36 replies to this topic

[Sky]

Okay, not the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve or any other General Authority, but with some Church PR officials.  

A nice gesture by the Church, but nevertheless I don't think the Church is about to make any of the changes that this group wants - like denouncing Evergreen.  What say ye?

Here is the article.

[cinepro]

Quote

The group, Soulforce’s 2012 Equality Ride, had four specific requests for the LDS Church:

- cut all ties with and denounce Evergreen International, which continues to use "reparative" therapy in its treatment of gays;
- stop funding groups that are fighting civil marriage equality across the country;
- encourage LDS Business College to bring its policies on homosexuality in line with current Mormon teachings;
- add sexual orientation and gender identity/expression to the faith’s policies for church employees.

Can anyone explain those last two?  What does LDS Business College do differently than BYU?

[Buzzard]

You can't win.  I suppose it does no harm to dialogue, but either you give in to their demands, or they summon the media and denounce you for not doing so. Is anyone else as sick as I am of the parade of gay activists trooping up to South Temple, one after another, and requesting a meeting with an apostle?
No policy, no nuance of doctrine is too small for them to not kvetch about it.  Bringing the language at LDS business college in line with BYU's?  Even BYU Idaho has differences in their HC language. They must stay up nights going through church publications looking for reasons to be offended.  Sorry to be a negative Nancy, but come on....
And BTW, the ex-LDS who felt a "healing moment"? The good you did on your mission still stands, but all the blessings of baptism and membership in the Lord's kingdom ARE null and void.  And it's not the churches fault.  You wadded them up and threw them in the trash.

[calmoriah]

Quote

The church, for example, should stop describing members who were "struggling with their sexuality," Conner said. "I’m not struggling. I am completely comfortable with my sexuality."

And because he's not struggling, no one else is?  He's not a member now, such comments don't apply to him anyway since they are about "members".

So on the one hand, they want the church to recognize how tough gays have it, on the other to suggest that it has anything to do with their sexuality is taboo.

Sheesh.

[calmoriah]

cinepro, on 24 April 2012 - 05:44 PM, said:

Can anyone explain those last two?  What does LDS Business College do differently than BYU?

LDS Business College stance on homosexuality
Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife when appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Same-gender relationships are inconsistent with this divine plan. Students of the same gender should not hold hands, kiss, date, access homosexual pornographic sites, communicate on gay chat lines, participate in gay rallies, frequent gay gatherings or encourage others to participate in those activities. The First Presidency clearly distinguishes between thoughts, feelings and behaviors. LDS Business College responds to student behavior and not to feelings or orientation.


Brigham Young University will respond to homosexual behavior rather than to feelings or attraction and welcomes as full members of the university community all whose behavior meets university standards. Members of the university community can remain in good honor code standing if they conduct their lives in a manner consistent with gospel principles and the honor code.
One’s stated same-gender attraction is not an honor code issue. However, the honor code requires all members of the university community to manifest a strict commitment to the law of chastity. Homosexual behavior is inappropriate and violates the honor code. Homosexual behavior includes not only sexual relations between members of the same sex, but all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings.

From the link

Can someone point out any significant differences to me?

Edited by calmoriah, 24 April 2012 - 06:27 PM.

[Sky]

calmoriah, on 24 April 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

LDS Business College stance on homosexuality
Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife when appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Same-gender relationships are inconsistent with this divine plan. Students of the same gender should not hold hands, kiss, date, access homosexual pornographic sites, communicate on gay chat lines, participate in gay rallies, frequent gay gatherings or encourage others to participate in those activities. The First Presidency clearly distinguishes between thoughts, feelings and behaviors. LDS Business College responds to student behavior and not to feelings or orientation.


Brigham Young University will respond to homosexual behavior rather than to feelings or attraction and welcomes as full members of the university community all whose behavior meets university standards. Members of the university community can remain in good honor code standing if they conduct their lives in a manner consistent with gospel principles and the honor code.
One’s stated same-gender attraction is not an honor code issue. However, the honor code requires all members of the university community to manifest a strict commitment to the law of chastity. Homosexual behavior is inappropriate and violates the honor code. Homosexual behavior includes not only sexual relations between members of the same sex, but all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings.

From the link

Can someone point out any significant differences to me?

I don't see any significant differences - they are both essentially in line with Church teachings, but the LDS Business College seems to be more specific about what behaviors are inappropriate.

In my opinion, as long as the Church teaches that same-sex relationships are against the will of God, and gay rights groups continue to demand change (any change), there will always be a conflict.  The question that remains is if there is a middle ground somewhere that both parties can live with?

[Log]

Sky, on 24 April 2012 - 06:38 PM, said:

The question that remains is if there is a middle ground somewhere that both parties can live with?

Should there be?  What is the compromise between chaste and unchaste?

[David T]

calmoriah, on 24 April 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

Can someone point out any significant differences to me?

Students of the same gender should not ...frequent gay gatherings or encourage others to participate in those activities.

BYU allows the USGA group, Understanging Same Gender Attraction, made up of openly gay BYU students who are living in line with the Honor Code, and serves as a support group of sorts and also who, as we've been talking about here, recently presented an open panel as part of a BYU sponsored event. This appears to be out of the question for BYU Business College.

Edited by David T, 24 April 2012 - 07:13 PM.

[calmoriah]

Thanks, David.

[Sky]

David T, on 24 April 2012 - 06:49 PM, said:

Students of the same gender should not ...frequent gay gatherings or encourage others to participate in those activities.

BYU allows the USGA group, Understanging Same Gender Attraction, made up of openly gay BYU students who are living in line with the Honor Code, and serves as a support group of sorts and also who, as we've been talking about here, recently presented an open panel as part of a BYU sponsored event. This appears to be out of the question for BYU Business College.

I don't think this type of group or associated event would be out of the question at LDS Business College.  The policy at LDS Business College states that they respond to student behavior and not to feelings or orientation, which is the same for BYU.

I don't think the Understanding Same Gender Attraction group is what LDSBC had in mind when they said students should not frequent "gay gatherings."

[BCSpace]

Quote

A nice gesture by the Church, but nevertheless I don't think the Church is about to make any of the changes that this group wants - like denouncing Evergreen. What say ye?

I don't think Evergreen is necessarily wrong, but I think it is expendable as a public relations gimmick.  Otherwise, there has been no change in understanding or doctrine on this subject by the Church for decades and more.  I predict there never will be.

[Bikeemikey]

This debate has not even really seriously begun yet.

There will be change- it may not be the change gay activists are hoping for but change will happen.



(null)

[Valentinus]

Honestly, the LDS church is irrelevant to the gay community. I understand what the activists are doing but they need to knock it off. Leave the church alone and the church should stay out of civil affairs. Evergreen is a joke just as NARTH is a joke. Both are irrelevant as well. The gay community needs to just move on.

Edited by Valentinus, 25 April 2012 - 11:31 AM.

[thesometimesaint]

All this Strum un Drang over applying the Golden Rule.
 

[David T]

Sky, on 24 April 2012 - 07:29 PM, said:

I don't think the Understanding Same Gender Attraction group is what LDSBC had in mind when they said students should not frequent "gay gatherings."

Whether or not this is what was 'had in mind', the wide scope of the language inclusively disallows such things.

Edited by David T, 25 April 2012 - 08:03 AM.

[Stargazer]

Valentinus, on 24 April 2012 - 10:06 PM, said:

Honestly, the LDS church is irrelevant to the gay community. I understand what the activiwts are doing but they need to knock it off. Leave the church alone and the church should stay out of civil affairs. Evergreen is a joke just as NARTH is a joke. Both are irrelevant as well. The gay community needs to just move on.

Not that you are the "gay community" -- you're Darth Vader for goodness sake -- but why should they move on when you haven't?  You're HERE, for instance.

Don't take that as a request that you "move on" with respect to this forum.  Just seems like you're contradicting yourself.

[Stargazer]

thesometimesaint, on 25 April 2012 - 08:01 AM, said:

All this Strum un Drang over applying the Golden Rule.
 

That's "Sturm und Drang", btw.  Otherwise, you're playing a guitar.  http://en.wikipedia....Sturm_und_Drang

[wenglund]

Valentinus, on 24 April 2012 - 10:06 PM, said:

Honestly, the LDS church is irrelevant to the gay community. I understand what the activiwts are doing but they need to knock it off. Leave the church alone and the church should stay out of civil affairs. Evergreen is a joke just as NARTH is a joke. Both are irrelevant as well. The gay community needs to just move on.

Now that is what I call equal opportunity dismissals.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[epiginosko]

Valentinus, on 24 April 2012 - 10:06 PM, said:

Honestly, the LDS church is irrelevant to the gay community. I understand what the activiwts are doing but they need to knock it off. Leave the church alone and the church should stay out of civil affairs. Evergreen is a joke just as NARTH is a joke. Both are irrelevant as well. The gay community needs to just move on.

So are you saying that gay Latter-Day Saints should either pick the gay community an leave the Church, or pick the Church and leave the gay community?

If so, isn't that a bit of an oversimplification?

[TruthSeeker24]

Log, on 24 April 2012 - 06:46 PM, said:

Should there be?  What is the compromise between chaste and unchaste?

Amen.