BYU now a target for LGBT groups

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

See C02, above.

Standing for Christ is one thing.  Denying equal rights to those who don't believe as you do, is something else.

[rongo]

17 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I can't cite [a claimed divine mandate], can you?

Elder Perry told a gathered group of bishops and stake presidencies in Tempe, AZ in 2009 that God told them to do what they did in California, how they did it. This, in response to a question of why the Church campaigned so heavily in CA, AZ, and FL in 2008 (all successful), but not in Maine, Mass., or Denmark. 

His answer was essentially "you have to pick your battles" (CA, AZ, and FL were winnable due to Church presence in ways that other venues weren't, and in fact Church involvement would have hurt), but he emphasized strongly that God forcefully told the united 15 apostles, ratified by the quorums of the 70, to go all out in California at that time in that way. Interestingly, he also said in 2009 that they fully expected the U.S. Supreme Court to ultimately overturn this, but did it because God told them to do it then. His view was that important hearts and minds were won with the Church's stand there that will reap dividends in the future, even as the world continues to spiral downward and we are castigated for it. 

Even if BYU is excluded from the Big 12 over this, the fact that we are alone on an island taking a stand (Baylor capitulated in 2014, and Notre Dame has abandoned most of its Catholic principles) will be important to people who will matter. Only tiny Campbell College and BYU refuse to play on Sundays, and this is noticed by people who wish their churches stood for their principles.

Edited August 10, 2016 by rongo

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

Elder Perry told a gathered group of bishops and stake presidencies in Tempe, AZ in 2009 that God told them to do what they did in California, how they did it. This, in response to a question of why the Church campaigned so heavily in CA, AZ, and FL in 2008 (all successful), but not in Maine, Mass., or Denmark. 

His answer was essentially "you have to pick your battles" (CA, AZ, and FL were winnable due to Church presence in ways that other venues weren't, and in fact Church involvement would have hurt), but he emphasized strongly that God forcefully told the united 15 apostles, ratified by the quorums of the 70, to go all out in California at that time in that way. Interestingly, he also said in 2009 that they fully expected the U.S. Supreme Court to ultimately overturn this, but did it because God told them to do it then. His view was that important hearts and minds were won with the Church's stand there that will reap dividends in the future, even as the world continues to spiral downward and we are castigated for it. 

Even if BYU is excluded from the Big 12 over this, the fact that we are alone on an island taking a stand (Baylor capitulated in 2014, and Notre Dame has abandoned most of its Catholic principles) will be important to people who will matter. Only tiny Campbell College and BYU refuse to play on Sundays, and this is noticed by people who wish their churches stood for their principles.

Where is that published?

[rongo]

You'll have to take my word for it. I was present. 

[USU78]

5 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Guess what?  You don't get to call anything imperfect.  I may be deaf but I am perfect to the people who love me..Gays may be gay...oh my..but there are so many gays and/or as you say imperfect people who know how to give..how to share and learn and grow and enjoy this awful imperfect world.  And this "no longer MORMON" believes everyone...absolutely everyone has value.  There are sins that can be validated ..like lying..murder etc..But those who know how to love unconditionally..There is nothing wrong with them.  The church could learn a lot from so many.

I don't get to what?  If an organism fails to behave as it is designed to behave, it has something wrong with it.  It is imperfect whether it behaves properly or not, but when it behaves improperly, it is not being judgmental to describe its imperfection.  That is what we call observation.

A desire not to self-thwart the desire to behave improperly is as good a definition of sin as I can think of.  And refusing to accept one's own imperfection is arrogance.

I have no desire to be dominated by the arrogant, but at the same time I am ever bowled over by the imperfect who, despite their imperfections, create beauty in a too often ugly telstial world.

Are you saying I have to celebrate the imperfect arrogant who chooses to define himself by his imperfection, claiming it is not an imperfection?

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

I don't get to what?  If an organism fails to behave as it is designed to behave, it has something wrong with it.  It is imperfect whether it behaves properly or not, but when it behaves improperly, it is not being judgmental to describe its imperfection.  That is what we call observation.

A desire not to self-thwart the desire to behave improperly is as good a definition of sin as I can think of.  And refusing to accept one's own imperfection is arrogance.

I have no desire to be dominated by the arrogant, but at the same time I am ever bowled over by the imperfect who, despite their imperfections, create beauty in a too often ugly telstial world.

Are you saying I have to celebrate the imperfect arrogant who chooses to define himself by his imperfection, claiming it is not an imperfection?

If tolerance is a disease...you are quite healthy dear. 

[Avatar4321]

On 8/9/2016 at 10:12 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

BYU and the Church are entitled to their respective Standards and Honor Code...no one is taking those away from them.  But what they are not immune from are the consequences of their honor code.  Society has moved on, BYU and the church have chosen not to and that's just fine...they don't need to...but its kind of silly for BYU to believe that there won't be consequences for holding to a standard that society has rejected.

Society has a way of holding those who refuse to adapt to the societal evolutionary curve accountable and should the Big 12 not extend an invitation to BYU...I would suggest that the Y just get use to it because it won't be the last time that BYU will pay a price for holding firm to their Honor Code.  But just imagine all the mileage within the church that BYU will get out of playing the persecution card.  Its really a win win situation isn't it?

Society has moved on? Seems like it's in the same backward sinful state it's always been In.

[bluebell]

17 hours ago, rockpond said:

Excellent point.  And ditto for polygamy which was ended specifically because it was going to cause the church to be decimated (per OD1). 

That's a good point.  Of course, polygamy ending was not against the morals the church had been espousing, and the church accepting SSM would be, so maybe not exactly the same situation, but still a good point.

[Avatar4321]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Standing for Christ is one thing.  Denying equal rights to those who don't believe as you do, is something else.

So why do you support denying equal rights to byu for believing differently?

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

You'll have to take my word for it. I was present. 

Interesting that a revelation of that importance, regarding an issue that controversial, was kept to a small group of bishops and stake presidents in Tempe.

Then again, it sounds similar to the claimed revelation behind the November policy.

I guess these days God just wants to keep his revelations known to a select few men.

[USU78]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Standing for Christ is one thing.  Denying equal rights to those who don't believe as you do, is something else.

Yes, I'm quite familiar with the socialist adverturists' argument.  It means no more to me than you probably imagine it does.

[USU78]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Interesting that a revelation of that importance, regarding an issue that controversial, was kept to a small group of bishops and stake presidents in Tempe.

Then again, it sounds similar to the claimed revelation behind the November policy.

I guess these days God just wants to keep his revelations known to a select few men.

Need to know.  Though it was hardly secret.  The Mormon net was buzzing with the news.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That's a good point.  Of course, polygamy ending was not against the morals the church had been espousing, and the church accepting SSM would be, so maybe not exactly the same situation, but still a good point.

Actually, ending the practice of polygamy was against the morals that the church had been espousing at the time.  You might want to re-read the Journal of Discourses and John Taylor's revelation on the matter.

No worries, thought, we'll find a way to incorporate SSM and disavow past teachings prohibiting it just as we have with other issues.

[USU78]

11 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

If tolerance is a disease...you are quite healthy dear. 

If tolerance is empty-headed, cowardly kowtowing to the bullying of the unscrupulous  ...  then I would tend to agree.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

So why do you support denying equal rights to byu for believing differently?

I don't.  What gave you the impression that I did?

I've said, a number of times on this thread, that I don't agree with or support the efforts of the LGBT advocacy groups that are campaigning against BYU's entry into the Big 12.

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

If tolerance is empty-headed, cowardly kowtowing to the bullying of the unscrupulous  ...  then I would tend to agree.

Actually, I want to apologize.  I am not rescinding anything in the above post, but I don't want to get the level that our conversation is heading.  You and I have different takes and worldview obviously..but hopefully we can call a truce with some much needed respect.  Just know that I have already been in your shoes in belief..I have also walked out the doors and seen a world that though imperfect..has so many redeeming qualities.  Peace to you.

[USU78]

3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Actually, I want to apologize.  I am not rescinding anything in the above post, but I don't want to get the level that our conversation is heading.  You and I have different takes and worldview obviously..but hopefully we can call a truce with some much needed respect.  Just know that I have already been in your shoes in belief..I have also walked out the doors and seen a world that though imperfect..has so many redeeming qualities.  Peace to you.

Same to you, sweetie!

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Actually, ending the practice of polygamy was against the morals that the church had been espousing at the time.  You might want to re-read the Journal of Discourses and John Taylor's revelation on the matter.

No worries, thought, we'll find a way to incorporate SSM and disavow past teachings prohibiting it just as we have with other issues.

What i was referring to is that monogamy is not against the doctrines of the church so doctrine that only accepts monogamy isn't embracing anything the church used to teach as sinful.  I know that ending polygamy was a big deal.  It's way messier with SSM though.  You are taking an action that is specifically taught as being immoral and saying that the church is now going to accept a previously sinful act.

But i get your point (even if i do disagree with your last statement).

[Avatar4321]

21 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Interesting that a revelation of that importance, regarding an issue that controversial, was kept to a small group of bishops and stake presidents in Tempe.

Then again, it sounds similar to the claimed revelation behind the November policy.

I guess these days God just wants to keep his revelations known to a select few men.

Get in touch with the Spirit and the Lord might share more with you too

[Avatar4321]

17 minutes ago, USU78 said:

If tolerance is empty-headed, cowardly kowtowing to the bullying of the unscrupulous  ...  then I would tend to agree.

It's not though. So why should we give in to bullying?

[Avatar4321]

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't.  What gave you the impression that I did?

I've said, a number of times on this thread, that I don't agree with or support the efforts of the LGBT advocacy groups that are campaigning against BYU's entry into the Big 12.

Then stop arguing for it

[rockpond]

31 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Get in touch with the Spirit and the Lord might share more with you too

I am (notwithstanding your exercise of unrighteous dominion in judging my spirituality) and He has.

[rockpond]

31 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Then stop arguing for it

I haven't argued for it.

[Johnnie Cake]

3 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Society has moved on? Seems like it's in the same backward sinful state it's always been In.

Quote

"What many people call sin is not sin" - Joseph Smith

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

15 hours ago, Gray said:

If sexual orientation is so fluid...

But sexual orientation isn't fluid. That's the whole point of it. As I stated above, once 'one embraces the concept of sexual orientation, one has automatically embraced the notion of its immutability'. This is one of the reasons why the propagation of sexual orientation/identity has had such an impact in Western and Western-influenced societies over the past 140 years.

In stark contrast, only 30 years ago, many societies along the southern coast of New Guinea engaged in distinctively 'Melanesian' expressions of sexuality. Men and boys lived in men's compounds whilst women, girls and small children lived in women's compounds. Unmarried males in the former were initiated through an elaborate complex of myth and ritual into the importance of ingesting semen so that they too would one day be capable of fathering children. In addition to initiating younger males into potent manhood, married men also visited their wives in the women's compounds specifically for the purposes of reproduction.

Here we have sexual expression which was (1) not overly sexualised, it being primarily based on duty; (2) clearly not gendered in any way, intercourse with both males and females being necessary for the survival of the species; and (3) not immutable. This last point becomes obvious when one considers that this constellation of sexual behaviour has virtually completely disappeared from the New Guinea coast -- and did so in the space of only a few years -- as a consequence of the preaching of Christian missionaries. The change has been so thorough that younger people from these societies -- who now live in nuclear families, with sexual behaviour restricted to monogamous married couples -- when confronted with ethnographic descriptions from just a few decades ago, have sometimes refused to believe what they have read until it has been confirmed for them by their parents and grandparents.

Edited August 11, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan