Breaking the Law of Chastity, and homosexuality

[Hemidakota]

Raising the bar...being in the Celestial Kingdom where others can read and communicate by thoughts may have its moments. LOL

[Elphaba]

It funny that this is humorous to you and others, yet you will also sit there expecting and demanding respect for your beliefs and traditions.

Just my humble opinion....

Moksha is a believing member, and a clever guy. He uses humor to provide different perspectives, but never has he expected, or demanded anything.

If you don't enjoy his humor, all is good. Others do not as well. But some of us do, including believing members, so there you go.

Again, you and others who don't feel the same way are entitled to your response, and there is nothing wrong with that. I know it is made with concern for what you believe, and heartfelt.

Elphaba

[Finrock]

". I, on the other hand, feel that the scriptures bind us to condemn homosexuality, as we should condemn any other sin. "

Wrong.... The Church has said it only condemns homosexual BEHAVIOR, it does not condemn homosexual feelings and

inclinations that are not acted out upon, there is no church discipline for this..... Those who have those feelings but who do

not act on them are worthy just like any other church member. But those who act out on their feelings, THAT'S when

church discipline comes into the picture.

Evening Topspin! I appreciate your response. You seem pretty passionate about this issue and I respect that. I hope you don't take my being critical of your post to mean that I hold any animosity towards you as a person. I certainly do not.

I'm not sure I understand your response. You say that the church only condemns homosexual behavior. Well, I certainly agree with that. So, that's one thing we have in common. Now, you continue to post that it does not condemn homosexual feelings. I'm not sure I know what you mean by that, exactly. Consider this scenario: If I have sexual feelings towards a woman besides my wife, am I justified in those feelings?

I suppose it all turns on how you are defining "feelings". If you mean by "feelings" that one is tempted by something that is a vice, but one does not desire nor dwell on that temptation, then I agree. This type of "feeling" is not condemnable, in my view. However, if you mean by "feelings" an inordinate desire for what is sin, then I'm of the opinion that this is condemnable.

But, I think the larger point is this: If one condemns homosexual behavior, isn't that the same as condemning homosexuality? Because these concepts seem synonymous, I'm led to believe that you have misunderstood my post. In case there is a misconception, let me clarify that I understand the difference between temptation and actually acting on temptation.

I also understand that lusting after that which is forbidden by God, even if we do not necessarily physically act out on our lust, is also sin. This we learn from one of the Ten Commandments: "...thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife..."

Jesus further solidified this thought by stating:

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Source).

Jesus seems pretty clear in His commandment here. We can commit sin for not just behavior that we physically act out, but also behavior that we act out in our hearts. But, it seems that we agree on this point, so I will leave this at that.

I suppose then I am back to this question: If homosexual behavior is condemned, doesn't this also mean that homosexuality is condemned? This was my original claim and I don't see any reason to believe otherwise, thus I feel justified in what I posted. Furthermore, my main point in my post was to illustrate how homosexuality is not just the breaking of the law of chastity, but it is a sin in it's own right. Meaning, even if a homosexual couple are legally and lawfully wedded, sexual relations between them would still constitute sin. It is the same gender sexual act or lust, that is sin, in addition to any violations of the law of chastity.

I hope that I was able to clarify my position. Also, I hope that I correctly addressed your concerns and thoughts that you had written in response to mine. If not, please feel free to point those out. Even if we may not agree, we can at least make sure that we understand each other and if we must disagree, it will be a disagreement based on knowledge and not one of ignorance or misunderstanding. Enjoy your evening!

Regards,

Finrock

[Elphaba]

I can appreciate your perspective. I also appreciate the effort you put in to state your case. I, on the other hand, feel that the scriptures bind us to condemn homosexuality, as we should condemn any other sin. I agree that committing homosexual sex is also breaking the Law of Chastity, but, if scriptures are to be believed, homosexuality is a sin in it's own right. Here is a sample of the doctrine:

Lev. 18:22

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind; it is an abomination"

Deut. 23:17

"There shall be no sodomite (a direct reference to homosexuality) of the sons of Israel..."

1 Cor. 6:9-10

"Abusers of themselves with mankind will not inherit the kingdom of God..."

Hi Finrock,

I am confused as to how the scriptures you’ve referenced change the clarifications in my Opening Post. Perhaps the Deuteronomy reference does, but I am not sure how. All populations are about one or two percent homosexual, and in this case, with the scripture you've referenced, I doubt they would "come out of the closet," as it were. Therefore, when the scripture says “. . . of the sons of Israel” that really is impossible.

Or maybe it means the “sons of Israel” will take actions against those who are homosexual to remove them from their population. That is plausible as well, but I’m sure you know better than I.

However, the other references, in my opinion, support my OP. The Leviticus scripture says “Thou shalt not lie (lay down) with mankind. . . .” That is exactly what Elder Oaks, Wickman and President Holland state. If someone who is homosexual does "lie" with a man, he, and I assume she, has committed a sin. But if the person does not take the action of "lie" (lying), there is no sin. Therefore, in my opinion, the scripture refers to the act, not the being, and it would not meet the requirement for a sin to be committed.

The Corinthians scripture does this as well. The sentence: “Abusers of themselves,” is actually a gerund phrase, which is a noun that includes a verb. In this case, "Abusers," intimates an act of abusing. The addition of “with mankind” is a reference to a homosexual act. However, it does not say being a homosexual is grounds for not inheriting the Kingdom of God. It condemns the act, but not the being.

And there are others. But, I think the scriptures are clear on this issue. Homosexuality is a sin in it's own right just as viewing pornography is a sin in it's own right.

So what do you think of Elders Oaks' and Wickmans' and President Holland’s clarifications?

One question that has not come up in the discussion thus far, at least I have not seen it, is what of countries or states that allow homosexual marriage? The Law of Chastity is that we shall have no sexual relations outside marriage and only have sexual relations with your spouse within marriage. If persons of same gender are legally and lawfully wedded, and have sex, they would no longer be breaking the Law of Chastity, however they would still be violating the prohibition against homosexuality in God's laws.

The Church will not recognize the marriage and would insist the couple no longer have a relationship.

Because of a lack of time, I can not iterate my point sufficiently. I recognize that there are points that require more support or fleshing out. If there are points that are unclear or lacking, I apologize. When able, I will come back and see if there have been any issues raised regarding my post and attempt to clarify. Thank you for taking the time to read my post.

You’re welcome. Again, would you mind telling me your opinion of Elder Oaks‘, Wickman’s and President Holland’s clarifications?

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

I suppose it all turns on how you are defining "feelings". If you mean by "feelings" that one is tempted by something that is a vice, but one does not desire nor dwell on that temptation, then I agree. This type of "feeling" is not condemnable, in my view. However, if you mean by "feelings" an inordinate desire for what is sin, then I'm of the opinion that this is condemnable.

Hi Finrock,

I know this was meant for Topsin, but I would like to answer your question, again from Elders Oaks and Wickman.

According to Elder Oaks: “Yes, homosexual feelings are controllable. Perhaps there is an inclination or susceptibility to such feelings that is a reality for some and not a reality for others. But out of such susceptibilities come feelings, and feelings are controllable. If we cater to the feelings, they increase the power of the temptation. If we yield to the temptation, we have committed sinful behavior." (emphasis mine)

So you are correct the inclination must be controlled as well. The Elders go on to state she must not let her homosexuality define her. She needs to find other pursuits that boost her spirituality, as well as making the right choices in her life, and pursuing wholesome recreations, etc. (I am using both male and female in my examples. The Elders, when they did use gender, referred only to men. But women can be gay as well.)

But, I think the larger point is this: If one condemns homosexual behavior, isn't that the same as condemning homosexuality?

Not according to Elder Oaks: “The distinction between feelings or inclinations on the one hand, and behavior on the other hand, is very clear. It’s no sin to have inclinations that if yielded to would produce behavior that would be a transgression. The sin is in yielding to temptation. Temptation is not unique. Even the Savior was tempted. “ (emphasis mine)

Because these concepts seem synonymous, I'm led to believe that you have misunderstood my post. In case there is a misconception, let me clarify that I understand the difference between temptation and actually acting on temptation.

I also understand that lusting after that which is forbidden by God, even if we do not necessarily physically act out on our lust, is also sin. This we learn from one of the Ten Commandments: "...thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife..."

Jesus further solidified this thought by stating:

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Source).

I can see why you disagree with the Church's official stance as posted on its website. I don’t think the men I have quoted would agree, but obviously your scriptures do seem to differ from the Elders' and President Holland's clarifications.

I chose to post one other excerpt from the interview that I found very interesting. Perhaps it will further clarify the Church's official position.

“PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Elder Wickman, when you referred earlier to missionary service, you held that out as a possibility for someone who felt same-gender attraction but didn’t act on it. President Hinckley has said that if people are faithful, they can essentially go forward as anyone else in the Church and have full fellowship. What does that really mean? Does it mean missionary service? Does it mean that someone can go to the temple, at least for those sacraments that don’t involve marriage? Does it really mean that someone with same-gender attraction so long as they’re faithful, has every opportunity to participate, to be called to service, to do all those kinds of things that anyone else can?

ELDER WICKMAN: I think the short answer to that is yes! I’d look to Elder Oaks to elaborate on that.

“ELDER OAKS: President Hinckley has helped us on that subject with a clear statement that answers all questions of that nature. He said, “We love them (referring to people who have same-sex attractions) as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church.”

To me that means that a person with these inclinations, where they’re kept under control, or, if yielded to are appropriately repented of, is eligible to do anything in the Church that can be done by any member of the Church who is single. Occasionally, there’s an office, like the office of bishop, where a person must be married. But that’s rather the exception in the Church. Every teaching position, every missionary position can be held by single people. We welcome to that kind of service people who are struggling with any kind of temptation when the struggle is a good struggle and they are living so as to be appropriate teachers, or missionaries, or whatever the calling may be."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So you see that even those with homosexual orientations can participate in most Church positions. That seems to me an extremely strong statement of the Church’s official position.

Perhaps I don't understand how this works. Elders Oaks' and Wickman's comments are on the official Church website. Additionally, President Holland's comments were in response to an interview.

So, do these men not have the authority to define the Church's position, or not? I really don't know. Could you and others answer my question?

Thanks,

Elphaba

[Finrock]

Elphaba,

Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my post. After reading the two posts you made in response to mine, I believe that in order to effectively continue our discussion, we need to insist on some definitions of terms. It appears that we are using the same terms but with slightly different meanings. Please, if you do not mind, will you define the following terms? I ask only to know how you understand them and are using these terms and am not asking necessarily any precise dictionary definition.

Homosexuality

Feelings

Inclinations

Temptations

Homosexual act

Lust

Covet

I think a lack of firm definitions for these terms is causing some misunderstanding. I also think that what you perceive as a disconnect between what I am stating and what is being stated in the interview with general authorities, is also caused by semantics.

I think that your response to my question of legal marriage between homosexual couples and it's implication to the law of chastity is question begging. However, here again, we run in to an issue of semantics, so I am willing to concede this point on a more general understanding of the law of chastity, and will not hold you accountable for your apparently fallacious position . However, LDS members make a covenant with God to keep the law of chastity, which covenant specifically states that we will have no sexual relations except with persons with whom we are legally and lawfully wedded to. As it is defined here, homosexual marriage would satisfy the demands of this covenant. But, in a broader understanding of the law of chastity, other things such as rape and incest would also fall under the law. Regardless of this, I still contend that actions such as rape, incest, and homosexuality are intrinsically sinful and not just sinful by virtue of the law of chastity (although they can also be violations of that law). And just to clarify, because I say they are intrinsically sinful, I do not also mean to say that having an inclination towards such acts is sinful.

Now, if you do decide to define the terms given (and you may add more if you see a need), and we agree on the definitions, then I would ask that any future correspondence between us, relating to this topic, be consistent in using the terms in the way in which we have agreed to define them. Do you agree with this suggestion? I also think that once we understand how we are using terms, I have a feeling that we will recognize that we are agreeing more than disagreeing.

Have a wonderful night!

Regards,

Finrock

[Guest Xzain]

Wow, things move fast on this forum. I apologize in advance for a long post.

Looking back on the history of what happened I realize where Elphaba and I miscommunicated; the fault is mine. I was confused by her OP at first because I agreed with her on what the official stance of the Church was.

In my second post on the other thread, in addition to some unclear wording at some points, I used the term 'homosexual' equivocally (it was late, I was tired...). While at times I meant 'those with SSA in addition to heterosexual attraction' at times I also meant 'those with SSA without heterosexual attraction'. If I understand correctly, I would have sometimes (most of the time, if I remember right) said 'homosexual' when the better term would have been 'bisexual' (according to some, including Elphaba (so it seems)). Also some small words with big meanings- 'most', 'few', etc.- were not the best word choices. Again, for that I apologize.

There was also a remark I made about how being a member gave me an advantage in understanding the situation. That was perceived incorrectly (again, because I didn't word it well)- I will explain later on.

Let me sum up what Elphaba had problems with, clarify what I meant (using 'SSA' instead of 'homosexuality') and then respond to Elpha's OP (even though it was 2 pages ago )

(If you want to see my post that spawned this thread, go to http://www.lds.net/forums/learn-about-mormon-church/11139-saints-homosexuality-15.html- it's about halfway down the page)

-------------------------------------------------------------

I find members tend to think homosexuality is a sin. It is not. Breaking the Law of Chastity is a sin.

To start off with, I agree with what you mean. Feeling temptations is not sin- acting on those temptations is sin (that includes homosexual impulses).

Xzain: The Church says that in most cases same sex attraction is not severe enough to overrule all healthy heterosexual affection. Indeed, you said so yourself.

Elphaba: No, the “Church” does not say this, nor do I.

This is one of those cases where I used 'most' when I should have said 'some'. From the article:

-----------------------------

Elder Oaks: On the other hand, persons who have cleansed themselves of any transgression and who have shown their ability to deal with these feelings or inclinations and put them in the background, and feel a great attraction for a daughter of God and therefore desire to enter marriage and have children and enjoy the blessings of eternity — that’s a situation when marriage would be appropriate.

------------------------------

Nowhere in this interview does Elder Oaks say people with SSA can overcome it. He does say if they “feel a great attraction for a daughter of God,” then they can marry. But a person who is homosexual is not going to feel that attraction, not if he is truly homosexual.

Now that I understand by 'homosexual' you mean 'someone who feels only SSA and no heterosexual attraction' I agree with you. Again, the miscommunication was my fault.

[Xzain:]Our difference in viewpoint is that I see homosexuality as a temptation to be dealt with; you see it as an immutable part of someone's nature. (I think; I may be wrong here. Please correct me if I am) If a temptation is inhibitive to righteous living, it is better for a man to 'pluck out his eye' rather than let it offend him.

[Note from Xzain:] The quoted paragraph is confusing, especially the last sentence. It would read better (and truer to my original intent) like

'Our difference in viewpoint is that I see SSA as one temptation among many to be dealt with and not a major defining characteristic to one's person; you see it as a defining, immutable part of someone's nature (I think; I may [again] be wrong here) If one cannot rightesouly perform his duties (in marriage, for example) without serious, unescapable temptation from sin, it may be better for him to 'pluck out his eye' then let it offend him.'

After seeing the expounded version, Elphaba's response may change- therefore, I will not bother responding to her response.

Here’s the thing. You call homosexuality the “temptation.” It’s not. The temptation is to break the Law of Chastity--not homosexuality.

True; although the temptation is to break the Law of Chastity in a specific manner. A minor difference, but SSA cannot be simply lumped together with other sexual attractions. There are many different types of sexual attraction, and only one is healthy- heterosexuality.

In fact, in the interview, Elder Oaks says:

“What’s more, merely having inclinations does not disqualify one for any aspect of Church participation or membership, except possibly marriage as has already been talked about. But even that, in the fullness of life as we understand it through the doctrines of the restored gospel, eventually can become possible. “ (emphasis mine)

Nor, I believe, should temptations bar one from Church participation.

You are probably bisexual, which enables you to be attracted to women, while having some SSA. Even if you had “given into it in your earlier life,“ you still would have been attracted to women as well.

Possibly- as with all things, when we feed one aspect of our nature, it is strengthened while its antithesis is weakened.

Your friend did not decide he was gay. He is gay. If he weren’t, then his heterosexual experiences would have been satisfying for him. They were not, because he‘s gay.

I find your reasoning circular- you assume he's gay, therefore heterosexual experiences are not enough for him. Because he's gay. I may have straw-manned that a little bit, but that's the best I can make of it)

It may be that his SSA impulses were stronger than his heterosexual ones- however, he could also conceivably have been looking for an imagined sexual excitement he didn't acheive through heterosexual sex. He had dated his girlfriend for 6 months before they began to be sexual; things didn't culminate extremely quickly.

By the way, he still felt heterosexual impulses after declaring himself gay- he simply felt the need to supress them because he thought acting on his SSA impulses would bring happiness. At best, by your own terms, he would be 'bisexual'.

[Xzain:]It is also important to note that feelings of SSA, no matter to what degree, may be related to, but not the ultimate factor in, a lack of heterosexual attraction.

Well, I suppose you could say a if a man is not attracted to a blond, this won’t keep all men from being attracted to blondes.

Your analogy doesn't really hold water- being attracted to physical characteristics in one category of person is not analagous to being attracted to another category of person.

No offense Elphaba, but being a faithful, studying member of my Church who attends all the classes I can, listens and ponders the words of the leaders, and prays to my God above, I believe I know more about what the Church actually teaches than someone who is not.

Playing the “Member” card doesn’t phase me kiddo.

In hindsight, I will be the first to admit my words sound like a bad non-sequitor argument. My intention is, I still think, valid albeit moot- now that I understand what Elphaba is saying I don't disagree with her here.

What I was attempting to say is that, having immersed myself in LDS practices and LDS teachings with a faithful LDS-crafted viewpoint, I would have a different mindset and therefore intrinsically understand LDS teachings better than someone who is not.

I have heard of your previous membership Elphaba, but you must admit if you don't agree with what the Church is teaching then you and I have different mindsets- whether you believe that puts me at an advantage in understanding said teaching is up to you. I tend to think it is an advantage.

I reiterate, however, now that I truly understand what Elphaba is saying I don't think we disagree much about the issues that have been raised in regard to the Church'es stance on the issue.

[Guest Xzain]

Finrock, I understand what you're saying.

I agree- it's not a sin merely to be tempted by anything- indeed, Jesus was 'tempted in all things'. However, after that we are morally responsible for how we channel those thoughts. Whenever we entertain a sinful thought, we have sinned, for 'as a man is in his heart, so is he'. A person cannot be brought into church disciplinary action for heresy or immoral thoughts, only immoral behaviors and apostasy. However, a person is responsible before God Himself for his/her private thought patterns.

How one deals with one's own sinful thoughts is one's own business. However, if one truly strive one's entire life to bring one's thoughts under control and never act on them, I think that person is under no condemnation from God- indeed, (s)he was doing all (s)he could with what (s)he was given.

[Moksha]

Moksha is a believing member, and a clever guy. He uses humor to provide different perspectives, but never has he expected, or demanded anything.

If you don't enjoy his humor, all is good. Others do not as well. But some of us do, including believing members, so there you go.

Elphaba

Elf, thanks for the vote of confidence. I was going to tell Utcowboy, that when they have me fold and stack chairs on Sunday, that I would make him my second in command.

[Elphaba]

Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my post. >snip< I ask only to know how you understand them and are using these terms and am not asking necessarily any precise dictionary definition.

Normally, I would say no, as this is your exercise, and therefore, you should be the first to complete it. However, I am comfortable with my definitions, and so I answered your query.

Homosexuality: A sexual orientation.

Feelings: A really bad song. Also, a person’s awareness of her emotions.

Inclinations: The compelling motivations based on the personality.

Temptations: A desire for something considered improper or harmful, especially when it is within reach.

Homosexual act: When people who are homosexual engage in sexual activity.

Lust: Sexual desire.

Covet: A desire to obtain what you do not own when you observe someone else who does.

I think a lack of firm definitions for these terms is causing some misunderstanding. I also think that what you perceive as a disconnect between what I am stating and what is being stated in the interview with general authorities, is also caused by semantics.

I see.

I think that your response to my question of legal marriage between homosexual couples and it's implication to the law of chastity is question begging.

Actually, it raises the question.

However, here again, we run in to an issue of semantics, so I am willing to concede this point on a more general understanding of the law of chastity, and will not hold you accountable for your apparently fallacious position .

Thank you.

However, LDS members make a covenant with God to keep the law of chastity, which covenant specifically states that we will have no sexual relations except with persons with whom we are legally and lawfully wedded to. As it is defined here, homosexual marriage would satisfy the demands of this covenant.

No it would not, as the covenant only recognizes a marriage between a man and a woman.

But, in a broader understanding of the law of chastity, other things such as rape and incest would also fall under the law.

Yes, they would.

Regardless of this, I still contend that actions such as rape, incest, and homosexuality are intrinsically sinful and not just sinful by virtue of the law of chastity (although they can also be violations of that law).

Interesting.

And just to clarify, because I say they are intrinsically sinful, I do not also mean to say that having an inclination towards such acts is sinful.

Good.

Now, if you do decide to define the terms given (and you may add more if you see a need), and we agree on the definitions, then I would ask that any future correspondence between us, relating to this topic, be consistent in using the terms in the way in which we have agreed to define them. Do you agree with this suggestion?

No I do not.

Limiting my words to my definitions ties my hands when another word(s) is more accurate. This is especially true when responding to comments that are nuanced, thereby creating concepts my definitions cannot sufficiently address. I could promise to try and stay within the definitions if we reach agreement about them. But, no, I will not be bound by my definitions of your words.

I also think that once we understand how we are using terms, I have a feeling that we will recognize that we are agreeing more than disagreeing.

If you accept my conditions, this will be a good thing. If not, I am glad you feel this way.

If you do not agree with them, then there isn’t really much to discuss. I am not the one stating the Church’s position. . .

Neither am I. Elders Oaks and Wickman, and President Holland are.

. . . although I do give my own interpretation of what they are saying.

Yes, I am aware of this.

You have a good night as well.

Elphaba

[Hemidakota]

I have to agree on your comments given by both Oaks and Wickmann, since I know Elder Wickmann and his passion to help others.

[Rico]

Wow, it is hard to follow the thread and all......

I found this quote of Bruce R McConkie as I was reading some old Ensign magazine. This is from the May 1980 Ensign Magazine. I think throughout all of this, the work of the Lord moves on. I think Satan wants us to spend all of our time debating all of these small issues and split hairs instead of keeping the steady course of enduring to the end.

Amid tears of sorrow—our hearts heavy with forebodings—we see evil and crime and carnality covering the earth. Liars and thieves and adulterers and homosexuals and murderers scarcely seek to hide their abominations from our view. Iniquity abounds. There is no peace on earth.

We see evil forces everywhere uniting to destroy the family, to ridicule morality and decency, to glorify all that is lewd and base. We see wars and plagues and pestilence. Nations rise and fall. Blood and carnage and death are everywhere. Gadianton robbers fill the judgment seats in many nations. An evil power seeks to overthrow the freedom of all nations and countries. Satan reigns in the hearts of men; it is the great day of his power.

But amid it all, the work of the Lord rolls on. The gospel is preached and the witness is born. The elect of God forsake the traditions of their fathers and the ways of the world. The kingdom grows and prospers, for the Lord is with his people.

[Finrock]

No I do not.

Limiting my words to my definitions ties my hands when another word(s) is more accurate. This is especially true when responding to comments that are nuanced, thereby creating concepts my definitions cannot sufficiently address. I could promise to try and stay within the definitions if we reach agreement about them. But, no, I will not be bound by my definitions of your words.

Good afternoon Elphaba! I thank you for taking the time to define the terms presented. I sense from your post that you were hesitant to define terms, perhaps because you feel that I may be trying to trip you up in your words. I assure you this isn't the case. My intention, as a student of logic, is only to try to facilitate a reasonable discourse. Defining terms is critical else our attempts at discussion will fall on equivocation and other logical fallacies instead of understanding and reason.

I have quoted only the last part of your comments because if this part isn't resolved, then we can not reasonably continue our discussion. As mentioned above, my intention is not to tie to any set of words, but only for us to agree with a definition of a word. For instance, I've noticed that in past posts the words inclination, feelings, and temptation have been used interchangeably, but in another context those words have been used in a different sense. Because the usage of these words are not consistent, then it lends to misunderstanding. I might be using the same word, but because I am defining the word differently than the other party, we are not speaking of the same thing, and therefore can have no hope of understanding each other. This is why it is imperative that we agree on what words mean and use those meanings consistently. It is only reasonable. If we can not agree with terms or if one party will not agree to use terms consistently, then all hope is lost for that discussion. It becomes a guessing game, wondering does the person intend to use word X with meaning Y or are they using word X with meaning Z. It quite literally makes no sense, at that point, to continue.

My hope now is to make one more attempt to see if we can agree on some definitions and agree that both of us will consistently use the definitions agreed upon. Just to reiterate, this isn't about limiting terms, but agreeing with a definition of any terms used. If another word works better in some case, then use that word, but it only is reasonable to make sure that the party you are speaking to understands what you mean by that word. What do you think about what I am suggesting? Does it sound reasonable to you?

One last note. The last two quotes that you attributed to me, are not me. I do not know who posted those words. It appears that you have mixed two or more posters.

Regards,

Finrock

[Finrock]

Finrock, I understand what you're saying.

I agree- it's not a sin merely to be tempted by anything- indeed, Jesus was 'tempted in all things'. However, after that we are morally responsible for how we channel those thoughts. Whenever we entertain a sinful thought, we have sinned, for 'as a man is in his heart, so is he'. A person cannot be brought into church disciplinary action for heresy or immoral thoughts, only immoral behaviors and apostasy. However, a person is responsible before God Himself for his/her private thought patterns.

How one deals with one's own sinful thoughts is one's own business. However, if one truly strive one's entire life to bring one's thoughts under control and never act on them, I think that person is under no condemnation from God- indeed, (s)he was doing all (s)he could with what (s)he was given.

Good afternoon Xzain!

Yes, you have understood that point that I was making. I appreciate your restatement of my point and I think it accurately reflects what I was saying in that case.

I also was making the point that homosexuality is intrinsically sinful, apart from any law of chastity violations. Just as rape is intrinsically sinful, apart from any law of chastity violations as defined by the covenant we make to obey that law. For instance, one may be legally and lawfully wedded to a person, yet it is possible for one to rape their lawfully wedded spouse. Even though the covenant of the law of chastity would not be violated, the rape would still be sinful, within it's own right. Rape is sinful by nature. The same applies to homosexuality. It is by nature, sinful, and not just a law of chastity violation, which was the original argument of Elphaba.

Regards,

Finrock

[utcowboy]

Elf, thanks for the vote of confidence. I was going to tell Utcowboy, that when they have me fold and stack chairs on Sunday, that I would make him my second in command.

Any time Moksha, I'd be happy to stack chairs...

[Elphaba]

One last note. The last two quotes that you attributed to me, are not me. I do not know who posted those words. It appears that you have mixed two or more posters.

Astonishing.

Yes, you do know who posted those words, because they are yours.

Whenever I respond to a long post, I copy and paste it into my word processing program. I still have the document, and there, at the bottom of the page, are your comments you claim you never wrote.

Why the need for the subterfuge? When you wrote: "I do not know who posted those words," did you think me so obtuse I would believe you?

You know you wrote the comments, and you know you deleted them.

I do not suffer fools gladly.

Elphaba

[Finrock]

Astonishing.

Yes, you do know who posted those words, because they are yours.

Whenever I respond to a long post, I copy and paste it into my word processing program. I still have the document, and there, at the bottom of the page, are your comments you claim you never wrote.

Why the need for the subterfuge? When you wrote: "I do not know who posted those words," did you think me so obtuse I would believe you?

You know you wrote the comments, and you know you deleted them.

I do not suffer fools gladly.

Elphaba

Good morning Elphaba! I hope you are doing well today.

I am uncertain how you've drawn the conclusion that I am being dishonest. However, please consider the following:

For the post in question, I originally posted it at 3:13AM, 5-22-2008. I then reread it and clarified a point that I was making. This edit was at 3:19AM, 5-22-2008; six minutes later. Your response to my post happened at roughly 8:30AM, 5-22-2008. Since your post, I have not edited any of my posts here in this thread. If what you claim is true, then you would have had to have copied my post sometime between 3:13AM and 3:19AM on the 22nd and then 5 hours later, when you decided to respond to my post, you would have had to have used the copy that you had made earlier to respond to my post. This just doesn't seem like a likely scenario. Is it your contention then that you copied my post between 3:13AM and 3:19AM on the 22nd, waited 5 hours, and then used your copy to respond to that post?

Secondly, if you look at the last two quotes that are erroneously attributed to me, they do not even flow with what the rest of that post was all about. That particular post had nothing to do with what I believed the Church's position to be. It was a post intended to come up with mutually agreed upon definitions.

An, one last note, your position seems to be immature in this case. Have I had a history of being dishonest or is there some past reference that you are using to make such a hasty decision about my integrity? Furthermore, there isn't any advantage of me denying those words even if the words were mine. What I mean is that it isn't like those words are of such a damning nature to my position that I would have any motivation to lie about them. It seems that only if I were a pathological liar that I would want to deny those words. Do you have any reason to believe me to be a pathological liar?

In any case, I can certainly understand that if you doubt my integrity, it would be difficult to continue a conversation. I hope that I have provided sufficient evidence to alleve your concerns about this. I think if you consider what I have pointed out, that you will agree that I am not being dishonest.

Thank you for letting me know of your concerns and at least allowing me to respond. You could have just not posted anything at all, and there would have never been a chance to clear this up. I hope you have a delightful day!

Regards,

Finrock

[Elphaba]

Before I begin, let me remind you of what you wrote in the post in question:

One last note. The last two quotes that you attributed to me, are not me. I do not know who posted those words. It appears that you have mixed two or more posters.

Now, to your post:

For the post in question, I originally posted it at 3:13AM, 5-22-2008. I then reread it and clarified a point that I was making. This edit was at 3:19AM, 5-22-2008; six minutes later.>snip<This just doesn't seem like a likely scenario. Is it your contention then that you copied my post between 3:13AM and 3:19AM on the 22nd, waited 5 hours, and then used your copy to respond to that post?

Below is a screen capture of my Windows Explorer showing I saved a WP document on 5/22/08 at 2:19 am, and named it "Finrock." (Obviously you are an hour ahead of me.)

I then made a duplicate of the WP document so I would have a working copy. You may think this unlikely, but in my business it was a necessity. That way we always had a clean copy to refer back to if needed.

Secondly, if you look at the last two quotes that are erroneously attributed to me, they do not even flow with what the rest of that post was all about.

Did you actually read the quotes?

Below is a screen capture of my working WP document where I wrote my responses to your comments you say you never wrote. I have included the paragraph immediately above these quotes.

The first line you claim you did not write is: "If you do not agree with them, then there really isn't much to discuss," and it flows just fine from your comments in the previous paragraph.

I am loathe to call someone dishonest, and am sure there must be some sort of misunderstanding, though I cannot see it.

There was also a long paragraph at the end of your post that you deleted. I've posted it down below for your reference.

Is it possible you deleted that paragraph and then deleted the end of your post?

I cannot imagine this is so as you were adamant you did not write the comments, when you clearly did. And they were not benign comments, which makes their deletion more concerning.

I can't imagine what has happened here. If you have any idea I will be very glad to hear it, because this really upsets me.

Elphaba

PS: This is the paragraph you deleted at the end of your post: "One question that has not come up in the discussion thus far, at least I have not seen it, is what of countries or states that allow homosexual marriage? The Law of Chastity is that we shall have no sexual relations outside marriage and only have sexual relations with your spouse within marriage. If persons of same gender are legally and lawfully wedded, and have sex, they would no longer be breaking the Law of Chastity, however they would still be violating the prohibition against homosexuality in God's laws."

[Vanhin]

Elphaba & Finrock,

It's obvious that something is awry, and somewhere a mistake was made. Elphaba, because you copy the message off to a word processor, is it also possible that you got someone else's messages mixed up with Finrock's? I'm not saying that happened for sure, but it is a possibility. It seems that you have at least mixed up two of Finrock's posts. The paragraph you say he deleted is in fact from Finrock's first post on this thread. Here's the link -> http://www.lds.net/forums/learn-about-mormon-church/11528-breaking-law-chastity-homosexuality-2.html#post203721. That paragraph has not been deleted and is still quite there. :)

The quotes in question do not seem to be related to Finrock's post in my opinion.

"If you do not agree with them, then there isn’t really much to discuss. I am not the one stating the Church’s position. . .

. . . although I do give my own interpretation of what they are saying."

I don't see where Finrock has offerred any interpretation of what Oaks, Wickman, and Holland have said, and he has not yet referred to any of them. The quotes seem to be in line with what you were saying in reply actually. Like this:

I also think that once we understand how we are using terms, I have a feeling that we will recognize that we are agreeing more than disagreeing.

If you accept my conditions, this will be a good thing. If not, I am glad you feel this way. If you do not agree with them, then there isn’t really much to discuss. I am not the one stating the Church’s position, although I do give my own interpretation of what they are saying.

See what I'm saying? That makes more sense than attributing them to what Finrock was saying.

Since we don't have access to message versions, which would solve this issue, our only hope is for the actual author of those words to identify them as their own.

My suggestion is that you guys just chalk it up to a freak accident, and move on. It's taking away from the really good discussion that you two were about to engage in, and I for one, was interested in seeing how it turned out. :)

Regards,

Vanhin

[Moksha]

My suggestion is that you guys just chalk it up to a freak accident...:)

Regards,

Vanhin

Perhaps consider this freak accident as being somewhere between the Tunguska Event and the jet of air blowing Marilyn Monroe's skirt up.

[Finrock]

Elphaba,

Thank you for responding.

First, I think there is just some mix up that has occurred. Just as Vanhin pointed out, the paragraph you feel I deleted, is actually from another post in this thread and it is still there.

Also, I still do not think those last two quotes fit with what I was saying in the previous paragraph. I had suggested we define terms we intend to use and then use the definitions we agreed to use consistently. I then asked "Do you agree with this suggestion?" It doesn't make sense then for me to follow-up that question by stating "If you do not agree with them..." I didn't ask you to agree with anything that was plural. I had only asked if you agree with this one suggestion. And the second quote is even more out of place, as I wasn't giving any interpretation of the Church's position or anything such. It's just out of place.

As Vanhin also pointed out, those last two quotes do seem to fit your response to my post better. You had just suggested that if I agree with your conditions, then all is good. Now, the controversial quote, flows quite nicely from that, "If you do not agree with them..." (them being your conditions). Is it possible that you accidentally mixed up your own draft in to your final response to mine and accidentally attributed those words to me? At this point, this seems to be at least plausible.

I don't have much more to offer in regards to "proving" anything. I will make this my last word on this and hopefully this will be enough. In closing, let me just categorically state that I have no recollection of ever writing those last two quotes, not even as a draft. They are not familiar to me as something that is mine or my thoughts. I am willing to chalk it up as just some mix up or mistake. Regardless of your decision, know that I harbor no bad feelings. I am willing to move on and continue our discussion, but I do understand if you do not, because you still doubt my integrity.

I hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend!

Kind Regards,

Finrock