Consenting Adults and Judgement

[jsk]

Ajax...What you are advocating seems to be anarchy.

I'm not advocating anything. Just asking questions. Bouncing around ideas. That's typically how I view a "forum"

Well...if you say so. Sounded like you were advocating. I'll take your word that you are simply "bouncing around ideas."

[Phoenixstar117]

Ajax...What you are advocating seems to be anarchy.

I'm not advocating anything. Just asking questions. Bouncing around ideas. That's typically how I view a "forum"

+1

[jwharton]

If adults engage in behavior they consent to, so long as it doesn't infringe on anybody outside of the consenting group, by what justification can a third party, the law, God, whatever, come in and say "What you are doing is wrong and you will be punished for it"

If said behavior potentially involves conception and the life of an unborn child, such matters are of interest to everyone.
If said behavior is unnatural and tends to introduce serious contagious diseases, such matters are of interest to everyone.

[Obrien]

No unclean thing can enter Gods presence. Anything we have done to defile ourselves always creates a separation from God. Even if no one saw it. God is always in the equation so His consenting is required.

Gotta agree with Shadow on this one. I believe there is a standard of behaviour we are to strive for. The standards are written in the scriptures, evident in Natural Law, and most importantly impressed upon us by the Holy Spirit. We will likely fail, and fail often, to reach the standard. The atonement completely wipes the sins (sin = the times you fail to meet the standard) away IF you'll have faith that it is possible, or care that it is important.

However, this kind of doctrine is really bad for building a cohesive, us-against-the-world mentality, so organizations go for visible, measurable things like HT stats, temple attendance etc. and neglect the weightier matters of the law - like loving predatory bums in SLC.

That's all found in the Book of Obrien 3:16

[Phoenixstar117]

That's all found in the Book of Obrien 3:16

You'll have to quote me that verse. I don't have it in front of me I'm afraid.

[KMCopeland]

Ok, thanks for those thoughts Balaam (And +1 that you were able to keep it to a few short paragraphs - ;) ) Really makes me think that these consensual "sins" are much lower on the totem pole than actions people take against each other that actually cause harm to another. Yet, we seem to be obsessed with the opposite.

Curios - what is the word or words that describe the gift you have been given to say so much in so little, and is it also a gift and what is the word or words to describe such to be able to expound as Alma, Abinadi, and Amulek do in their more lengthy sermons?

Yowzah.

[KMCopeland]

If adults engage in behavior they consent to, so long as it doesn't infringe on anybody outside of the consenting group, by what justification can a third party, the law, God, whatever, come in and say "What you are doing is wrong and you will be punished for it"

There's no justification for a third party or the law to do that. God? I don't know Ajax. I think I'd have to say he would be justified.

But it's pretty important to remember that most of us aren't God.

[Sirocco]

If adults engage in behavior they consent to, so long as it doesn't infringe on anybody outside of the consenting group, by what justification can a third party, the law, God, whatever, come in and say "What you are doing is wrong and you will be punished for it"

There's no justification for a third party or the law to do that. God? I don't know Ajax. I think I'd have to say he would be justified.

But it's pretty important to remember that most of us aren't God.

most... lol

[jbalm]

If adults engage in behavior they consent to, so long as it doesn't infringe on anybody outside of the consenting group, by what justification can a third party, the law, God, whatever, come in and say "What you are doing is wrong and you will be punished for it"

There's no justification for a third party or the law to do that. God? I don't know Ajax. I think I'd have to say he would be justified.

But it's pretty important to remember that most of us aren't God.

How do we know what God wants?

[KMCopeland]

If adults engage in behavior they consent to, so long as it doesn't infringe on anybody outside of the consenting group, by what justification can a third party, the law, God, whatever, come in and say "What you are doing is wrong and you will be punished for it"

There's no justification for a third party or the law to do that. God? I don't know Ajax. I think I'd have to say he would be justified.

But it's pretty important to remember that most of us aren't God.

How do we know what God wants?

I guess you take it line by line and precept by precept. I'm pretty sure he doesn't want us to cheat on our spouses, which could easily be the behavior of consenting adults, like Ajax was talking about. I wouldn't think it was up to a third party or the law to handle that. But it might be up to God.

[jbalm]

I guess you take it line by line and precept by precept. I'm pretty sure he doesn't want us to cheat on our spouses, which could easily be the behavior of consenting adults, like Ajax was talking about. I wouldn't think it was up to a third party or the law to handle that. But it might be up to God.

My question was meant to be "where do we find a reliable source for these lines and precepts that are suppose to build upon each other?" But, since every thread on this forum pretty much deteriorates into that very question, and it can't ever be answered to everyone's satisfaction, I suppose it was just rhetorical.

FWIW, while I agree that cheating on your spouse is wrong, "cheating" connotes a lack of consent. So I think your example is a little flawed. But I see where you're coming from.

[davedan]

11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a dunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. (New Testament, 1 Corinthians, 1 Corinthians 5)


Sounds clear to me. I think drunkard covers pot head.

[KMCopeland]

I guess you take it line by line and precept by precept. I'm pretty sure he doesn't want us to cheat on our spouses, which could easily be the behavior of consenting adults, like Ajax was talking about. I wouldn't think it was up to a third party or the law to handle that. But it might be up to God.

My question was meant to be "where do we find a reliable source for these lines and precepts that are suppose to build upon each other?" But, since every thread on this forum pretty much deteriorates into that very question, and it can't ever be answered to everyone's satisfaction, I suppose it was just rhetorical.

FWIW, while I agree that cheating on your spouse is wrong, "cheating" connotes a lack of consent. So I think your example is a little flawed. But I see where you're coming from.

Excellent point. There would have to be three consenting adults in that situation for it to qualify as harmless I guess. Which pretty much never happens -- except in polygamy. Boy I hope I haven't stirred that overcooked pot. Doubt if I have with you -- but then there are all those others, often including me ...

[jbalm]

11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a dunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. (New Testament, 1 Corinthians, 1 Corinthians 5)


Sounds clear to me. I think drunkard covers pot head.

Don't forget the idolaters.

Idolater covers lots of things.

[KMCopeland]

I guess you take it line by line and precept by precept. I'm pretty sure he doesn't want us to cheat on our spouses, which could easily be the behavior of consenting adults, like Ajax was talking about. I wouldn't think it was up to a third party or the law to handle that. But it might be up to God.

My question was meant to be "where do we find a reliable source for these lines and precepts that are suppose to build upon each other?"

Which actually is a good question. Sorry I missed it.

I sure don't have the definitive answer. Other than study, prayer, and quietly waiting for the answer. The teachings of Jesus are good too, as are the teachings of most holy men (and women of course) down through the ages.

[jbalm]

I guess you take it line by line and precept by precept. I'm pretty sure he doesn't want us to cheat on our spouses, which could easily be the behavior of consenting adults, like Ajax was talking about. I wouldn't think it was up to a third party or the law to handle that. But it might be up to God.

My question was meant to be "where do we find a reliable source for these lines and precepts that are suppose to build upon each other?" But, since every thread on this forum pretty much deteriorates into that very question, and it can't ever be answered to everyone's satisfaction, I suppose it was just rhetorical.

FWIW, while I agree that cheating on your spouse is wrong, "cheating" connotes a lack of consent. So I think your example is a little flawed. But I see where you're coming from.

Excellent point. There would have to be three consenting adults in that situation for it to qualify as harmless I guess. Which pretty much never happens -- except in polygamy. Boy I hope I haven't stirred that overcooked pot. Doubt if I have with you -- but then there are all those others, often including me ...

Personally, I think it's wrong even with everyone's consent, be it polygamy, swinging, or any such lewdness. But I can't really justify my position under the "no victim" analysis. I guess I'm just an old prude.

[jbalm]

Which actually is a good question. Sorry I missed it.

I sure don't have the definitive answer. Other than study, prayer, and quietly waiting for the answer. The teachings of Jesus are good too, as are the teachings of most holy men (and women of course) down through the ages.

This is one of the better answers I've received to that question.

:-BD

[KMCopeland]

Personally, I think it's wrong even with everyone's consent, be it polygamy, swinging, or any such lewdness. But I can't really justify my position under the "no victim" analysis. I guess I'm just an old prude.

Either that or at peace with yourself without feeling the need to condemn somebody else.

[jbalm]

I like what you said better. I'll go with that.

[Thinker]

If adults engage in behavior they consent to, so long as it doesn't infringe on anybody outside of the consenting group, by what justification can a third party, the law, God, whatever, come in and say "What you are doing is wrong and you will be punished for it"

The law of cause and effect - but it won't say that - it will just happen.
IE: If a man tries to use an anus of another man as if it were a vagina - the effect may be anal fissures, anal cancer, colon rupture and bacterial infection.... and often even more: STD's, HIV/AIDS and mental illness - which those practicing homosexuality tend to have, statistically.

Generally, laws (legal and religious) are there to prevent such suffering.

The other thing you seem to ignore, Ajax, is that children are the main concern when it comes to same-sex "marriage."
Children are legally being denied a mother or father and that is immoral.
Children need both a mother and father not only to exist - but also to thrive best socially, psychologically and physically.
So, when you say, "if it doesn't hurt me, who cares?" You are neglecting the "least of these" who have no voice.
And btw: If people are privately doing things - we'd never know - but they're not privately doing it - they're parading it into our legal system, schools etc.

[gardener4life]

Did you bring up this question to answer this question to your family members or children or for yourself?

[gclayjr]

Thinker,

The other thing you seem to ignore, Ajax, is that children are the main concern when it comes to same-sex "marriage."
Children are legally being denied a mother or father and that is immoral.
Children need both a mother and father not only to exist - but also to thrive best socially, psychologically and physically.

This is what hard core Libertarians miss. They always say that marriage is a contract and that the Government has no business meddling or sustaining any contracts between consenting adults. Unlike any other contract, there are those who become part of that "contract" who had nothing to do with making that contract. The most precious and innocent in our society... our children... and society DOES have an interest in providing the best environment for raising kids.

Libertarians never have a good argument to counter this. Their standard response is to reiterate all the bad things that people can do in a world where marriage is to be only between one man an 1 women, ie, Sex outside of marriage divorce etc. So their argument basically is that since people can do bad things even though a legal framework of marriage being between a man and a woman exists, so therefor we should not have such a framework. That is like sayiing that people rob and steal even though it is illegal so we should not make robbing and stealing illegal.

Another big point that these Libertarians cannot have a good response to is how, without laws regarding marriage and family does one make sure that the rights of children, and parents are respected, once those who so lovingly went into the contract decide to split.. Again stating that often the government doen't do a good job, is no argument to just let all the "adults" just fight it out.

Regards,

George Clay

[Thinker]

Thinker,

The other thing you seem to ignore, Ajax, is that children are the main concern when it comes to same-sex "marriage."
Children are legally being denied a mother or father and that is immoral.
Children need both a mother and father not only to exist - but also to thrive best socially, psychologically and physically.

This is what hard core Libertarians miss. They always say that marriage is a contract and that the Government has no business meddling or sustaining any contracts between consenting adults. Unlike any other contract, there are those who become part of that "contract" who had nothing to do with making that contract. The most precious and innocent in our society... our children... and society DOES have an interest in providing the best environment for raising kids.

Libertarians never have a good argument to counter this. Their standard response is to reiterate all the bad things that people can do in a world where marriage is to be only between one man an 1 women, ie, Sex outside of marriage divorce etc. So their argument basically is that since people can do bad things even though a legal framework of marriage being between a man and a woman exists, so therefor we should not have such a framework. That is like sayiing that people rob and steal even though it is illegal so we should not make robbing and stealing illegal.

Another big point that these Libertarians cannot have a good response to is how, without laws regarding marriage and family does one make sure that the rights of children, and parents are respected, once those who so lovingly went into the contract decide to split.. Again stating that often the government doen't do a good job, is no argument to just let all the "adults" just fight it out.

Regards,

George Clay

Exactly, George!
They regularly engage in red herring or straw-man logical fallacies - trying to divert attention or make up easier arguments to refute. But these are often the same people who support and encourage killing babies - as a common form of birth control.

Usually Ajax argues for more conservative principles - at least he does on MormonDiscussions - where it doesn't take much to be considered conservative. haha Part of me wonders if he was seeing how people would respond - but who knows, maybe he's fallen for such leftists lies.

What bothers me is that the homosexual movement has blatently overruled the US constitution and democratic vote - and people have not fought this. Same-sex marriage should not have been legalized - as Scalia (who I believe was murdered for being outspoken - and was conveniently found dead in Texas, where they have laws that allowed for NO autopsy)... late Supreme Court Justice said - they had no right to rule on marriage because it is not a constitutional right. But they did anyway. It's when I really lost a lot of faith in our government.