another argument for gay marriage

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Levin

Archaea and Tex, this has been a very nice exchange, and you have both represented your sides well.


The idea of "joy" being the purpose of life is fairly modern concept -- at least in the Christian world. For centuries, "joy" was to bear the cross -- joy was to suffer for Christ. Indulgence of fleshly passions was pleasurable, but antithetical to joy.

Lehi's statement is a challenge to a long line of western Christian thought, depending on how it's interpreted.

There are several vexing questions for those who adhere to the hard line that breaking the commandments inexorably leads to unhappiness:

(1) the mother who is miserable b/c she stays at home v. the mother who is joyful b/c she works

(2) the 40-year old virgin who is tormented by his sexual urges v. the 40-year old who has sex in a loving, committed relationship outside the bonds of marriage

(3) the homosexual man who is tormented by his sexual urges v. the homosexual man who has gay sex in a loving, committed relationship

It's not so simple to break it down into an either or, but in order to find any sense in the "joy = righteousness" and "misery = sin" pairings, you have to define joy to equal "the joy that comes from obedience; joy is to suffer for Christ." How else to account for the Savior's startling comment to the Nephites that it is better to bear one's cross (said in the context of a sermon on sexual sin) than to be thrust down to hell.

Actually, I could argue the concept of life being about joy was around at least as early Adam.

You're playing semantic games with the word "joy." As I'm sure you know, the consequences of sin are not always swift and severe. But they are there; it is eternal law. You cannot play in the mud and not get dirty, no matter how much fun it seems to do it.

The kind of joy I'm referring to is everlasting joy of the kind associated with eternal life. That is not to be found in the examples you describe.

Originally Posted by Levin

One other requirement for these pairings to work: you have to believe! If the 40-year old virgin believes, then breaking the law of chastity -- while giving a moment of indescribably intense pleasure -- will cause heartbreaking spiritual pain (at least the first few times he does it until he gets "past feeling"). But for those who don't believe, sex outside the bonds of marriage can be a source of intense pleasure and intense joy.

The laws of God don't change based on the faith (or lack thereof) of the individual who breaks them.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Levin

Here's a question: do you feel a pain of conscience the first time even if you don't believe in the law of chastity? You're a secular teenager in France, and you have sex as a 16-year old. Do you feel spiritual anguish?

Surely the most intense spiritual pain is felt by those who most intensely believe. I don't really care whether it's culturally acquired: point is you believed something, but you acted contrarily, and now you feel the emotional aftershocks of that decision.

But even if you believe, you can get past that initial emotional pain: by doing it over and over. The "past feeling" reference is to the description of Laman and Lemual who no longer recognize the Spirit b/c they are past feeling. The first time someone sins against their conscience, then the pain can be acute. But the more you sin, the less acute the pain, until you no longer feel it anymore.

I suspect that the same is true of sexual sin.

You're crossing your wires. Being "past feeling" does not immunize against the spiritual consequences of sin.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by Tex

The kind of joy I'm referring to is everlasting joy of the kind associated with eternal life. That is not to be found in the examples you describe.

You just switched the game. Now you're talking about joy in the next life. Up until now, the subject was joy in this life. Nobody can argue with the everlasting joy in the next life b/c we haven't experienced that, can't prove it exists, etc. But we can talk about how we feel here. How about talking about that?

Originally Posted by Tex

The laws of God don't change based on the faith (or lack thereof) of the individual who breaks them.

Where does the person who does not believe, but who is in a committed, kind, selfless, loving relationship outside the bods of marriage suffer the consequences in this life in terms of decreased joy for breaking the law of chastity? And remember, we're talking about mortality, not the afterlife.

And we're talking from the POV of the person; where does the non-believer who has sex with integrity (respects his partners; is faithful to them until they break up; loves them; etc.) feel the wrath of the law of chastity?

[Levin]

Originally Posted by Tex

You're crossing your wires. Being "past feeling" does not immunize against the spiritual consequences of sin.

Does that mean the 16-year old will not be able to feel the Spirit? That is the spiritual consequence?

Does he feel any spiritual anguish that he recognizes even if he doesn't believe? Where are the spiritual consequences here and now (not that he'll be damned in the afterlife)?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Levin

You just switched the game. Now you're talking about joy in the next life. Up until now, the subject was joy in this life. Nobody can argue with the everlasting joy in the next life b/c we haven't experienced that, can't prove it exists, etc. But we can talk about how we feel here. How about talking about that?



Where does the person who does not believe, but who is in a committed, kind, selfless, loving relationship outside the bods of marriage suffer the consequences in this life in terms of decreased joy for breaking the law of chastity? And remember, we're talking about mortality, not the afterlife.

And we're talking from the POV of the person; where does the non-believer who has sex with integrity (respects his partners; is faithful to them until they break up; loves them; etc.) feel the wrath of the law of chastity?

Originally Posted by Levin

Does that mean the 16-year old will not be able to feel the Spirit? That is the spiritual consequence?

Does he feel any spiritual anguish that he recognizes even if he doesn't believe? Where are the spiritual consequences here and now (not that he'll be damned in the afterlife)?

Heh, you really took what I said and ran in the absolute wrong direction with it. Perhaps it's my fault if it was unclear. Before I address your questions, let me clarify.

I was speaking of this life. I said "associated with" meaning "the same kind." I didn't mean joy that is only experienced after receiving eternal life. The scripture I quoted earlier shows Adam saying, "in this life I shall have joy." After his mission to the Lamanites, Ammon says his "joy is full." There are many other scriptures that talk about this ... shall we call it godly joy? Is that more clear?

This is the joy I speak of that cannot be experienced while entrenched in sin.

Your other questions demand that I specify exactly what punishment the law specifies in some hypothetical situations. I am unable to do that. There are far too many variables for me to compute. There are a few common denominators, such as the inability to recognize the Spirit, or to feel this godly joy, or to recognize an answer to prayer. But there are others too: depression, guilt, hopelessness, worthlessness are all potential consequences of sin. And there are sometimes tangible consequences--in the case of chastity, unwanted pregnancies or loss of trust in a marital relationship.

How and when the Father chooses to let these penalties fall is a highly individualized thing, and it's good that way. It's a testimony that God is in the details of our lives.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Heh, you really took what I said and ran in the absolute wrong direction with it. Perhaps it's my fault if it was unclear. Before I address your questions, let me clarify.

I was speaking of this life. I said "associated with" meaning "the same kind." I didn't mean joy that is only experienced after receiving eternal life. The scripture I quoted earlier shows Adam saying, "in this life I shall have joy." After his mission to the Lamanites, Ammon says his "joy is full." There are many other scriptures that talk about this ... shall we call it godly joy? Is that more clear?

This is the joy I speak of that cannot be experienced while entrenched in sin.

Your other questions demand that I specify exactly what punishment the law specifies in some hypothetical situations. I am unable to do that. There are far too many variables for me to compute. There are a few common denominators, such as the inability to recognize the Spirit, or to feel this godly joy, or to recognize an answer to prayer. But there are others too: depression, guilt, hopelessness, worthlessness are all potential consequences of sin. And there are sometimes tangible consequences--in the case of chastity, unwanted pregnancies or loss of trust in a marital relationship.

How and when the Father chooses to let these penalties fall is a highly individualized thing, and it's good that way. It's a testimony that God is in the details of our lives.

I would prefer to hear what joy means in your own words.

The words of scripture are so distant, not near in time. They feel mostly alien.

Use empirical and scientific language, instead of the poetic, imprecise language of scripture or verse.

Joy is a satisfied emotion where expectations and reality are harmonized. As a result, the pscyho-immuno-endocrinal functions of the body are at equilibrium. As a result, when my mental and physical functions and capacities are healthy, my social relations are healthy, and my life goals are achievable, I achieve that equilibrium.

Now for a believer, avoiding cognitive dissonance, which Mormons and Christians describe as sin, those mental/emotion harmonies, exist.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I would prefer to hear what joy means in your own words.

The words of scripture are so distant, not near in time. They feel mostly alien.

There are some things for which empirical language is insufficient. The scriptures may be alien to you, but they are beautiful to me. Here is how I define joy:

22 And I answered him, saying: Yea, it is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men; wherefore, it is the most desirable above all things.

23 And he spake unto me, saying: Yea, and the most joyous to the soul.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

There are some things for which empirical language is insufficient. The scriptures may be alien to you, but they are beautiful to me. Here is how I define joy:

They are the expressions of another person, not of you. For whatever reason, you are paranoid to show your own feelings. You didn't write those words.

Empirical words are best and most accurate. Poetry is beautiful but not accurate.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Archaea

They are the expressions of another person, not of you. For whatever reason, you are paranoid to show your own feelings. You didn't write those words.

Empirical words are best and most accurate. Poetry is beautiful but not accurate.

The language you cite is merely effusive and not descriptive, it doesn't show how it works within the inner chambers of the mind and soul.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

They are the expressions of another person, not of you. For whatever reason, you are paranoid to show your own feelings. You didn't write those words.

I'm not sure why you're so hostile that I think scripture expresses my feelings best.

Originally Posted by Archaea

Empirical words are best and most accurate. Poetry is beautiful but not accurate.

Joy is not something you can derive in a laboratory.