Jump to content

Anonymous Mormon

Members
  • Content Count

    156
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

231 Excellent

About Anonymous Mormon

  • Rank
    Member: Moves Upon the Waters

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I agree that this kind of compromise is the best possible solution. I would hope that a true follower of Christ would look for this compromise and try to suggest it. I think this is exactly what Christ is asking of his followers when he says: But the question becomes is it the governments job to force a private individual or a private organization / small business to do the right thing? I'm not so sure it is.
  2. So if the government can control who I am allowed to hire to make sure that I am not discriminating, can they also make me hire according to certain quotas (a certain percentage black, white, latino, gay, transgender, etc.)? Could they also require me to make my sure the products I make are not discriminatory (so I have to have an equal percentage of Black & White characters on my Star Wars lunch boxes I make)? I just think it's heavy-handed for the government to tell me who I have to employee in my private business or organization. I think the NAACP or FUBU should be allowed to hire
  3. I am not sure. I feel like if the purpose of the organization is towards a specific mission, then the organization should be allowed to not hire anyone who does not meet their mission. For example, the church owns BYU, DI, Deseret News, etc. and should be allowed to only hire employees who meet their mission if they want, such as those with a current temple recommend. Likewise, if the NAACP started a university and a thrift store, they should be allowed to not allow me to attend or hire me because I am white, even if I am the most qualified for the job. If a liberal media organi
  4. I don't belive that anyone should be forced to provide a service that they are morally opposed to. For example: -Should a black-owned bakery be forced to make a white cake that says, "White Lives Matter?" -Should a liberal who believes Trump is the worst US president in the history of the world be forced to make a "Make America Great Again" hat cake? -Should a black-owned venue be required to rent out its space or equipment to Richard Spencer for a seminar? -Should a liberal-owned venue be required to rent out its space to Donald Trump Jr for a Trump university meeting?
  5. Well Ahab, I for one appreciate your comments and from what I can tell they are sincere. One of the things I like best about this board is it gives a wide-variety of opinions from people trying their best to live the gospel (and also a few people who are actively trying to tear it down). I enjoy having your opinion as one of those on the spectrum to consider.
  6. I looks like I stand corrected. Pornography is still against the honor code. I didn't see this other page of info.
  7. @Ahab - I am dying of laughter with this comment. My wife probably thinks I've gone mad I'm laughing so hard. Honestly, there are days where I wonder if you aren't just a professional troll. In nearly every thread you manage to say something that gives me pause. Do you really drink low alcohol beverages some times? How much alcohol in wine is okay (and when is it no longer wine but grape juice)? Or are you just pulling our legs?????
  8. Pornography, gambling, and same-sex dating are only equivalents in that all 3 were previously specifically forbidden in the honor code and are no longer mentioned. I am not making a case for them being equivalent in any other way (nor do I want to insinuate that I am or debate whether or not they are). The question becomes though, that since these 3 were mentioned before and are no longer mentioned now, how much does that represent an endorsement or acceptance of any of these 3 behaviors by the church? Case in point the comment above, which seems to say that by removing someth
  9. Pornography, gambling, and same-sex dating are only equivalents in that all 3 were previously specifically forbidden in the honor code and are no longer mentioned. I am not making a case for them being equivalent in any other way (nor do I want to insinuate that I am or debate whether or not they are). The question becomes though, that since these 3 were mentioned before and are no longer mentioned now, how much does that represent an endorsement or acceptance of any of these 3 behaviors by the church?
  10. I think that the honor code has been trying to say this. For example: Or this: I agree. I think what happened is BYU was trying to make the honor code less punitive and less about kicking students who are trying their best out of BYU. If a student struggles with pornography, I don't want to see them kicked out of BYU. If a LGB student is working to live a chaste life but kisses someone of the same sex while at BYU as they are trying to figure out how to navigate being a member of the church and also having those feelings, I don't want to see them kicked out of
  11. I have an honest question for everyone who feels like this change is the church accepting, allowing, or endorsing same-sex dating and same-sex kissing. The previous honor code mentioned that pornography was not allowed with this statement: "involvement with pornographic, erotic, indecent, or offensive material." The new honor code doesn't mention this, it only says, "Live a chaste and virtuous life, including abstaining from any sexual relations outside a marriage between a man and a woman." If I call the honor code office and they say that they will no longer kick out student
  12. I predict there will be lots of people who were celebrating that will be angry at BYU after this meeting is held. I don't think quite as much has changed as some people are insinuating.
  13. I totally agree!!! Things with blatant and specific precedence in scripture (i.e., polygamy) or that were done at the start of the restoration (blacks holding the priesthood) are not the same as things with zero precedence in history or scripture and lots of specific scripture and precedence against it. It's not worth debating this point again in this thread, since we have hashed it before. I think most people can see the distinction between these things.
  14. This! This is why many of us are talking past each other. If someone doesn't believe that the church is a conduit for Modern Day Revelation, then there really is no common ground to discuss this topic. Without modern day revelation, then Joseph Smith didn't see God the Father, the Book of Mormon is just another book, and the current prophet is just another old, out of touch white dude. If the basis for belief in the church is there is no modern day revelation, then it's all just a club of men doing their best, and the church is just another church like any other. And anything it does
  15. I agree. There is a very vocal minority on this board and in the church that are pushing for same-sex marriage marriage to be allowed in the church and in the temple (i.e., sealings). They seem to see this announcement as a step in this direction. I don't see it. I believe that the Eternal God is in charge of this church. He is unchangeable and doesn't care about what is popular. He is willing to lose 1/3 of his children at the get-go because these children believed that if they got enough numbers behind their alternative plan, then God would cave in and go along with what is not right.
×
×
  • Create New...