Hey Let's Talk Church Direction

[Scott Lloyd]

The blog post suggested that.

He's telling me I do that. You supported his view. SO I thought you were suggesting the same. I'm happy to hear your thoughts on the matter.

Read the post in context.

 

He's addressing it to someone who sent him an anonymous email, someone who abusively told him he was a sh---y Christian because he would not condone a sinful lifestyle.

Edited October 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

Read the post in context.

 

He's addressing it to someone who sent him an anonymous email, someone who abusively told him he was a sh---y Christian because he would not condone a sinful lifestyle.

Read the post in context.

He started out with the lette, but used it to rant against a bunch of people, me included. That's why I quoted the pertinent part:

I have many sins, but I will not tell you they are not sins. I come to Christ a sick and broken man looking for healing. You apparently come a sick and broken man looking to be assured you were never sick and broken to begin with. That is the only real difference between us. Or I should say, it’s the only real difference between Christians and “progressive Christians.”

He's certainly not just condemning one person who wrote a letter. He's condemning a whole host of people for doing things he has no idea if they are doing them. It is a really terrible diatribe, in my view, and should not be seen as a good thing. It's divisive, mean-spirited, and thoughtless, if you ask me.

[stemelbow]

I don't see anybody here advocating that.

 

And I don't see the blog post in question advocating that.

The biggest problem, I'd say, with the blog post is he think he knows what he's talking about. But he has no clue what it's like to be gay. He has no clue about a gay person's standing with God at all. He's just spouting off ugly rhetoric. By so doing he is doing exactly as Happy explains, I think, from a gay person's perspective. I think it's clear, for a gay person, he has "blamed, alienated, dismissed, or ridiculed for their ailment".

Sure he had some guy get angry with him. But this guy got angry with him for a reason and his response shows that reason clearly.

[jkwilliams]

This is more like the sick going to the hospital only to find out they aren't welcome, it seems to me. That is if your response was in defense of the post the Scott linked.

Or it seems that way to me.

 

Someone once said that the church is supposed to be a hospital for the soul, but too often we don't let the wounded in because we don't want to get blood on the carpet.

[Gray]

Someone once said that the church is supposed to be a hospital for the soul, but too often we don't let the wounded in because we don't want to get blood on the carpet.

 

That's certainly how BYU and BYUI operate. 

[oremites]

That's certainly how BYU and BYUI operate. 

 

Since BYU and BYUI are neither churches nor hospitals, I don't see your point.

[Gray]

Since BYU and BYUI are neither churches nor hospitals, I don't see your point.

 

Presumably there is some overlap in mission with the church. And if the only point of them is secular education, then most of the honor code is nonsensical. 

Edited October 20, 2015 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

Read the post in context.

He started out with the lette, but used it to rant against a bunch of people, me included. That's why I quoted the pertinent part:

 

I guess I missed the part where he mentioned you. But then, I don't know your real name.

 

Are you the author of the email? That seems to be the only person he is specifically calling out.

 

He's certainly not just condemning one person who wrote a letter. He's condemning a whole host of people for doing things he has no idea if they are doing them. It is a really terrible diatribe, in my view, and should not be seen as a good thing. It's divisive, mean-spirited, and thoughtless, if you ask me.

 

The only way I can see that you have standing to object to it is if you are holding forth that people ought to be welcomed by being told that their sinful lifestyle is perfectly OK. If that doesn't apply to you, then as far as I can tell, your defensiveness is altogether unwarranted.

 

Through a lifetime in the Church, I've never had it said or even hinted at to me that my sins are perfectly OK. I wouldn't expect ever to be told such a thing. It would render the Church an empty shell with no salvific power.

Edited October 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Someone once said that the church is supposed to be a hospital for the soul, but too often we don't let the wounded in because we don't want to get blood on the carpet.

That's a cute turn-of-phrase, but it so happens it has no relevance in this instance.

[Scott Lloyd]

Presumably there is some overlap in mission with the church. And if the only point of them is secular education, then most of the honor code is nonsensical. 

Whatever overlap in mission there may be, it doesn't mean that BYU or BYU-I can -- or should -- admit everyone who wants to enroll. Your analogy is what is nonsensical.

[Gray]

Whatever overlap in mission there may be, it doesn't mean that BYU or BYU-I can -- or should -- admit everyone who wants to enroll. Your analogy is what is nonsensical.

 

The current policy is to exclude various categories of sinners (including beard-wearers). The analogy of the hospital refusing to admit the sick (or at least the openly sick) seems apt. 

Edited October 20, 2015 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

The current policy is to exclude various categories of sinners (including beard-wearers). The analogy of the hospital refusing to admit the sick (or at least the openly sick) seems apt. 

Neither BYU Provo nor its sister institutions are the Church, as oremites has already pointed out to you. Though they are mutually supportive, they fulfill separate roles.

 

Even within the Church, there are privileges that have certain eligibility requirements. We don't let unrepentant adulterers or criminals serve as missionaries or in priesthood leadership callings. Are you going to apply your hospital analogy there as well?

Edited October 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Just thought of an extension for the hospital analogy:

 

In admitting sick or injured patients, hospitals do not allow said patients to engage in behavior or go in areas where their presence would be harmful to themselves or to others or would hinder their recovery.

 

In fact, I can think of few environments that are more restrictive than a hospital environment.

Edited October 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

Neither BYU Provo nor its sister institutions are the Church, as oremites has already pointed out to you. Though they are mutually supportive, they fulfill separate roles.

 

Even within the Church, there are privileges that have certain eligibility requirements. We don't let unrepentant adulterers or criminals serve as missionaries or in priesthood leadership callings. Are you going to apply your hospital analogy there as well?

 

The obsession with worthiness is amped up to the nth degree at BYU/BYUI. I'm not sure I'd compare beard wearing or kids getting to second base with adultery or criminality. Nor would I compare BYU enrollment with church leadership callings.

 

But in any case, the instinct seems to be to cast out the sinner, rather than to provide a place for healing. 

Edited October 20, 2015 by Gray

[stemelbow]

I guess I missed the part where he mentioned you. But then, I don't know your real name.

 

Are you the author of the email? That seems to be the only person he is specifically calling out.

 

The only way I can see that you have standing to object to it is if you are holding forth that people ought to be welcomed by being told that their sinful lifestyle is perfectly OK. If that doesn't apply to you, then as far as I can tell, your defensiveness is altogether unwarranted.

 

Through a lifetime in the Church, I've never had it said or even hinted at to me that my sins are perfectly OK. I wouldn't expect ever to be told such a thing. It would render the Church an empty shell with no salvific power.

Hi Scott,

he's clearly attacking many more people than just the author of the letter. I pointed out where he went after "progressive Christians". I can only assume he'd think me in that group. I've given no indication whatsoever that a sinful lifestyle is "perfectly ok". I'm not even sure what you're talking about. I quoted an exact phrase from him that I did not like and you are off on some thing else entirely.

I will say, we all sin. Thus, we're all involved in some sort of "sinful lifestyle". It's sad that so many are treated with contempt. Sure, it's true, many gay Christians read the blog that you linked and feel contempt directed right on their heads. It's too bad because the author, nor you, have any idea what it's like to walk in their shoes. It's a shame that the blog is approved of by some.

[filovirus]

The obsession with worthiness is amped up to the nth degree at BYU/BYUI. I'm not sure I'd compare beard wearing or kids getting to second base with adultery or criminality. Nor would I compare BYU enrollment with church leadership callings.

But in any case, the instinct seems to be to cast out the sinner, rather than to provide a place for healing.

From this line of thought a person should never be excommunicated from the church for sinning.

[Scott Lloyd]

The obsession with worthiness is amped up to the nth degree at BYU/BYUI. I'm not sure I'd compare beard wearing or kids getting to second base with adultery or criminality. Nor would I compare BYU enrollment with church leadership callings.

 

But in any case, the instinct seems to be to cast out the sinner, rather than to provide a place for healing. 

This ignores my argument that BYU is not the Church and that it fulfills a separate role.

 

We've been all through this in past threads. BYU has a specific mission to fulfill, and in the furtherance of its mission, it, like many other institutions, educational or otherwise, sets certain behavioral standards for enrollees, faculty and staff. Those standards are implicitly understood upfront, and people should not play the victim when they change their minds midstream about their agreement to comply with the behavioral standards.

 

Your framing this as "casting out the sinner" amounts to a rhetorical distortion of the reality. BYU is not a place for reforming sinners. It is a place for offering further education and edification to those who have prepared themselves to a certain extent.

Edited October 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Hi Scott,

he's clearly attacking many more people than just the author of the letter. I pointed out where he went after "progressive Christians". I can only assume he'd think me in that group. I've given no indication whatsoever that a sinful lifestyle is "perfectly ok". I'm not even sure what you're talking about. I quoted an exact phrase from him that I did not like and you are off on some thing else entirely.

 

Whatever his rhetoric, he has been very clear in his point: Inclusiveness in Christianity does not or should not include excusing or condoning a sinful lifestyle. If you're not disagreeing with that, then I have to say I don't understand what your beef is.  If it's just that you don't like the fact that he used the phrase "progressive Christians," then it strikes me that your objection is purely about semantics.

 

I will say, we all sin. Thus, we're all involved in some sort of "sinful lifestyle". It's sad that so many are treated with contempt. Sure, it's true, many gay Christians read the blog that you linked and feel contempt directed right on their heads. It's too bad because the author, nor you, have any idea what it's like to walk in their shoes. It's a shame that the blog is approved of by some.

 

That author does acknowledges that everyone sins, but he draws a distinction between seeking help to reform and be made whole and seeking to have one's sinful pattern of behavior excused and tolerated. Again, if you don't disagree with that premise, I don't understand your defensiveness, unless it's a semantic argument.

Edited October 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

From this line of thought a person should never be excommunicated from the church for sinning.

 

They probably shouldn't, you're right, with the exception of sexual predators, violent people, etc.

[Gray]

This ignores my argument that BYU is not the Church and that it fulfills a separate role.

 

We've been all through this in past threads. BYU has a specific mission to fulfill, and in the furtherance of that mission, it, like many other institutions, educational or otherwise, sets certain behavioral standards for enrollees, faculty and staff. Those standards are implicitly understood upfront, and people should not play the victim when they change their minds midstream about their agreement to comply with the behavioral standards.

 

Your framing this as "casting out the sinner" amounts to a rhetorical distortion of the reality. BYU is not a place for reforming sinners. It is a place for educating and edifying those who have prepared themselves to a certain extent.

 

The separate role would presumably be secular education, yes? In which case, rules on beards or the word of wisdom don't make a lot of sense. Presumably those rules are in place due to the overlapping mission with that of the church. 

 

You're right, currently BYU is not a place for reforming certain classes of sinners. As I said, they cast them out. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but as JKW pointed out, BYU as an institution doesn't seem to believe in the atonement. 

 

As far as the mission of education goes, I can't see what that would have to do with casting out certain classes of sinners. Education is education. 

Edited October 20, 2015 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

The separate role would presumably be secular education, yes?

 

Not entirely, no.

 

As I've been at pains to point out before, BYU is engaged in preparing people to go out into secular society where they bring credit to the Church and help build the Kingdom of God on earth through the expression of their talents and intellect. BYU is frustrated in that objective when a student decides he no longer wants to belong to the Church or live up to its standards.

 

 

You're right, currently BYU is not a place for reforming certain classes of sinners. As I said, they cast them out.

 

 

More like it refuses to admit them in the first place. It's a fact of life that one's behavior can make one ineligible for certain privileges.

 

 

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but as JKW pointed out, BYU as an institution doesn't seem to believe in the atonement. 

 

This is utter claptrap. You don't need to enroll at BYU to access the blessings of the Atonement.

 

And arguably, if you violate your covenants while attending BYU, you are not accessing the blessings of the Atonement.

 

 

As far as the mission of education goes, I can't see what that would have to do with casting out certain classes of sinners. Education is education. 

 

See above. Secular education of students is not the only purpose of BYU. There are plenty of other colleges and universities to choose from that do not have religious values or beliefs as an integral part of their mission. Those for whom such values and beliefs are inconvenient or intolerable are free to go elsewhere.

Edited October 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

Whatever his rhetoric, he has been very clear in his point: Inclusiveness in Christianity does not or should not include excusing or condoning a sinful lifestyle. If you're not disagreeing with that, then I have to say I don't understand what your beef is.  If it's just that you don't like the fact that he used the phrase "progressive Christians," then it strikes me that your objection is purely about semantics.

I've stated my objection and it's hardly about semantics. He's unnecessarily harsh and rude towards many people, whether gay or straight. It's not that he used the term progressive Christians, it's that he actually thinks any Christian is thinking in the way he described. I know I don't. If I don't, then who are these Progressive Christians he's after? It's not that he doesn't think gay people should be sexually active with each other. It's that he actually thinks they want to come to Christ and say they don't sin or never had sinned. His hospital analogy fails on that front. He's trying to say that because some disagree with him whether a certain act is sin or not, then these people don't accept Christ's atonement, because apparently they think they don't sin at all. That's silly. If they are Christian, they are Christian for a reason.

 

That author does acknowledges that everyone sins, but he draws a distinction between seeking help to reform and be made whole and seeking to have one's sinful pattern of behavior excused and tolerated. Again, unless you disagree with that premise, I don't understand your defensiveness, unless it's a semantic argument.

Sheesh everyone of us holds onto sins, to some extent. We just do. We don't just treat people poorly because they haven't given up on some sins. Many in the Church, I've known, over the years have felt strongly that what they do is not sin, even if it seems apparent to others. We don't treat these people so poorly that they don't feel welcome. We normally embrace them, and give them high level callings.

[Jeanne]

I read this..and physically ill by some of the comments supporting this blog/letter whatever.  It seems that to support Christianity one has to keep with a certain interpretation of the scriptures and throw intelligence out the door..mental illness???  Has anyone learned anything at all about any of this?

[bsjkki]

I've stated my objection and it's hardly about semantics. He's unnecessarily harsh and rude towards many people, whether gay or straight. It's not that he used the term progressive Christians, it's that he actually thinks any Christian is thinking in the way he described. I know I don't. If I don't, then who are these Progressive Christians he's after? It's not that he doesn't think gay people should be sexually active with each other. It's that he actually thinks they want to come to Christ and say they don't sin or never had sinned. His hospital analogy fails on that front. He's trying to say that because some disagree with him whether a certain act is sin or not, then these people don't accept Christ's atonement, because apparently they think they don't sin at all. That's silly. If they are Christian, they are Christian for a reason.

 

Sheesh everyone of us holds onto sins, to some extent. We just do. We don't just treat people poorly because they haven't given up on some sins. Many in the Church, I've known, over the years have felt strongly that what they do is not sin, even if it seems apparent to others. We don't treat these people so poorly that they don't feel welcome. We normally embrace them, and give them high level callings.

 

“Don't judge me because I sin differently from you.”  This quote from Uchtdorf is often ignored by members of the church.  We are all sinners in one form of another but we tend to categorize and rank our sins.  A simple analogy.  Is a girl who dresses immodestly a greater sinner than the ladies in the ward who gossip about it?  Where is the greater sin?  I have a hard time when arrogant, egotistical men are called to high callings in the church.  I had a stake presidency member who would cause my primary president cry because he would use his stake calling to control and bully the members of the ward cub committee.  He was later called to be a Stake President.  Humility was not an attribute he possessed.  I also know of a man who is incredibly arrogant and is "shady" in his business dealings.  He was called as a Bishop.  I guess because their sins are in how they treat others, it doesn't matter as much.  Don't send your kids to BYU or BYUI if they struggle with any aspects of the gospel.  It is an unforgiving environment to those who stumble and can effect their secular and spiritual development.  The consequenses of imperfection are too great.  There is no concern shown to those they expel and no follow up.  The secular consequences to spiritual failings overlap too much.  I am an active member of the church and I love the gospel of Jesus Christ but the church is not perfect and imperfect people make many mistakes.  

[jkwilliams]

That's a cute turn-of-phrase, but it so happens it has no relevance in this instance.

 

FWIW, it was said by a stake president, and it's always stuck with me.