The November policy change was reaffirmed as revelation in the Oct. Ensign

[cdowis]

13 hours ago, rockpond said:

Not entirely the same:  In places where polygamy is legal, children of polygamous parents may be baptized.

You are mistaken.  If this has been done without FP permission,  it was done in opposition to church policy which makes no exception.

Edited October 2, 2016 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

13 hours ago, rockpond said:

You are correct... the Brethren don't really use common consent anymore.  They only ask for sustaining of callings and not for "policies, major decisions, acceptance of new scripture, and other things that affect the lives of the Saints" as is required.

The Church is not a democracy.

[omni]

13 hours ago, cdowis said:

Simple, your question is based on the assumption that you know  that God gives detailed instructions DAILY to the leaders of the church, and you are aware of His plans and thoughts.  In your world, simply waiting is unacceptable in your view of how God works.

Are you saying you don't believe God's will is communicated daily through his prophets?  What about monthly?  Yearly?

I'll ask you the same question, why did it take the Lord so long to reveal the policy to the brethren?

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, omni said:

Are you saying you don't believe God's will is communicated daily through his prophets?  What about monthly?  Yearly?

I'll ask you the same question, why did it take the Lord so long to reveal the policy to the brethren?

I am saying that revelation comes in many forms.  Elder Bednar explains  

 

[Glenn101]

17 hours ago, rockpond said:

Handbook 1

 

16.3.9

Children Whose Parents Have Practiced or Are Practicing Plural Marriage Children of parents who have practiced or are practicing plural marriage contrary to the law must receive approval from the First Presidency before they may be baptized and confirmed. The mission president may request this approval from the Office of the First Presidency when he is satisfied that all three of the following requirements are met: 1.  The children accept the teachings and doctrines of the Church. 2.  The children repudiate the teachings upon which their parents based their practice of plural marriage. 3.  Minor children are not living in a home where polygamy is being taught or practiced.

Have to agree with rockpond on the distinction about where it is illegal. A minor distinction but real.

Glenn

Edited October 2, 2016 by Glenn101

[rongo]

9 hours ago, rockpond said:

1.  Do you have a reference for teams saying that playing BYU is forcing them to accept BYU's honor code?  Because the way I understood it is that other schools don't want to be associated (even through sports) with a university that discriminates in that manner. 

I was responding to your question about whether schools should be forced to accept and adopt our honor code, which you asked in response to me pointing out that there is a movement afoot to make it so nobody will play BYU. Of course I don't have a reference for anybody saying that playing BYU is forcing them to accept BYU's honor code. That is an absurd statement, and I was pointing out the absurdity of arguing that it does. The argument, as you point out, is that people and schools don't want to associate with BYU, and truth be told, they want it to wither and die away, which is the goal with embargo/boycott tactics.

2.  Why can't other schools live their standards, including refusal to associate with universities that operate contrary to their missions and values?  Isn't that a freedom we should honor in the same way we want our religious freedom respected?

They can, and I've never said they couldn't. I hope they are unsuccessful in forcing us to not be able to live ours. Do you hope they "win out?". 

3.  Let's say it is an attempt to force BYU to change its standards.  How is it materially different than the church attempting to enforce its standards of marriage on the general public?

For one thing, the boycott/embargo campaign is seeking to have BYU drop homosexual acts in toto from the honor code. This is a far further reach than the Church merely seeking to retain the traditional definition of marriage. The Church has never sought to force non-Mormons not to be able to practice homosexuality.

 

[california boy]

I thought this law just signed by the governor of California relates to what you are talking about.

CA Gov. Jerry Brown Signs Law to Protect LGBT Students at Private Universities

 

Quote

 

California Governor Jerry Brown on Friday signed Senate Bill 1146, which had been fiercely opposed by right-wing activists in a campaign targeting lawmakers with emails and protest, funded to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Read the bill here.

Equality California reports:

The bill requires private universities receiving public funds to publicly disclose if they discriminate against students with respect to gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation. Senate Bill 1146 requires universities that are granted a Title IX exemption to notify the California Student Aid Commission and disseminate the information to students and staff.

The bill was introduced by Senator Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) and sponsored by Equality California.

Said Lara in a press release:

“No university should have a license to discriminate, especially those receiving state funds. Those that do will now have to inform incoming students of their Title 9 exemption. This law represents a critical first step in the ongoing efforts to protect students from discrimination for living their truths or loving openly.”

Equality California adds:

At the federal level, Title IX prohibits discrimination based on gender, including sexual orientation and gender identity, in education programs and activities that receive federal funding. However, if a university believes compliance with Title IX would conflict with its religion it may submit an exemption request to the U.S. Department of Education. The department has very little discretion and most requests are granted.

Many students are unaware of the exemption and what the potential consequences might be in the event their sexual orientation or gender identity does not align with the university’s discriminatory policies. Students and staff across the country have reported learning of an exemption only after being expelled from school or fired from their jobs. Over the last three years there has been a significant increase in the number of universities that apply for and receive an exemption to Title IX. Only one school was granted an exemption in 2013. Today, some 43 schools nationally have received exemptions, with at least six of them in California. Currently, universities that have Title IX exemptions do not have to disclose them to students or staff.

Said Equality California executive director Rick Zbur: “The public needs to know which schools have licenses to discriminate against LGBT people and to ignore California’s civil rights protections. This law will give fair warning to students, staff and faculty members before they accept enrollment or employment at a university with a license to discriminate.”

He added:

“What opponents of this bill try to hide from the public and the press is that SB 1146 applies only to private colleges that use taxpayer dollars. It is the longstanding policy and law of the state of California that state taxpayer dollars cannot be used to discriminate against LGBT people. If these colleges and universities want to continue to discriminate against LGBT students and employees, with cruel and harsh consequences for their lives, they should not expect California taxpayers to fund it.”

The law will take effect on January 1.

 

Seems like a fair law.  I am a bit puzzled by right wing groups opposing it.  Why would they?  Doesn't warning LGBT students that the school discriminates against them would be a good thing so that there is no misunderstanding?

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

I thought this law just signed by the governor of California relates to what you are talking about.

It sure does. Thanks for posting it. 

I'm admittedly unfamiliar with California's private universities. I'm assuming that Cal-Berkley and Stanford are already okay with the boycott/embargo pressure groups . . .  What other universities are in the gunsights? Whittier (President Nixon's alma mater, and a Quaker college)? Pepperdine (I think it's affiliated with the Campbellites of early Mormonism fame)? 

What schools are specifically targeted by this legislation?

Seems like a fair law.  I am a bit puzzled by right wing groups opposing it.  Why would they?  Doesn't warning LGBT students that the school discriminates against them would be a good thing so that there is no misunderstanding?

I think it's because we all know that it isn't just about "full disclosure for an informed decision." It's a salvo in bringing out-of-favor schools to their knees.

I found this quote from a bill supporter interesting:

“No university should have a license to discriminate, especially those receiving state funds. 

This sounds to me that the drums wouldn't stop beating for, say, BYU, even if it no longer received Pell or state grants. That is, completely severing itself from government funding wouldn't stop the python from tightening the coils.

[rongo]

Maybe BYU is going to have to have a label on everything that says, "This school is known to the state of California to discriminate against LGBT." 

[thesometimesaint]

Pell Grants go to the student not the school.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said:

Pell Grants go to the student not the school.

I think it's a distinction without a difference. Maybe in a legalistic, attorney way. My wife's Pell Grant goes directly to her school, and then she gets what is left over after tuition and books. 

Even if, legally speaking, Pell Grants "go to the student, not the school," I'm pretty sure that LGBT advocates want to make it so that students at discriminating schools can't get them.

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Pell Grants go to the student not the school.

That's not hoe Pell grants work

[california boy]

23 hours ago, rongo said:

Actually, if I were a betting man, I would lay even odds or even bet that you are right. I wouldn't be surprised to see this policy overturned, and it wouldn't bother me if it were ---- it would just look bad from beginning to end (secret, quiet handbook update, leak, priesthood leader letter, President Nelson's talk, controversy over it, [hypothetical revocation of the policy]. Just very ham-handed.

Our history is one of eventual accommodation (priesthood ban, polygamy, etc.) when faced with withering social condemnation. And I think the condemnation over perceived LGBT discrimination will make past pressure look like a Sunday picnic. What would be harder for me is full acceptance of homosexuality and gay marriage in the Church.

It would break my heart if the Church caved on this issue (if it de-"criminalized" homosexuality in the Church, accepted gay marriage, etc.). No, I wouldn't leave the Church over it. 

To answer your question: yes, I can see where people are coming from when they are thrown into faith crisis over trusting Church leaders, given how current declarations disavow past ones (and past ones that were vociferously expressed). I believe that the Brethren hold and exercise all priesthood keys, and I believe in the Restoration and all that entails, but I can see why some good people are bothered by our history.

And, I hope you can feel my love and respect for you, california boy. We don't see this issue the same way, but I think we both can see why we each think the way we do.

I really want to thank you for this post.  It really helps me understand how modern Mormons view revelation.  Before I jump into any false conclusions, can I ask if you think the November policy was a revelation from God?  And if you do, can you explain how you are ok with a revelation from God changing in a couple of years.  Do you view revelation as much more fluid than say tablets carved in stone.  

And thank you for trying to understand another view point.  I am trying to do the same when I post here.  I admit, sometimes I fail miserably.

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

Before I jump into any false conclusions, can I ask if you think the November policy was a revelation from God?

I think there is a difference between Revelation and revelation. I find in my own life that the times when I feel God powerfully speaking to me are not commonplace --- they are special experiences, but they don't grow on trees. At other times (more frequently), I try to discern God's will and, not discerning it unmistakably, do the best I can.

If I do not know the will of my Father, and what He requires of me in a certain transaction, if I ask Him to give me wisdom concerning any requirement in life, or in regard to my own course, or that of my friends, my family, my children, or those that I preside over, and get no answer from Him, and then do the very best that my judgment will teach me, He is bound to own and honor that transaction, and He will do so to all intents and purposes. (Brigham Young, February 17, 1856. Journal of Discourses 3:205).

Often, revelation is more like this, and I personally think that the November revelation falls into this category --- that is, men who hold keys seek divine guidance, do their best, and move forward. 

To me, it was a revelation because it came from men I believe possess and are authorized to exercise all priesthood keys. The manner in which it was communicated left somewhat to be desired.

And if you do, can you explain how you are ok with a revelation from God changing in a couple of years.  Do you view revelation as much more fluid than say tablets carved in stone.

I would prefer that revelation not have a whiplash element to it. If it changes frequently, whiplash-fashion, I think that could tend to undermine faith.  

[rongo]

53 minutes ago, rongo said:

 What other universities are in the gunsights? . . . Pepperdine (I think it's affiliated with the Campbellites of early Mormonism fame)? 

Pepperdine has some LGBTsplaining to do:

https://www.pepperdine.edu/admission/student-life/policies/code-of-conduct.htm  (#18)

Sexual activity outside a marriage between husband and wife including, but not limited to, premarital, extramarital or homosexual conduct. See the policy statement on Sexual Relationships for more information.

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Have to agree with rockpond on the distinction about where it is illegal. A minor distinction but real.

Glenn

Thanks.  I was looking at an older edition of the Handbook.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Have to agree with rockpond on the distinction about where it is illegal. A minor distinction but real.

Glenn

So the question comes to mind then: Why the distinction?

I have my own theory, but I'll wait to see how others respond before expressing it.

 

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So the question comes to mind then: Why the distinction?

I have my own theory, but I'll wait to see how others respond before expressing it.

 

Why? Why not bat lead-off and give your theory first?

[rockpond]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

Is there someplace it specifically discusses what takes place where it is legal as opposed to discussing where it is illegal?  Logically speaking, from the language used in the latter, one cannot assume those are not requirements for where it is legal.  That would be, I believe, "inversion".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition

No, there isn't. So in the way the handbook is written, that leaves children of legal plural marriages subject only to the usual baptismal provisions. 

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, cdowis said:

You are mistaken.  If this has been done without FP permission,  it was done in opposition to church policy which makes no exception.

On what am I mistaken?   We aren't discussing the rightness/wrongness of plural marriage, we're discussing the baptism of the sinless children of those union. 

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

The Church is not a democracy.

I didn't say it was.  But we are bound to the law of common consent... or at least we are supposed to be (though we aren't fully following it these days). 

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

I was responding to your question about whether schools should be forced to accept and adopt our honor code, which you asked in response to me pointing out that there is a movement afoot to make it so nobody will play BYU. Of course I don't have a reference for anybody saying that playing BYU is forcing them to accept BYU's honor code. That is an absurd statement, and I was pointing out the absurdity of arguing that it does. The argument, as you point out, is that people and schools don't want to associate with BYU, and truth be told, they want it to wither and die away, which is the goal with embargo/boycott tactics.

 

 

They can, and I've never said they couldn't. I hope they are unsuccessful in forcing us to not be able to live ours. Do you hope they "win out?". 

 

 

For one thing, the boycott/embargo campaign is seeking to have BYU drop homosexual acts in toto from the honor code. This is a far further reach than the Church merely seeking to retain the traditional definition of marriage. The Church has never sought to force non-Mormons not to be able to practice homosexuality.

 

 No, I don't hope they win out. 

I think that if we are going to compare "reach" of what schools are attempting to do through advocacy against BYU vs the reach of what the Church has tried to do with respect to gay marriage... the Church had a far greater reach with their efforts to deny civil rights.  

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So the question comes to mind then: Why the distinction?

I have my own theory, but I'll wait to see how others respond before expressing it.

 

Odd that you wouldn't just give your theory.  But okay...

Plural marriage is still part of our doctrine. Gay marriage isn't. 

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, rongo said:

Why? Why not bat lead-off and give your theory first?

Because somebody might express my thoughts eloquently enough that I don't have to. Or somebody might say something that causes me to rethink my theory.

Does that bother you?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

Thanks.  I was looking at an older edition of the Handbook.

How did the wording differ in the older edition?