Sexual Sin and the FAIR Instagram Video on Alma 39

[let’s roll]

My experience is that it behooves us not to think that any scripture has just one meaning or message.  Scripture read with the benefit of the Spirit brings to our mind and heart that which Deity would have us understand/remember in order to provide needed insight to aid us in addressing our current circumstances.

[The Nehor]

22 hours ago, rpn said:

It (sexual relations outside of marriage)  is the one sin that has the potential to upend God's plans for each of us to be born to a married mother and father who love and stay together, and avoid killing babies, shortcutting their earthly experiences potentially (we don't know when one spirit gets permanently connected to a mortal body) ---- the standard that gives anyone the best chance for the becoming everything we seek to become because of our discipleship.   

I don't think that is "a modern thing". 

That isn’t God’s plan for each of us. It is an ideal we hold but often one parent or even both die before they can raise the child. Suggesting that everyone would live in a loving two parent home if we would just stop all the fornicating is insane.

Tying this to abortion is also a huge stretch. Look up the history of abortifacients. This is not a new thing.

For added fun read up on the ordeal of bitter waters in Numbers 5 where a man can accuse his wife of being unfaithful. The earliest commentaries we have tie this to her being pregnant and the husband suspecting he is not the father. It could also be he suspects her of pregnancy. She drinks a potion. If she dies from consuming it the death sounds like a fatal miscarriage. So God is okay with inducing a miscarriage?

Again, the modern Protestant opposition to abortion is very recent. Like in the 1980s recent. The Catholics of course have a longer history. The Church had a really weird obsession against birth control with histrionic statements about “race suicide” (YUCK!) and comparing birth control to totalitarian government induced famines and the like. Really strange stuff.

And yes, it is largely a modern thing.

22 hours ago, mbh26 said:

Sexual sin is offensive to the spirit of God.  Those who aren't able to acheive self mastery in that way will not get past the Telestial kingdom.  We all have weaknesses that we need the Lord Jesus's help with to overcome.  But when we say that we know better than God what is right or wrong, that's rebellion and God can't work with that.  

Hello darkness my old friend……

18 hours ago, blackstrap said:

Criminals in prison have a code. They regard one particular kind of sin as the lowest of the low, and will exact revenge with no remorse.

No, this varies A LOT by culture. Generally in western cultures this is pedophilia which…..why are you bringing that up?

Look up Russian prison culture if you want to feel sick inside.

Also prisons are filled with tough guy talk about things no one will tolerate. This is more a threat than a reality. Hypocrisy is still a thing even in prisons.

16 hours ago, Teancum said:

OK.  But LDS leaders, prophets, seers and revelators, have interpreted this passage over and over and over to mean sexual sin is next to murder in seriousness.

Of course they did. For all our talk of being led by revelation the Church has a habit of slavishly following the culture and tradition of men. Particularly Protestant men. This took off especially in the early 20th century when plural marriage was removed and we decided to play nice. Suddenly we followed them into every moral panic from drugs to satanism to abortion to homosexuality. We sure do love us some of that sweet apostate Christian culture.

[Maestrophil]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Of course they did. For all our talk of being led by revelation the Church has a habit of slavishly following the culture and tradition of men. Particularly Protestant men. This took off especially in the early 20th century when plural marriage was removed and we decided to play nice. Suddenly we followed them into every moral panic from drugs to satanism to abortion to homosexuality. We sure do love us some of that sweet apostate Christian culture.

I find it pretty clear myself - most times I see people trying really hard to get away fro this passage meaning that fornication is next to murder - it comes from people who struggle with this sin and seem to want to soften the importance.  Of course, like most things, I could be wrong, but my experience has lead me to believe that it is correct, and that sexual immorality can lead to as great or greater pain and damage than murder can.  I have experienced this myself.  

Now as to how we teach it in terms of repentance, I agree, sometimes the emphasis is too much on the sin, and not enough on the atonement - and that the atonement can repair this damage.

Also, as far as a previous comment about 'evil harlots'. I believe, again from experience, that some people may be good hearted, and some may only choose that lifestyle because they must - but I know of some personally who revel in their choice, and brag of how many of their clients are 'closeted' bishops etc. who have na adventure in their marriages and seek them out, in spite of being sealed etc. - to me that is evil, and I wouldn't see Jesus condoning such.

[Senator]

28 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

I find it pretty clear myself - most times I see people trying really hard to get away fro this passage meaning that fornication is next to murder

I have my suspicions that this is an example of an "expressive" passage as is demonstrated in D&C 19

Edited August 13, 2024 by Senator

[Stargazer]

On 8/12/2024 at 11:14 AM, The Nehor said:

In Alma 39 Alma seems more interested in Corianton forsaking the ministry and hindering the work and much less so in the sexual sin.

Last Sunday I got roped in at the last moment (it seemed to me) to teach the Priests quorum, and this of course was the topic. Interestingly, I expressed to them exactly what you said here.

I also suggested that Corianton had possibly not even "done" anything worthy of church discipline, else it seemed like his father would have been more upset about it. For all I know, anyway.

[Stargazer]

On 8/12/2024 at 11:14 AM, The Nehor said:

The idea that sexual sin is the worst thing is ever is a very modern thing.

Well, perhaps not. I seem to recall that the Law of Moses specified the death penalty in some cases. That's seems quite serious, and a similar penalty was affixed to murder.

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

 Not denying that in the least.  And a lot of the justifications for connecting sexual sin with the sin next to murder work without that connection imo, such as Autumn’s explanation of the impact of sexual sins on us personally.  Cut it free from the verses and it is still a valid construction/counsel imo.

For those who wish to interpret it that way, I am not going to tell them they are wrong.  Just providing an alternative for those who never could make it fit like myself.

I am not sure I follow. Can you expand on these thoughts please?

[Devobah]

I wanted to provide an update on the conversation with this gentlemen. First, he has not backed off saying that what I believe is toxic and I shouldn't be around students. He has also said that my experiences with gay members of the church and the conversations I have had with those that choose to stay is not the correct understanding. There is a lot of talking past each other.

He has also brought up the principle that things will work out in heaven and that this belief has sent many who are in the LGBT community to their grave. Believing that if they died God would fix them. I mentioned that it is an oversimplification of what the doctrine actually speaks on, which is that things will work out in heaven. The great things about the kingdoms of glory is that this allows for things to work out for all. 

In essence, he believes that no gay person can actually be happy in the church. That if they are asked to be celibate they are going to be lonely and unhappy for their lives, if they don't end their life early. I mentioned that marriage and sex doesn't magically fix a person who is unhappy, lonely, and depressed. He never responded to that and left me with this comment:

"you are just doubling down on the concept of 'you find your place in the kingdom when you die. So go be celibate.' You Mormon's are all so sensitive when you try to defend your homophobia and bigotry. It is entertaining to watch you stumble through the mental gymnastics  required to hide behind your blind faith and fear of critical thought. I acknowledge when I make errors. I even regularly apologize for what I said when I was Mormon. You have made my point. The doctrine is false. If I have learned anything from this conversation it is that if there is a god they have nothing whatsoever to do with the corporation of the president."

At this point I'm not going to bother responding. He's made it clear to me that he is not going to back down on what he has said. He's even gone the personal insult route more than once. Nothing outside of completely agreeing with him and renouncing the Church and its doctrines will be enough for him.

I know people who are happy in the Church while being gay. I also know people that were unhappy and left. It happens. It's been made painfully clear that a side quest in apologetics is not for me.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Maestrophil said:

I find it pretty clear myself - most times I see people trying really hard to get away fro this passage meaning that fornication is next to murder - it comes from people who struggle with this sin and seem to want to soften the importance.  Of course, like most things, I could be wrong, but my experience has lead me to believe that it is correct, and that sexual immorality can lead to as great or greater pain and damage than murder can.  I have experienced this myself.  

Now as to how we teach it in terms of repentance, I agree, sometimes the emphasis is too much on the sin, and not enough on the atonement - and that the atonement can repair this damage.

Also, as far as a previous comment about 'evil harlots'. I believe, again from experience, that some people may be good hearted, and some may only choose that lifestyle because they must - but I know of some personally who revel in their choice, and brag of how many of their clients are 'closeted' bishops etc. who have na adventure in their marriages and seek them out, in spite of being sealed etc. - to me that is evil, and I wouldn't see Jesus condoning such.

I have seen it cause incredible harm. I really wish we would make a distinction between the more predatory types of sexual sin that explicitly victimize people like assault and rape. That includes the secondary effects that adultery can have. When we smush all the sexual sins together we end up with two teenagers who aggressively made out or a lone person masturbating and put that next to murder that is (at most) self-inflicted damage.

You think the great evil is the prostitute who talks about their clients in a way that still preserves anonymity and not the client. That speaks volumes. Wait until you find out that Mormon couples in the swinger community have an amazingly weird reputation. Also I don’t care if someone is fundamentally good hearted. If you are being sex trafficked or forced (either literally or due to economic pressures or coercion) into sex work you often come across as harsh and bad hearted. It is a survival skill. Religious people in general in our society spend way too much time searching for ‘perfect victims’ before they are willing to admit to a problem. Whenever there is a rape people start trying to find out if the victim somehow deserved it. It is gross.

I suspect this is one reason you see lots of people opposed to feeding hungry children because of a minor cost but are willing to spend lots of resources preventing abortion. Once you are born you might be evil. Dealing with real victims is messy.

[The Nehor]

36 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Well, perhaps not. I seem to recall that the Law of Moses specified the death penalty in some cases. That's seems quite serious, and a similar penalty was affixed to murder.

Yes, those cases being when you *checks notes* violated the property rights of the man the woman ‘belonged’ to very egregiously. In other cases monetary compensation and marriage to the perpetrator were required.

[Stargazer]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, those cases being when you *checks notes* violated the property rights of the man the woman ‘belonged’ to very egregiously. In other cases monetary compensation and marriage to the perpetrator were required.

That's why I said "in some cases," yes.

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, Devobah said:

He has also brought up the principle that things will work out in heaven and that this belief has sent many who are in the LGBT community to their grave. Believing that if they died God would fix them. I mentioned that it is an oversimplification of what the doctrine actually speaks on, which is that things will work out in heaven. The great things about the kingdoms of glory is that this allows for things to work out for all. 

It is behind a fair number of suicides. That kind of thinking hits almost every LGBTQ person I have known well enough that was willing to open up on that level. The idea that death might be the only way for me to escape sin near to murder came to mind many times. For some it is a wish for death. Some take active measures. What is worse? A lifetime of sexual sin or one quick suicide? You can also rationalize that death would spare your family the embarrassment the other route may bring. I have heard similar sentiments from people who stay in the faith and those who leave. This is not an oversimplification. It is a normal experience. I am not a witless ignoramus unfamiliar with the doctrine of the Church.

When I longed for death at times it was because the burden was horrible, life looked bleak, and the only ways out seemed to be to either somehow get out of this life or hope for a miraculous cure that a prophet promised me would come but never did.

9 minutes ago, Devobah said:

In essence, he believes that no gay person can actually be happy in the church. That if they are asked to be celibate they are going to be lonely and unhappy for their lives, if they don't end their life early. I mentioned that marriage and sex doesn't magically fix a person who is unhappy, lonely, and depressed. He never responded to that and left me with this comment:

Of course some people can handle celibacy. Of course marriage and sex won’t magically fix anything. The real problem is the self-hatred and having to deny yourself wanted intimacy not because you chose to but because it is not allowed. Most suicides by LGBTQ people are not over lack of sex. It is a desire to fix something about themselves they are told is repulsive and unlovable.

9 minutes ago, Devobah said:

"you are just doubling down on the concept of 'you find your place in the kingdom when you die. So go be celibate.' You Mormon's are all so sensitive when you try to defend your homophobia and bigotry. It is entertaining to watch you stumble through the mental gymnastics  required to hide behind your blind faith and fear of critical thought. I acknowledge when I make errors. I even regularly apologize for what I said when I was Mormon. You have made my point. The doctrine is false. If I have learned anything from this conversation it is that if there is a god they have nothing whatsoever to do with the corporation of the president."

There is a certain dark irony that some LDS people go to pieces over being told they are bigoted or homophobic but are confused why LGBTQ people who are told they are worse are often not happy with their faith’s teachings.

9 minutes ago, Devobah said:

At this point I'm not going to bother responding. He's made it clear to me that he is not going to back down on what he has said. He's even gone the personal insult route more than once. Nothing outside of completely agreeing with him and renouncing the Church and its doctrines will be enough for him.

So the other person will not compromise. What compromise would you offer regarding your faith’s teachings? My guess is none at all. You aren’t an enlightened centrist here dealing with a dogmatic fanatic.

9 minutes ago, Devobah said:

I know people who are happy in the Church while being gay. I also know people that were unhappy and left. It happens. It's been made painfully clear that a side quest in apologetics is not for me.

It happens is not exactly a satisfying explanation for those who experience it.

[manol]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Well, perhaps not. I seem to recall that the Law of Moses specified the death penalty in some cases. That's seems quite serious, and a similar penalty was affixed to murder.

Among the infractions for which the Law of Moses specified the death penalty (right alongside murder and adultery, but the latter only for the wife and her lover, not for the husband and his lover):

Promoting other religions; insubordination to the priest; lying about one's virginity; rebelling against parental authority; and breaking the Sabbath. 

My point being, the Law of Moses is not a yardstick I would use against anyone.  

I do not believe that its literal enforcement was ever the will of God.  I think it MAY have been there so people would learn to choose the law that God had "written in their hearts" over the law written on parchment.   For example:  How many Israelite parents had rebellious kids [many if not most], versus how many had those kids stoned to death [zero]?  Those parents chose the law written in their hearts over the law written on parchment. 

I suggest subjecting the Law of Moses (and anything else for that matter) to the Alma Chapter 32/Moroni Chapter 7 test.  Does it taste good to your soul?  Does it invite you to love God?  And bringing in a bit of Matthew Chapter 12, does it invite you to love your neighbor as yourself? 

Imo ^^^THESE^^^ princples are reliable yardsticks. Imo whether or not something was included in a book of scripture pales in comparison. 

Edited August 13, 2024 by manol

[Devobah]

1 minute ago, manol said:

Among the infractions for which the Law of Moses specifies the death penalty (right alongside murder and adultery, but the latter is only specified for the wife and her lover, not for the husband and his lover):

Promoting other religions; insubordination to the priest; lying about one's virginity; rebelling against parental authority; and breaking the Sabbath. 

My point being, the Law of Moses is not a yardstick I would use against anyone.  

I do not believe that its literal enforcement it was ever the will of God.  I think it MAY have been there so people would learn to choose the law that God had "written in their hearts" over the law written on parchment.   For example:  How many Israelite parents had rebellious kids [many if not most], versus how many had those kids stoned to death [zero]?  Those parents chose the law written in their hearts over the law written on parchment. 

I suggest subjecting the Law of Moses (and anything else for that matter) to the Alma Chapter 32/Moroni Chapter 7 test.  Does it taste good to your soul?  Does it invite you to love God?  And bringing in a bit of Matthew Chapter 12, does it invite you to love your neighbor as yourself? 

Imo ^^^THESE^^^ princples are reliable yardsticks. Imo the whether or not something was included in a book of scripture pales in comparison. 

I think his response had more to do with timeline rather than implementation. Nehor's comment was that sexual sin being next to murder is a more recent invention. What qualifies as "recent" could very much be up for debate. But I could be wrong.

[Stargazer]

18 minutes ago, manol said:

Among the infractions for which the Law of Moses specified the death penalty (right alongside murder and adultery, but the latter only for the wife and her lover, not for the husband and his lover):

Promoting other religions; insubordination to the priest; lying about one's virginity; rebelling against parental authority; and breaking the Sabbath. 

My point being, the Law of Moses is not a yardstick I would use against anyone.  

I do not believe that its literal enforcement was ever the will of God.  I think it MAY have been there so people would learn to choose the law that God had "written in their hearts" over the law written on parchment.   For example:  How many Israelite parents had rebellious kids [many if not most], versus how many had those kids stoned to death [zero]?  Those parents chose the law written in their hearts over the law written on parchment. 

I suggest subjecting the Law of Moses (and anything else for that matter) to the Alma Chapter 32/Moroni Chapter 7 test.  Does it taste good to your soul?  Does it invite you to love God?  And bringing in a bit of Matthew Chapter 12, does it invite you to love your neighbor as yourself? 

Imo ^^^THESE^^^ princples are reliable yardsticks. Imo whether or not something was included in a book of scripture pales in comparison. 

The Law of Moses was harsh. And yes, there were ways to avoid the literal enforcement, at least later in history. Especially in the beginning these ways were not always available. The first guy to break the law of the Sabbath was executed, for example. 

I'm the last person to want to the Law of Moses to be imposed one anyone. It appears that God felt it was necessary, however. If you want, you can argue with Him later about whether it was a good thing to do. Good luck convincing Him he was wrong. Of course, you can, if you want, say that God didn't really have a hand in setting that law in force, and that it was Moses who just wanted to be a tyrant.

My point is that God was dead serious about the sins that He most wanted people to not commit. One of those sins was sexual in nature. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Devobah]

34 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is behind a fair number of suicides. That kind of thinking hits almost every LGBTQ person I have known well enough that was willing to open up on that level. The idea that death might be the only way for me to escape sin near to murder came to mind many times. For some it is a wish for death. Some take active measures. What is worse? A lifetime of sexual sin or one quick suicide? You can also rationalize that death would spare your family the embarrassment the other route may bring. I have heard similar sentiments from people who stay in the faith and those who leave. This is not an oversimplification. It is a normal experience. I am not a witless ignoramus unfamiliar with the doctrine of the Church.

When I longed for death at times it was because the burden was horrible, life looked bleak, and the only ways out seemed to be to either somehow get out of this life or hope for a miraculous cure that a prophet promised me would come but never did.

I'm sorry you went through that.

 

38 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So the other person will not compromise. What compromise would you offer regarding your faith’s teachings? My guess is none at all. You aren’t an enlightened centrist here dealing with a dogmatic fanatic.

A simple correction on anything that he said or representing my arguments properly would suffice. My original post covered about 20 or so messages of back and forth with a third person interjecting. There was a lot of stuff said. I summarized the best I could without trying to read his mind. He also was attacking my character and said that I should not be in the profession that I was in because of my beliefs. I can deal with people not agreeing with me. But saying that I should not be doing my job because I don't agree with him is insulting.

 

45 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It happens is not exactly a satisfying explanation for those who experience it.

"It happens" was the wrong choice of words by me. "People have their own reason for staying or leaving when it comes to this issue" is what I probably should have said.

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I am not sure I follow. Can you expand on these thoughts please?

I am saying for some of the justifications used to explain why sexual sins could be so serious as to be said to be like murder, I will agree with the conclusion even if I don’t attach the interpretation of it being sexual sin that is like murder.  For example, I agree about the seriousness in many cases of having children out of wedlock, which is more likely to result in single motherhood, which is tied to health issues for mother and child as well as poverty, which then opens up the potential for generational burdens the family will carry.  And then of course there is rape and incest, which have obvious highly detrimental longterm effects. (Not suggesting the criminal acts of rape and incest are equivalent to the nonmalicious act of having a child out of wedlock, just showing there are a variety of sexual sins that have substantial longterm effects, even though these effects can be very different.)  I just don’t think you need the reasoning “that sin is like murder” to get the point of the seriousness across.  It may even be distracting from the needed message (kids are more likely imo to push worry about the next life out of their minds than worry about having to drop out of school and raise a kid, having kids face up close reality, immediate costs may be more effective; if what they mostly hear is “spiritual death”, the mundane costs may not register as deeply as they need to).

Iow, I don’t believe one needs to add the label “a sin like unto murder” to the above to stress how serious they are.  I think the description is sufficient.  I prefer not to tie the emotionally laden “like murder” to even very serious sexual sins because I see too many making the error of assuming “like murder” equates to “too late to repent” or “I have messed up this life and the next one”, which can lead to despair.  But I also understand why others see it as useful if they focus on the out of wedlock births they believe were prevented or marriages saved by such a connection between sexual sins and murder.

Plus I don’t tie the level of morality to a sin by the seriousness of the outcome.  Even though two young kids having sex has at times resulted in a baby raised in poverty, possibly entering the foster care system and getting placed with the worst foster parents in the world, turning the kid into a violent criminal, I don’t view teenage sex as malicious or evil on the level I view rape and adult-child incest.  In my view that fornication is a sin and yes, it could have a horrible result and thus is serious, but in no way do I see it like murder where the two kids have separated themselves so far from God they cannot repent nor have they in any way sacrificed their chance at the Celestial Kingdom.  For example, one of the strongest families I know in the Church started out as two teenage hippies rebelling against their parents and taking off, having a child, and then meeting the missionaries and converting.  I have seen the same longterm result with teenage church members.

——

Then there is the interpretation part.  I believe in likening Scriptures and that the Lord uses scripture to inspire us, often in different ways, meaning there can be a variety of interpretations, some that to others may seem like totally unconnected (though I see those cases as more personal than general ones).  So I am unlikely to tell someone they are wrong in their interpretation.  I also don’t believe we can be so certain of scripture to insist this is what it must mean since we are different people in a different environment, sometimes so different we can’t conceive of how those who first shared scripture thought, so I am always going to be qualifying when people say “this is what the scriptures mean” by adding “to you in this moment” in my head at least, but that doesn’t mean I don’t think that meaning lacks value as teaching, especially if from in spirited leaders.  Inspiration in the here and now is going to be much more relevant to me and those living now than thousand years old inspiration/revelation imo or even a hundred years old revelation, imo.

I do think at times it is possible to identify improperly reasoned assumptions being made instead of the text actually saying something (for instance the assumption of coins in the Book of Mormon based on a discussion of weights.)  

Church leaders have the calling to help us liken scriptures to ourselves for the Church and they may be inspired to perceive the interpretations of scripture that will best work on the majority of Saints.  Therefore there are likely very few cases I would see a reason for me to state “the leaders are wrong” even though at times I might conclude “they may be wrong” and then give my reasons.  I do think at times we assume revelation when it was reason based on faulty assumptions (such as in the case of a young earth and no evolution).  I don’t see church leaders as infallible, even at the very top when they are called as prophets, seers and revelators.  Only God is infallible (not meaning here my vision of God) or so I trust him to be.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Devobah said:

It's been made painfully clear that a side quest in apologetics is not for me.

Apologetics is not just debating.  I am an apologist (I volunteer with FAIR), but don’t go for the debate.  I will ask questions that may seem like I am debating, but in most cases it will be trying to see how someone came to a conclusion.  In a few apologetic cases I do confront, but that usually in the case where someone is refusing to correct pretty obvious misinformation.  Mostly I try to provide information people ask for, including demonstrating how it can work from a faithful perspective.

I avoid the kind of conversation you describe.  I have not found them to be helpful, not even for onlookers I am guessing as I believe the intensity often misleads and distracts from the good stuff.

Edited August 13, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I suspect this is one reason you see lots of people opposed to feeding hungry children because of a minor cost but are willing to spend lots of resources preventing abortion. Once you are born you might be evil. Dealing with real victims is messy.

I always got the impression that was worry it would be seen as rewarding the parent for behaviour they saw as wrong, making it too easy to sin.  My view is that may be an unfortunate byproduct, but the kid didn’t make the choice to sin and shouldn’t have to suffer for someone else.  If we can be so noble as to worry more about the innocent going to jail than the guilty being punished in our legal code and thus have civil rights ensuring due process, etc, why can’t we also put the innocent first in our worry about providing welfare and feed the kids first, worry about the parents second.  I get that some believe not rewarding will result in less kids to suffer, but that does not address the needs of the kids already here.  Why worry more about potential victims than actual living ones?

Edited August 13, 2024 by Calm

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

I always got the impression that was worry it would be seen as rewarding the parent for behaviour they saw as wrong, making it too easy to sin.  My view is that may be an unfortunate byproduct, but the kid didn’t make the choice to sin and shouldn’t have to suffer for someone else.  If we can be so noble as to worry more about the innocent going to jail than the guilty being punished in our legal code and thus have civil rights ensuring due process, etc, why can’t we also put the innocent first in our worry about providing welfare and feed the kids first, worry about the parents second.  (I get that some believe not rewarding will result in less kids to suffer, but that does not address the needs of the kids already here.  Why worry more about potential victims than actual living ones?

True. God doesn’t spend a lot of time asking for our help in punishing the wicked but some think they have some obligation to chip in for some reason.

[manol]

57 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

The Law of Moses was harsh. And yes, there were ways to avoid the literal enforcement, at least later in history. Especially in the beginning these ways were not always available. The first guy to break the law of the Sabbath was executed, for example. 

I'm the last person to want to the Law of Moses to be imposed one anyone. It appears that God felt it was necessary, however. If you want, you can argue with Him later about whether it was a good thing to do. Good luck convincing Him he was wrong. Of course, you can, if you want, say that God didn't really have a hand in setting that law in force, and that it was Moses who just wanted to be a tyrant.

My point is that God was dead serious about the sins that He most wanted people to not commit. One of those sins was sexual in nature. That's all I'm saying.

Fair enough. 

Not that I'm an Old Testament scholar by any stretch of the imagination, but to the best of my knowledge that guy was the only person executed for breaking the Sabbath.  Maybe stoning someone to death for breaking the Sabbath was sufficiently traumatic for everyone involved that it was never repeated.  And there were "outs" written into the Law of Moses - two eye-witnesses were required, a large panel of judges had to vote for the death penaty, and often the two witnesses would be required to be the first participants in the execution (who would want to do so?).  

Imo God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.  And imo the God depicted by Christ in the Gospels is a vastly truer-to-the-source depiction than the God depicted by the Law of Moses.  I am not comfortable turning my concept of right-and-wrong upside-down just to avoid throwing the Law of Moses under the bus.  Of course I could be wrong. 

Again, instead of accepting the Law of Moses at face value just because it is included in the Bible, I suggest running the Alma Chapter 32/Moroni Chapter 7 test on the Law of Moses, and then running it on the teachings of Christ in the Gospels.  Ime the difference is night and day.

Edited August 13, 2024 by manol

[The Nehor]

24 minutes ago, Devobah said:

I'm sorry you went through that.

Thanks, I wish I knew a way to make it so no one has to go through it.

24 minutes ago, Devobah said:

A simple correction on anything that he said or representing my arguments properly would suffice. My original post covered about 20 or so messages of back and forth with a third person interjecting. There was a lot of stuff said. I summarized the best I could without trying to read his mind. He also was attacking my character and said that I should not be in the profession that I was in because of my beliefs. I can deal with people not agreeing with me. But saying that I should not be doing my job because I don't agree with him is insulting.

Most likely if he grew up in the church he was implicitly told he was an abomination and a pervert. You got off easy by comparison.

24 minutes ago, Devobah said:

"It happens" was the wrong choice of words by me. "People have their own reason for staying or leaving when it comes to this issue" is what I probably should have said.

Fair. I think it is much more emotionally harrowing than that makes it seem though.

[Devobah]

23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Thanks, I wish I knew a way to make it so no one has to go through it.

Most likely if he grew up in the church he was implicitly told he was an abomination and a pervert. You got off easy by comparison.

Fair. I think it is much more emotionally harrowing than that makes it seem though.

The hardest thing to accept is that we as humans can never truly understand what another person is going through. The best I can do is ask questions for understanding. I did get off easy in some regards, but I still struggle in others.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, Devobah said:

The hardest thing to accept is that we as humans can never truly understand what another person is going through. The best I can do is ask questions for understanding. I did get off easy in some regards, but I still struggle in others.

I know. I know that I got it easier than many. Being bisexual in the church is, in some ways, much easier than being gay or lesbian in the church.

[Devobah]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I know. I know that I got it easier than many. Being bisexual in the church is, in some ways, much easier than being gay or lesbian in the church.

I've had so many mental conversations with my pretend future son or daughter going over what I would say to them if they came out to me. I don't know if there is a perfect playbook for that conversation. The best that I've been able to come up with is just letting them know that I love them.