- RLD on A widow’s mite of chastity: “I wonder if it would clarify the analogy to replace “the widow’s mite” with “five loaves and two fishes.” The widow gave all that she had, and it was enough. The boy with the loaves and fishes gave what he had on hand in the moment, and it was not nearly enough. But his offering was transformed by Jesus’ power so there was enough and to spare. Here’s how I understand Jonathan’s message: If you’re convinced you cannot live the law of chastity, fine. Do what you can, but don’t try to convince yourself it’s okay. Don’t lower the bar until you can clear it. If you can’t make full obedience a goal, keep it as a hope, or even a wish. Meanwhile, stick with the Church and obey the other commandments as best you can. Do that faithfully, and in process of time your offering–yourself–will be transformed by the power of Christ’s atonement until your obedience to the law of chastity is enough. But if you convince yourself you don’t need or even want that transformation, he will respect your agency and not give it to you. In reality, this describes most of our efforts to live the gospel. @Tori: I started out assuming this was about same-sex relationships too. Isn’t that what all arguments are about in the blogosphere? (Not so much any more, fortunately.)” May 10, 14:24
- on What Did Church Lead You to Think About Yesterday, 5/3?: “I really love these comments!! Thank you.” May 10, 13:01
- on The Juvenile Instructor Office: How a Pioneer Printing Press Shaped Latter-day Saint Literature: “Craig Smith has done an amazing job. The book couldn’t look better.” May 10, 09:05
- on A widow’s mite of chastity: “Tori, here are some things I did not say: The widow’s mite means giving everything. The widow’s mite means giving 100%. The widows’ mite means completely following everything the church says about chastity to a T. If you want to interpret it that way, that’s fine, but you’ll have to talk to someone else who shares that interpretation, or discuss it in some other context. That’s not what this post is about. For my purposes here, the metaphorical widow’s mite means giving as much as is possible for you based on your circumstances. That’s it. If you still read into that that I want gay people to die (seriously, how the hell do can you possibly think that’s what I’m saying?), then I regret taking the time to answer your question.” May 9, 19:36
- on A Review: Legends of Deseret Album: “Violette was probably written for that combination of instruments because it was the composition of the ensemble he was writing for. See the 1868 Salt Lake Theatre Orchestra (as pictured in the Juvenile Instructor of April 1924): https://archive.org/details/juvenileinstruct594geor/page/175/mode/1up” May 9, 17:21
- on A widow’s mite of chastity: “Jonathan, I’m really trying to understand here. Are you saying that the widow who gave 100% is comparable to someone who doesn’t follow everything 100%? If the story is about giving “all she had” (which I interpret as 100%) then why would that not be enough? The math isn’t working for me. For the record, I’m totally fine with telling people that X is the standard and that their opportunities for involvement will be different if they only do a part of X. But how does that relate to the widow who gave 100% and clearly met the standard? Why would someone who meets the standard still not be good enough?” May 9, 14:12
- on A widow’s mite of chastity: “Thank you for taking the time to respond Jonathan, I honestly read the comments and forgot about that one weird pornography post that brought out comments I did read but didn’t think much of. I wasn’t aware of a movement to change chastity to consent or any agitation for that. You learn something new every day. I’m still not sure why you attacked Ji for pointing out that they interpret the widow’s mite to be a story about giving everything and then you told me that it’s a story about giving a minuscule amount. Maybe we have to agree to disagree on what that story is about. I still read your line: “I don’t know if your widow’s mite of chastity will be enough to maintain unrestricted church membership or formal membership at all” As equivalent to telling someone who comes out as gay that you’d rather them be dead. If giving a widow’s mite is completely following everything the church says about chastity to a T then why would you still be unsure that it might not be enough for them to keep their membership?” May 9, 14:05
- on A widow’s mite of chastity: “Tori, it’s only been just a few weeks since we had a commenter on here insisting that pornography use was good, actually. You shouldn’t have to dig too far on other sites to find the posts arguing that the law of chastity is stupid and we should actually teach consent instead (which would very much promote the loose reading on sex before marriage that you mention). The posts arguing that sex before marriage was just a normal part of being a sophisticated urban adult are somewhat older. If you can’t avoid reading the comment section, you’ll eventually see just about everything. The point of the widow’s mite is that it’s a minuscule amount. We understand that tithing contributions vary from person to person, and an honest tithe is acceptable, no matter the amount. Does the same principle apply to other commandments? Probably not, actually, but I’m putting it out for discussion. With chastity, we are all equal: we have one body whose chastity we control. There’s no mechanism that makes one person wealthy and able to give more, and someone else poor and able to give less. The contention from ji that no one can ask anyone else to give all they have in terms of chastity is weird and untrue, since we have been asked to do precisely that. There’s a shallow critique that says: some people are privileged when it comes to following the law of chastity. But none of us have any idea what price another pays to live within the law of chastity. The only body whose chastity we control is our own. Some people find the price is too high to bear. There are trans people for whom the dysphoria of living as their biological sex is excruciating. Gay people who can’t stand the thought of going through life unpartnered. Even the guy from a few weeks ago who, after a lifetime of pornography use, can no longer achieve sexual intimacy with his wife without it, might find the thought of spending the rest of his life without using pornography unbearable if it meant his sex life was over in his 40s. What can we tell them? A lot of people will tell them things that are ultimately destructive to faith, things like: The prophet has never asked, sexuality is none of the church’s business, the scriptures are silent on this issue. What these approaches have in common is that they undermine the church and the gospel as epistemological edifices. Once you kick out enough major planks, the whole thing crashes down. Some of these responses come from genuine empathy, and some of them come from people who want to hasten the collapse and don’t care who it hurts on the way down. But the law of chastity is also a beautiful structure of its own. It’s not just a series of thou-shalt-nots. The law of chastity embeds human sexuality in a whole construction of doctrine and ritual that is cosmological in scope. We’ve got baby blessings and Family Home Evening and eternal marriage and a vault in the Wasatch filled with genealogical data and a whole lot more. It’s amazing and wonderful and worth supporting. Notice that Jesus did not tell the widow that her sacrifice was pointless or misplaced. He did not try to correct her false consciousness concerning the temple in Jerusalem. Jesus was even known to use extreme measures to preserve the sanctity of the temple. So it seems like a much better and kinder response to people who decide they cannot live within the law of chastity for whatever reason to affirm their belief in the church they love, rather than tearing it down, while they support as much of the law of chastity as they can. Maybe they won’t be able to go inside the temple, but they can submit ancestral names for ordinances, if that is meaningful for them, for example. Family Home Evening is still worth having, however a family is configured, even for the guy with a porn habit he can’t kick. Is 90% a passing grade for the law of chastity? 60%? .02%? Not my call and, as I said, I wouldn’t count on it. Be prepared for the possibility that you are in fact the rich young man, showing up with a tithe of mint. But I think people will be better off with that .02% – their widow’s mite – in hand, rather than trying to argue that the law of chastity doesn’t say what it says, doesn’t matter, or doesn’t apply to them.” May 9, 13:11
- on A widow’s mite of chastity: “The character assassination of Tony Fauci and the public health system represented in the comment above is rooted in such bad faith. Any judgement of the public health system must take into account that they were dealing with a new virus and a quickly evolving situation, in a cultural/political context where a large proportion of people actively consume a media diet filled with quacks and grifters, and all within an administration run by one of the least trustworthy people to hold that office (perhaps ever). Rather than simply face the fact that sometimes the natural world puts us in a situation with no pleasant options, these critics have taken their irritation out on the people most qualified to help the nation through the crisis. There may certainly be things that authorities could have done better, but I don’t see a universe where the same chorus of critics would have been any more supportive or compliant, because competence is not what they wanted. If it was, they would not have helped make RFK Jr the leading health official of the country. No, what they actually want is not to ever be personally inconvenienced on behalf society, and to feel socially respected even when they make terrible decisions (medical in this context).” May 9, 12:39
- on A widow’s mite of chastity: “I’m with Ji and very confused. I’ve been following the blogs for over a decade and have never seen posts about chastity that encourage a loose reading on sex before marriage. I have only ever seen posts about accepting people in same sex marriages so I’m assuming that’s what this is about? But maybe I’m just super out of touch. What does this mean from the OP: “I don’t know if your widow’s mite of chastity will be enough to maintain unrestricted church membership or formal membership at all” Why would “giving all you have” not be enough? It comes across as supporting the high suicide rates among LGBTQ youth in Utah. Especially after saying “I don’t know if a widow’s mite worth of chastity will be sufficient after this life”. Does the church have teaching I don’t know about? There is absolutely room for discussions (and I’ve seen many on the blogs) rightly calling out people who use appeals to authority and “support the prophet” messages only when it comes to supporting their previously held social beliefs (such as vaccine efficacy and heard immunity) that the prophet happens to agree with and then they ignore/challenge the prophet when a previously held belief is in question (such as allowing gay members to keep their membership if they aren’t having sex outside of marriage). Those are totally fair game. But this widow’s mite is a new comparison. Can you elaborate? What does a widows mite of chastity look like for a gay high schooler who is not sexually active? Is this post really for that kid? Or is it actually a post against the people advocating for change in the church (especially when they preach “follow the prophet” arrogantly but only on select topics) and is their widow’s mite of chastity actually just asking them not to advocate for change which is totally a fair but has nothing to do with their sex lives.” May 9, 11:35
