Free Byu?

[Russell C McGregor]

"Shut the heck up" and lie to your Bishop to maintain your endorsement are not options that encourage integrity. (Also part of the honor code.)

But they do seem to be ways to avoid having to listen to correction when one is surreptitiously advocating for apostate positions, don't you think?

Because if one did receive such correction, reliance upon the handbook definition of apostasy would no longer be a very useful fig leaf, would it?

[rockpond]

But they do seem to be ways to avoid having to listen to correction when one is surreptitiously advocating for apostate positions, don't you think?

Because if one did receive such correction, reliance upon the handbook definition of apostasy would no longer be a very useful fig leaf, would it?

Not sure what you're getting at but it seems off topic since we weren't talking about "apostate positions".

[Scott Lloyd]

Could you explain then why seeking to change a cultural norm in favor of greater fairness is considered an entitlement in some cases but not in others?

There is nothing patently unfair about the Church desiring, for its own purposes, to be selective about whom it privileges with availability of the educational resources it offers. On the other hand, it <is> patently unfair to demand those privileges when one is not willing to abide by the attached conditions. Clearly, it amounts to demanding entitlements.

Most of us wouldn't take seriously a demand by someone who hadn't followed the standards of temple worthiness that he be admitted to the temple. Are temple worthiness requirements another of those "cultural norms" you demand that the Church drop in order to placate someone who wants the privileges without meeting the obligations?

This has been explained, over and over in differing ways in this thread. This repetitive questioning is tedious and pointless.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ERayR]

There is nothing patently unfair about the Church desiring, for its own purposes, to be selective about whom it privileges with availability of the educational resources it offers. On the other hand, it <is> patently unfair to demand those privileges when one is not willing to abide by the attached conditions. Clearly, it amounts to demanding entitlements.

Most of us wouldn't take seriously a demand by someone who hadn't followed the standards of temple worthiness that he be admitted to the temple. Are temple worthiness requirements another of those "cultural norms" you demand that the Church drop in order to placate someone who wants the privileges without meeting the obligations?

This has been explained, over and over in differing ways in this thread. This repetitive questioning is tedious and pointless.

 

But that's not fair.  Bwaaaaa

[HappyJackWagon]

There is nothing patently unfair about the Church desiring, for its own purposes, to be selective about whom it privileges with availability of the educational resources it offers. On the other hand, it <is> patently unfair to demand those privileges when one is not willing to abide by the attached conditions. Clearly, it amounts to demanding entitlements.

Most of us wouldn't take seriously a demand by someone who hadn't followed the standards of temple worthiness that he be admitted to the temple. Are temple worthiness requirements another of those "cultural norms" you demand that the Church drop in order to placate someone who wants the privileges without meeting the obligations?

This has been explained, over and over in differing ways in this thread. This repetitive questioning is tedious and pointless.

Actually, yes. Many of the questions are a result of cultural norms that have developed over the lifespan of the church. If you look at the history of requirements to enter the temple you can see quite a bit of variability in some aspects. In other words, we follow different standards today than saints followed in the 19th and early 20th century. Our modern understanding of temple worthiness was developed in the 1960's. Just a couple of examples of changes...

 

-Word of Wisdom Requirement

-Stated belief in plural marriage

-Association with "apostate" groups

-Tithing requirement

-Temple garment requirement

-race or race of spouse

 

In the 19th century I would be given a temple recommend if I drank alcohol in moderation, smoked tobacco, didn't wear temple garments, didn't pay a full tithing, and express belief in the practice of polygamy. Today, I wouldn't be so fortunate. So yes, cultural expectations change over time and are reflected in temple recommend questions and admission to the temple.

[Gray]

Read it.

 

I read it, and didn't see anything to prohibit and evangelical anti-Mormon from attending. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Actually, yes. Many of the questions are a result of cultural norms that have developed over the lifespan of the church. If you look at the history of requirements to enter the temple you can see quite a bit of variability in some aspects. In other words, we follow different standards today than saints followed in the 19th and early 20th century. Our modern understanding of temple worthiness was developed in the 1960's. Just a couple of examples of changes...

 

-Word of Wisdom Requirement

-Stated belief in plural marriage

-Association with "apostate" groups

-Tithing requirement

-Temple garment requirement

-race or race of spouse

 

In the 19th century I would be given a temple recommend if I drank alcohol in moderation, smoked tobacco, didn't wear temple garments, didn't pay a full tithing, and express belief in the practice of polygamy. Today, I wouldn't be so fortunate. So yes, cultural expectations change over time and are reflected in temple recommend questions and admission to the temple.

So if it's a point of doctrine, belief or practice that you don't like, you declare it a "cultural norm" so you can accuse the Church of violating somebody's religious freedom by requiring him to live up to it as a condition of membership or admittance to the temple.

 

Your definitions have gotten so convoluted, I'm finding it next to impossible to converse with you meaningfully on this matter. I think we're done.

[HappyJackWagon]

So if it's a point of doctrine, belief or practice that you don't like, you declare it a "cultural norm" so you can accuse the Church of violating somebody's religious freedom by requiring him to live up to it as a condition of membership or admittance to the temple.

 

Your definitions have gotten so convoluted, I'm finding it next to impossible to converse with you meaningfully on this matter. I think we're done.

So you don't care to discuss how those temple recommend worthiness questions have been impacted by culture and changed over time? That's fine.

[Scott Lloyd]

So you don't care to discuss how those temple recommend worthiness questions have been impacted by culture and changed over time? That's fine.

I object to your dismissive attitude of declaring them "cultural norms" as a way of rationalizing your claim that it violates a Church members religious freedom to require adherence to them.

[Russell C McGregor]

Not sure what you're getting at but it seems off topic since we weren't talking about "apostate positions".

 

No, but you talked about lying to, and otherwise concealing one's actual beliefs from, the bishop.

 

I merely pointed out that such behaviour may have other applications.

[rockpond]

No, but you talked about lying to, and otherwise concealing one's actual beliefs from, the bishop.

I merely pointed out that such behaviour may have other applications.

It was actually someone else on the thread who suggested lying to ecclesiastical leaders or hiding actual beliefs as a means of finishing one's BYU degree after a change of faith.

I was the one who said such a course of action encouraged a lack of integrity which is also a violation of the honor code (and not a good plan, IMO).