Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

Community Reputation

1,585 Excellent

About SeekingUnderstanding

  • Rank
    And with all thy getting get understanding

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Kaysville, UT

Recent Profile Visitors

2,179 profile views
  1. This. I don't have any issues with AGU, but I have big issues with the "woke" movement on the left and the effort to deplatform those you disagree with politically.
  2. There is a real problem on the left with this in America for sure. See https://www.thecoddling.com/ What's ironic is that BYU has the same problem on its campus for different reasons. Professors and students are afraid to speak their minds for fear of expulsion.
  3. No they are not. Does BYU want AGU to deny it's own religion? That is AGU has an ethical stance that it will not discriminate on the basis religion, sexual orientation and other categories. In order to allow BYU to post a job on its site, AGU would be violating its own moral compass. AGU has a policy that it enforces. BYU has a policy that it enforces. Symmetry.
  4. No one is being excluded at all. BYU wanted to post a job with AGU. A job that comes with significant restrictions on what kind of persons can apply. These restrictions do not meet AGU’s non-discrimination policy. AGU is not expelling Latter-day Saint members, or anyone else here. I’m not sure what the hubbub is all about. If someone wanted to post a job with AGU that said Latter-day Saints need not apply, AGU would also remove that job as well.
  5. If we are making Nazi comparisons here, let’s make sure we identify the parties correctly. The AGU allows members from all walks of life regardless of religion, sex, sexual orientation. BYU does not. Last I checked BYU expelled students for leaving the church and fired professors for failing to pay tithing. BYU had a job listing through AGU that did not comply with its non-discrimination requirements. It was removed. Nothing to see here.
  6. I specifically do not wish to beat Oaks over the head with these since they are obsolete and would take effort to find, but if you really want to know the guy over the last 40 years he published a couple pieces: https://archive.org/details/Oaks_Criminalize_Homosexuality/page/n4 https://archive.org/details/PrinciplesToGovernPossiblePublicStatementOnLegislationAffectingRightsOfHomosexua/page/n13 In these documents Oaks (amongst other things) argues against decriminalizing homosexuality and against broad anti-discrimination laws for employment and other areas. They are dated, and I would imagine his views have substantially evolved.
  7. Thank you for the correction and clarification. Would I be correct in stating that plural marriage in and of itself is not apostasy? That is, joining a break off polygamous sect is apostasy. Teaching polygamy is apostasy, practicing polygamy is not?
  8. No I never complained. I didn’t accuse. I did report on the facts of my search just as you did. For someone that seems so fixated on word usage in others, you sure don’t seem to use the same level of care in your own posts.
  9. Edited my post too late. Not worth it, but nowhere have I “accused” Elder Oaks as being “fixated” on the topic. Thanks.
  10. What are you talking about!? I never once thought it would be close to the majority. I’m surprised it’s as close to 50% as it is. I merely think it is interesting to understand where the actual numbers lie.
  11. That’s fair, though I will attempt one more time to explain myself. Elder Oak’s recent talk is about the two great commandments. He talks about walking the fine line between law and love. If you read the public affairs he is talking about exactly the same thing. So it appears to me that Elder Oaks believes the proper path for most people to walk this line between law and love is not allow a partner of a gay son or daughter into the home. It appears to me that he feels setting expectations that parents not “deal” with their child’s partnership in public is entirely consistent with loving their child, but also loving god. When he says we shouldn’t marginalize LGBT people, he specifically doesn’t view the above behaviors are marginalizing. This is important to know IMO.
  12. Correct, but it is an excellent indicator of how focused one is on the topic. No one but you read that literally. He has clarified. Move on. What is clear is that Elder Oaks speaks in conference about the subject frequently, and appears to focus on the subject (based on word usage) more than the rest of church leadership combined.
  13. Indicator for what? Your search was helpful for determining the frequency that Elder Oaks speaks on the subject. Mine shows how often he speaks on it vs others leaders of the church. Seems to me both are relevant when it comes to people’s perceptions on the matter.
  14. With respect no one here except is arguing that a "total and complete prohibition" is in and of itself necessarily "extreme." Due to its negativity connotations, I’d rather avoid it entirely and it was not me who brought it into this discussion. Take the spectrum of human opinion in the United States on any subject where people of good faith have widely differing opinions. Mark the 10 percentile mark on either end. I’d call people that hold those positions to be on one extreme or the other. I would not call their positions extreme necessarily because of it’s negative connotations. Positions from about 35-65 I would call moderate. Hopefully it helps to understand how I use the term. You seem to use the term as an opposite of reasonable and “moderate” as a synonym of the same.
  • Create New...