiritually, as countless general authorities have told us and yet still does not always sink in. Shame really is not an effective prod to get people to God. Godly sorrow, yes. Shame, no.

Any addiction counselor will in fact tell you that shame often has the opposite effect, driving people further into negative behaviors as a way of gaining temporary respite from feelings of shame.

...

In conclusion, I don’t think Alma 39 is about sexual immorality alone. I don’t think it fits the text too well, and I don’t think it’s terribly helpful or logical. I do think sexual immorality was a big part of what Corianton did – it was a driver of his abandoning the ministry (although not the only one – apparently he also had significant pride issues), and it was a serious problem for the ministry, but the big issue here was not just an affair or infidelity, it was infidelity to the gospel work of saving souls.

I think the whole article is worth a read.

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

probing youth interviews about sexual activity including  masterbation,

I never experienced this, so I question whether it was ever a ubiquitous issue.  And the Church has, for many years now, promulgated guidelines and policies for bishops which - when followed - effectively avoid this issue.

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

temple recommend interviews,

I have been involved in hundreds of such interviews.  Any issues regarding the Law of Chastity are the exclusive province of the bishop.  And the bishops are getting more and better training as to how to address such matters with tact, decorum and so on.

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

constant attacks on pornography use,

I think pornography ought to be attacked.  It has many harmful effects, both on its producers and its consumers.

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

young women that dress immodestly being like walking pornography,

I have never witnessed this sentiment, and I disagree with it, and I question its past prevalence.

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

any faithful LDS parent would rather see their child in a coffin than break the law of chastity. 

Never heard of this one before.

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Others believe that God exists, that He cares for our well-being, that He therefore constrains sexual behaviors, and that we are better off in staying within these parameters.

Obviously.  Yet there are reasonable approaches somewhere in between. It is not an either or and it boils down to consent.

Actually, I think it boils down to - or ought to do - what God wants us to do.  Whether a person "consents" to a behavior is not necessarily congruent with that behavior being beneficial to that person and/or to others.

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

I am not the only poster here who has noted your seeming frequent topics started on sexual issues. 

I find this criticism rather strange.

First, it is a false charge, as evidenced by, well, your lack of evidence (and you even hedge your bets via "seeming frequent...").

Second, one of the great complaints from you and yours is how suppressive and terrible the Church is about matters of sexuality.  And yet when I bring up topics that touch on sexuality, you attempt to shame me for it.  It is you and yours ("I am not the only poster here...") who are suppressing discussion of sexuality, or attempting to through shaming.  This is an odd stance for someone faulting the Church for fostering unhealthy perspectives on sexuality.

Third, the topics about which I create threads have a common theme, and "sexual issues" is not it.  Instead, the common theme is . . . The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  More specifically, the vast majority of my posts are based on news articles and other media content about the Church. Some of these will, of course, pertain to matters touching "on sexual issues."  I do not choose the topics of the online articles, I instead find them and respond to them.  And when I do, you and your fellow "I've-been-liberated-from-the-hivemind" types cast sneer and leer (sometimes to the exclusion of substantive, objective, reasoned discourse).

So which is it?  Who is it that is suppressing the Latter-day Saints in their (non-salacious) examination of sexual issues?  The Church, or folks like you?

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

So no, I do not agree that they are "fairly rare."

And yet, they are.

Here is a list of my topics from 2023 through 2024 to date (the asterisked ones pertain to the Law of Chastity and/or LGBT issues) :

• Hugh Grant to Star in Horror Movie Re: Sister Missionaries 
• *** Deseret News Article: "Coming back to church while reconciling faith and sexuality" 
•  Apology for the Priesthood Ban / "March of Dimes Syndrome" / "Mission Creep" / "Spencer's Law" 
•  Troubling Article Re: Temple in Texas 
•  Trib Article Re: Movement to "Save" the Provo Temple 
•  Ensign Peak Investing in Northrop Grumman 
•  Recent Poll Re: Assessment of Priesthood Ban 
•  Church Historian Explains Decision to Purchase Kirtland Temple
•  Two Missionaries Killed in North Dakota (Car Crash)
•  PA Stake President Charged with Felony Under Mandatory Reporting Law 
• *** BYU’s newly updated Honor Code is at odds with LDS Church’s LGBTQ rules 
•  Missionary Arrested for Rape in Utah County 
•  New Allegations Re: Church's Stock Portfolio 
•  The Family Proclamation and the NHS 
• *** Korihor's Philosophy, "Limiting Principles" and the Law of Chastity
•  Update on Church Finances 
•  Update on Huntsman Lawsuit: Ninth Circuit Reverses Trial Court 
•  Church meetinghouses host thousands of Muslims for Ramadan (Ghana, Italy)
•  Church Files Lawsuit Against Cody, Wyoming (Zoning/Planning Bd) 
•  Church's 2023 Expenditures in Philanthropic/Humanitarian Relief 
•  Gallup Poll Re: The Church has highest rate of attendance
•  Jana Riess: Who is leaving the LDS Church? Eight key survey findings. 
•  Deseret News: "‘Make keeping covenants cool again’: Exploring the stories of ex-ex-Latter-day Saints" 
•  Church Member in Rochester Going "Sam Young" 
•  Lawsuit Against Kingston Group / Individuals / Businesses
•  John Dehlin / Mormon Stories Criticized by Equality Utah, Wyoming Equality, Equality Arizona 
•  Discovery of Photograph of Joseph Smith? Part II 
•  The Oath Movie 
•  Opinions of "Self-Identified" Latter- day Saints, Quantified 
•  Third "Tithing" Lawsuit Under Way 
•  Church Offers Resources Re: Faith Crisis Issues 
• *** Elder Kearon on Addressing Sexual Abuse 
•  New Docuseries from Book of Mormon Central: "A Marvelous Work"
•  Church to Lease (and Share) Historic NYC Protestant Dutch Church Building
•  News Item Re: Church's Efforts on Water Conservation
•  MormonStories in Financial Trouble 
•  Article Re: Clergy/Penitent Privilege 
•  Move to "Dis-Establish" the Church of England 
•  Church sued again over how it uses tithing contributions from members 
•  Church purchasing land in Nebraska 
•  Recent Stories Re: Church's Humanitarian Efforts 
•  Mormon Soda?
•  (5th) Update on Arizona Abuse Case 
•  Pres. Nelson "Back to Work" 
•  Latest Story About a "Mormon" Abusing Children 
•  Church Assistance in Gaza 
•  Update Re: Accusation that Church Disclosed Tithing Donors to OUR
•  Catholic World Report Asks: "Does Mormonism ruin faith?" 
• *** Study: Religion can help LGBTQ Mormons’ mental health, especially if they’re out of the closet 
•  Deseret News: Jonathan Rauch, "a self-described atheistic Jewish gay man" comments on dangers arising from weakened Christianity
•  Deseret News Opinion Piece: Perspective: I teach tax law. This is what I wish reporters understood about church finances 
•  Vice Article on Tim Ballard
•  California's New Abbey, St. Michael's Abbey
•  Another Update on DezNat 
•  Daily Kos Articles Re: Indians and Latter-day Saints
•  Sam Brunson on "Racial Diversity, the Supreme Court, and BYU"
•  MSN Weighs in on "Surprising Mormon Beliefs You Didn’t Know Were Real"
•  Angel Studios (VidAngel) Scores Big Box Office Win: "Sound of Freedom" 
•  Sis. Patricia Holland (wife of Elder Holland) has passed away.
•  BoM Witness Document Up for Sale on eBay - $1 Million Asking Price 
•  How does God's omniscience negate an individual's agency / free will? 
•  Changes to Missionaries' "Preach My Gospel" Manual
•  Article Re: Mental Health of Latter-day Saints 
•  Elder Ahmad S. Corbitt speaks at Braver Angels National Convention 
•  Increases in Baptisms, Missionary Applications, Numbers 
•  Colorado Nightclub Shooter is a (Nominal) Member of the Church 
•  Minerva Teichert estate sues The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, BYU Museum of Art
•  Latter-day Saints update and expand policy on political neutrality and participation 
•  New Church Policy Re: Background Checks in U.K. 
• *** Local author to share his story of finding belonging as an openly gay Latter-day Saint 
•  Thoughts on Biblical Interpretation
• *** Group Denigrating Catholics Invited by LA Dodgers to "Pride Night" 
•  Church's Humanitarian Efforts in Turkey
•  Article Re: ‘Faithful and Friendly’ Latter-day Saint AI Chatbot
•  Vengeance is Mine - Book by Richard E. Turley and Barbara Jones Brown 
•  IRS "Whistleblower" David A. Nielsen to Appear on 60 Minutes 
•  Should Latter-day Saints be Concerned about "Christian Nationalism?" - Part II 
•  Op-Ed: Perspective: What’s behind American media’s unhealthy fixation on ‘Mormons, Inc.’? 
•  Christopher Hitchens on the Atheistic "Positivism" 
•  Ghana Latter-day Saints open stake center to more than 1,000 Muslims celebrating end of Ramadan
•  Chasing Down Purported Quote from "Standard of Truth"
•  On Latter-day Saints and Family Size 
• *** Controversy at BYU - Professor and her "Trans" child.
•  Suspicious Fire in Cherry Grove, Alberta, Canada Destroys Latter-day Saint Church Building 
•  New BSA/Church Lawsuit Re: Abuse 
•  Sovereign Citizen (and Latter-day Saint) Killed by Police 
•  Trib Article Re R-Rated Movies 
•  Thoughts on Indifference / Apathy
•  Disappointing Development at BYU Law School 
•  LDS environmentalists want their institution to address the Great Salt Lake’s collapse 
•  Church of England and a "Gender-Neutral God" 
• *** Article on Trans Surgery 
•  Judaism as a "Joinable Tribal Group" - Is "Mormonism" or "The Church" Something Similar?
• *** BYU Study: Pornography use at any level harms romantic relationships 
•  A Breath of Fresh Air: "Do not diminish the peace and happiness many church members enjoy" 
•  Update on Religious Liberty Case
•  Update on Story Re: Missing Kids (Daybell) 
•  Utah Governor Signs Bill Banning All Abortion Clinics 
•  LDS Church President Russell Nelson to receive Gandhi-King-Mandela Peace Prize
•  Trib Article: BYU faculty members urged to align their teaching, research better with LDS tenets 

I think some of these asterisked topics are only marginally relating to "the Law of Chastity and/or LGBT issues," and even then they amount to 10% of my topics.

And again, I find it odd that someone such as yourself would attempt to publicly shame a Latter-day Saint for attempting to discuss matters of sexuality.  I am surprised at this suppressive effort.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 27, 2024 by smac97

[Teancum]

On 6/4/2024 at 11:52 AM, smac97 said:

This is a good point.  Our differences, whether innate or constructed, are secondary to being a "child of God."

Identifying as a child of God does not preclude someone from having other idenities that are just as important. Nor does it mean that they agree with your views on human sexuality. A LBGTQ Latter-day Saint can identify as a child of god and still identify as a homosexual human. 

[Teancum]

On 6/5/2024 at 10:42 AM, california boy said:

You simply have more trust in Church leaders than God.

Bingo!

[LoudmouthMormon]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

On 6/3/2024 at 8:57 PM, LoudmouthMormon said:

And that survey makes it plausible that there are tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of current LDS folk in similar situations.

Again, you simply do not know at all and cannot conclude this from the data.

You see me typing "makes it plausible", right?  And "nobody knows", and "tentative steps away from anecdoes and towards data", right?

 

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I am sure some are happy. I am sure some are not. I am sure some are in between. I am sure some will stay and some will leave. Some may take their lives, some may marry hetorosexually and end up in a failed marriage and so on.

Here's an interesting thing to consider.  (At lest I find it interesting.)  Here - let me change the subject for a second.  Here's a cut and paste, and I've italicized the terms I've changed:

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yet again, you have no idea whether they are happy or not, in misery or joy, considering leaving or staying.  I am sure some are happy. I am sure some are not. I am sure some are in between. I am sure some will stay and some will leave. Some may take their lives, some may marry the same sex and end up in a failed marriage and so on.  Thus I give little credence to your seeming assertion the 7% of Americans are LBGTQ and are simply hunky dory.

The point of this tangent: We're all out to be happy, self-actualized, fulfilled people living authentic lives that allow us genuine love.  Sounds like you're accepting a rough estimate of 4% LDS folks being some form of LGBTQ.  If we're gonna hyperfocus on whether being so actually makes 'em happy, doesn't it make sense to be also hyperfocus on whether being out of the closet open practicing LGBTQ people makes folks happy?  

I'm totally in favor of studying the crap out of both demographics, and comparing the results in apples-to-apples ways.  It'll be hard though, because where it's not too hard to find the 7-in-100 LGBTQ Americans, it's very hard to find the ~4-in-100 LGBTQ LDS folks.  Anecdotes aside, they haven't exactly self-identified.   We can conclude they're not too interested in standing up and being counted, because, well, they haven't stood up to be counted.  This survey is the first indication I'm aware of, that indicates they exist in the first place.

[smac97]

6 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Years ago, I recall reading the ELCA's (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America) statement on sexuality after they decided to allow for same sex relationships. The thing I recall most from their statement was their choice to focus on "promiscuity" rather than the genders of the people involved.

I don't think that is a feasible approach.

6 hours ago, MrShorty said:

They decided to separate "homosexual" behaviors from "licentious" behaviors and ended up discerning the law of chastity differently.

I'm okay with that.  But I do end up disagreeing with it.

The Law of Chastity does not conflate "'homosexual' behaviors" with "'licentious'" ones.  Instead, the Law of Chastity coheres around the meaning and purpose of marriage, and the role which sex plays in that meaning and purpose.  I understand that this is a socially unpopular perspective, but I think it is the right one.  And sometimes being right and being popular are at odds with each other.

6 hours ago, MrShorty said:

At the end of the day, the challenge isn't whether or not sexual behavior needs to be constrained.  It is discerning how God decides what is and is not licentious.

I think these are just variations on the same theme.  Sexual behavior needs to be constrained and purposeful.  God has spoken to prophets and apostles regarding these constraints and purposes.

6 hours ago, MrShorty said:

The church has decided that same sex sexual (and romantic??) behavior is considered by God to be licentious.

CFR, please.  Specifically A) the Church teaching the Law of Chastity as something it "has decided" (as opposed to it being a revelation and commandment from God), and B) the "licentious" characterization ("licentious" seems to apply to all sorts of inappropriate behavior, not just the "same sex sexual" kind).

6 hours ago, MrShorty said:

When asked to justify that claim, I see references to a few ancient scriptures (and the conservative Christian interpretation of those scriptures -- similar to the way we justified racial segregation based on traditional Christian interpretation of a few ancient scriptures) and early to mid-20th century beliefs about the "pathology" of homosexuality.

CFR here, too.  Not only do I find your initial premise dubious (see above), I likewise find this characterization suspect.

6 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Considering that these are two ways that lead us to make incorrect judgements about what is and is not revelation,

We also have the cumulative counsel of living prophets and apostles, which generally leads us to make correct judgments.

6 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I have yet to encounter someone who can justify our claims to revelation while accounting for these two sources of error.

I don't understand what you are looking for here.

6 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I'm not sure that any of us "lay" people can really answer those kinds of questions. Such an explanation would need to come from those whom we sustain as prophets and apostles who are claiming such revelation.

Still not understanding.  What "questions"?  What "explanation" are you seeking here?

6 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Somewhere I've said that the best thing I think the church could do would be to publish some details about how the revelations around LGBTQ+ issues have been received and how those claiming revelation have accounted for possible errors in the revelatory process. Until such explanations come forth, I think we are going to keep going round in circles around this issue. Discernment is key, and no one seems willing to explain exactly how we have discerned God's will on these issues.

This seems like a "Sovereign Citizen" / "No True Scotsman" approach.  I don't think it will work.

That said, I would like to see further light and knowledge come to us on this matter.  We know what we are supposed to do in order to obtain such further light and knowledge, though, and I wonder if we are not doing it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

7 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Quote

Sexual impulses are powerful.  They need constraints.  The issue arises in the parameters of those constraints.  Some prefer a licentious, anything-goes-as-long-as-it's-consensual-between-the-participants sort of approach when crafting these parameters.  Others believe that God exists, that He cares for our well-being, that He therefore constrains sexual behaviors, and that we are better off in staying within these parameters.

I wonder if for you this applies to married folks as well assuming total fidelity to each other. 

Yes.  The Law of Chastity applies to all those who are under covenant to live in compliance with it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

This is a good point.  Our differences, whether innate or constructed, are secondary to being a "child of God."

Identifying as a child of God does not preclude someone from having other idenities that are just as important.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  For example, my political identity is not, should not be, "just as important" as my relationship to God.  Some people, though, may feel otherwise.  

23 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Nor does it mean that they agree with your views on human sexuality.

Sure.

23 minutes ago, Teancum said:

A LBGTQ Latter-day Saint can identify as a child of god and still identify as a homosexual human. 

Sure.  My thought, though, is that the latter is a recently-invented societal construct, the adoption of which can create unnecessary conflict, confusion, and sinful behavior (particularly when it is elevated to being as important as one's relationship to God), and that subordinating it - or even setting it aside - might have some real utility.

I am speaking in the context of the Latter-day Saint paradigm.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

There is only one "Law of Chastity."  The same standard for all of us.  Same standard, disparate impact.

No. 

Yes.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

You think there is one law of chastity that your church puts on hyper steroids. 

There is an easy way for us to resolve this disagreement.  I will post the Law of Chastity which I posit applies to all of us.  You can then post these mysterious "other" laws of chastity which are specific to particular groups.

The "hyper steroids" thing is just rank hyperbole.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

And you seem bent insisting it does have universal application

Same standard, disparate impact.  

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

when you recently told me that you do not think this. 

Where did I say this?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I will also listen to people who speak of successfully navigating "conflicting identities," some of whom seem to do so by setting aside or subordinating their "sexual identity" in favor of a more important one.

Who decides what a more important one is?

The individual, I suppose.

The Rich Young Man prioritized his "great possessions" over following Christ.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This seems like a "Sovereign Citizen" / "No True Scotsman" approach. 

Don’t understand what you mean here.

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think that is a feasible approach.

Why not?

[smac97]

Just now, Calm said:

Quote

 

Quote

Years ago, I recall reading the ELCA's (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America) statement on sexuality after they decided to allow for same sex relationships. The thing I recall most from their statement was their choice to focus on "promiscuity" rather than the genders of the people involved.

I don't think that is a feasible approach.

 

Why not?

Because being promiscuous (that is, "having or characterized by many transient sexual relationships" or "having or involving many sexual partners : not restricted to one sexual partner or few sexual partners") is only one of the defects of sexual misconduct. 

Promiscuity is a violation of the Law of Chastity, but not the only violation.

A married man may have a long-running affair with one woman, and he could - under the foregoing rubric - argue that he has not been "promiscuous" since he is only cheating on his wife with one other woman, not "many sexual partners."  But it's still adultery.

A young unmarried couple can be exclusive to each other in terms of sexual misconduct, and hence avoid "promiscuity," but what they are doing is still fornication.

In my view, sex is limited to a husband and wife for the purpose(s) of procreation and/or strengthening the union between them.  I think this works better as the differentiator.  Far better, even.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand what you are looking for here.

He is looking for something more to support the condemnation of all same sex sexual behaviour than 1) an appeal to a particular interpretation of ancient scripture that broadly condemns homosexuality (where the scripture itself is restricted to condemning certain same sex behaviors iirc) and 2) certain modern (early 20th century) views of homosexuality as a mental illness, etc.

The something more he is looking for is primarily modern revelation (since God is more reliable than man on not being biased when choosing to label something sinful I am thinking).

Edited June 28, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

 

Quote

Somewhere I've said that the best thing I think the church could do would be to publish some details about how the revelations around LGBTQ+ issues have been received and how those claiming revelation have accounted for possible errors in the revelatory process. Until such explanations come forth, I think we are going to keep going round in circles around this issue. Discernment is key, and no one seems willing to explain exactly how we have discerned God's will on these issues.

This seems like a "Sovereign Citizen" / "No True Scotsman" approach.  I don't think it will work.

 

Don’t understand what you mean here.

My sense is that MrShorty is pursuing a strategy of rhetorical attrition, not unlike what some Sovereign Citizens do in court (with judges) or on roadsides (having been pulled over by police).  The strategy relies on endless regressions and questions, non-acceptance of authoritative laws or statements of law, persistent attempts to re-frame issues outside their requisite context, and so on.

For example, a frequent SovCit approach is to attempt to challenge a judge's authority, often by asking a seemingly innocuous question along the lines of "Can this court prove jurisdiction?"  He then endlessly frames and re-frames the suppose jurisdictional dispute, usually not by directly rejecting the judge's explanation, but by not accepting it and then asking the same question again.  And then if the judge tries to move on, the SovCit guy acts as if jurisdiction is genuinely in dispute, and then either pivots to another challenge, or else regresses back to the jurisdictional challenge again, or else summarily - in "No True Scotsman" fashion - asserts that the judge is wrong, that jurisdiction is lacking, and therefore the case must be dismissed.

Here, MrShorty's approach seems to be an endlessly regressive critique not about "jurisdiction," but about "revelation."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

7 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Years ago, I recall reading the ELCA's (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America) statement on sexuality after they decided to allow for same sex relationships.

Would it be this, only updated?  Perhaps the current one is more conservative than the one you remember?

https://download.elca.org/ELCA Resource Repository/SexualitySS.pdf

It does not appear they are only focusing on promiscuity, but any relationship outside of marriage.  As far as same sex marriage, they state they do not have consensus, but it does sound like all agree that if a same sex couple does want to have a sexual relationship it needs to be parallel to the level of commitment expected for a heterosexual marriage.  See page 20 for summaries of the different views.

 

Edited June 28, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

I don't understand what you are looking for here.

He is looking for something more to support the condemnation of all same sex sexual behaviour than 1) an appeal to a particular interpretation of ancient scripture that broadly condemns homosexuality (where the scripture itself is restricted to condemning certain same sex behaviors iirc) and 2) certain modern (early 20th century) views of homosexuality as a mental illness, etc.

That seems pretty "No True Scotsman"-esque.  

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

The something more he is looking for is primarily modern revelation (since God is more reliable than man on not being biased when choosing to label something sinful I am thinking).

There are extensive examples of modern prophets and apostles speaking, affirming and re-affirming the Law of Chastity.  MrShorty must be aware of all this, but I think he'll just categorize it as "an appeal to a particular interpretation of ancient scripture" and/or an appeal to "views of homosexuality as a mental illness, etc."

"That's not real prophetic guidance, that's just an appeal to a particular interpretation of ancient scripture" is No True Scotsman.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

My sense is that MrShorty is pursuing a strategy of rhetorical attrition, not unlike what some Sovereign Citizens do in court (with judges) or on roadsides (having been pulled over by police).  The strategy relies on endless regressions and questions, non-acceptance of authoritative laws or statements of law, persistent attempts to re-frame issues outside their requisite context, and so on.

 

I so disagree.  That is quite contrary to how Mr. Shorty approaches his spiritual exploration and looking for truth.  I believe he sincerely is seeking revelation where he believes there are gaps in revealed knowledge.  This is obvious if you pay attention to all his posts rather than taking one thread and assuming an agenda.

Edited June 28, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There are extensive examples of modern prophets and apostles speaking, affirming and re-affirming the Law of Chastity. 

But many do not see prophets and apostles claiming revelation for themselves, instead it appears to be confirmation in some fashion of scripture and traditional views.  There is a difference between relying on someone else’s revelation and seeking it for oneself, or we wouldn’t think Nephi’s seeking out to experience his father’s vision for himself as that relevant imo.

Plus previous revelation would have addressed that day’s concerns and nuances and there are new concerns and nuances, such as actual legal same sex marriages.  It is reasonable to wonder if these changes require a different response than previous, significantly different behaviours.

Edited June 28, 2024 by Calm

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes.

There is an easy way for us to resolve this disagreement.  I will post the Law of Chastity which I posit applies to all of us.  You can then post these mysterious "other" laws of chastity which are specific to particular groups.

The "hyper steroids" thing is just rank hyperbole.

Same standard, disparate impact.  

Where did I say this?

Thanks,

-Smac

I will have to consider whether or not it is worth my time to continue to discuss this with you. I think you have a habit of dismissing the lived and related experiences of other but elevating your own, and your own is the only acceptable narrative. It would not be hard to find an abundance of teachings, books, talks and so on about the "law of chastity" that demonstrate what i think is a very shaming and manipulative use of the rule that many would  find over the top and yes, on steroids. One example is worthiness interview.  You seem to ignore the fact that many of the church's lay leader have in fact performed intrusive and inappropriate interviews on sexual matters. You may have not asked such questions when a bishop. Nor did I.  But plenty did. And then there is the point of an adult man interviewing young people alone, behind closed doors and a variety of topics.  Further, I already conceded that the church is less heavy handed with discipline on sexual "sin"but there was a time that they were not and it is within living memory of many on this board.  I do commend that progress.  That does not mean the history of something different did not cause people problems and unnecessary shame.  

Here are quotes on the idea that a parent should prefer a child come home in a coffin rather than lose their virtue:

“There is no true Latter-day Saint who would not rather bury a son or a daughter than to have him or her lose his or her chastity – realizing that chastity is of more value than anything else in all the world.”

 

(Prophet Heber J. Grant, Gospel Standards, complied by G. Homer Durham, p. 55)

 

 

 

“It is better to die in defending one’s virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle.”

 

(Spencer W. Kimball, LDS Prophet, The Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 196)

 

 

 

President David O. McKay:

 

Your virtue is worth more than your life. Please, young folk, preserve your virtue even if you lose your lives.”

 

(The Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 63)

 

 

 

“I know what my mother expects. I know what she’s saying in her prayers. She’d rather have me come home dead than unclean.”  (Gordon B. Hinckley, Conference Report, April 1967, pp. 51-55)

 

 

[Teancum]

On 6/5/2024 at 12:24 PM, smac97 said:

Well, some disagree on this.  It is not uncommon to sidestep or ignore a commandment, or to re-define it, or to create a rationalization for exempting oneself from it, and then claim to "put God first."

And some claim that they know what God is telling them is really what God wants then insist that application is the only acceptable one.  You certainly can define and proscribe and agree with the rules of the church and those who lead it.  But it is certainly not a given that their rules are Gods rules. Can we agree on that?

[Teancum]

On 6/5/2024 at 12:47 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Except according to Jesus, living as a Eunuch (celibate not castrated) for the Kingdom of God is a higher calling. Paul says the same thing. You have decided that these commandments are inconvenient and so have rationalized them away. But you strictly adhere to Paul's (not Jesus') prohibitions against certain same sex behaviors. It appears from the outside that you are less concerned with what the authors of the scriptures taught and meant and are more interested in whatever is convenient to your social group.

 

Bruce excelled at simply waving away things like this that did not comport to what Mormonism teaches.