Byu Honor Code Matches New Handbook

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree with the case-by-case handling bit. 

I take this to mean that you can see a situation in which a member of the church, in good standing, can be dating someone of the same gender.

Because if the answer to that is always an unequivocal no, than there really is no point in a case-by-case handling.

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

Nothing to indicate that the prior prohibition against same-sex relations has been altered.  

Nothing? 

Okay.  Nothing substantive.

Quote

What about the statements we are hearing quoted by those who speak to officers in the Honor Code Office?

Hearsay.  Meanwhile from the Honor Code Office: “Even though we have removed the more prescriptive language, the principles of the Honor Code remain the same.”

Quote

I agree there needs to be clarification, but there is definitely indications that some "same-sex relations" will no longer be prohibited on campus.   That's a change.

I disagree.  Engaging in "same-sex relations" (as in sexual acitivity) remains unequivocally prohibited.

I think the indications are that issues pertaining to "penumbra" behaviors (dating, kissing, etc.) will be shifted to the individual and his/her bishop for handling, rather than principally through the Honor Code Office.

Quote

I agree there will be no change regarding SSM (if that's what you mean by "relations"?)

"Relations" = sex.

"Penumbra behaviors" = dating, kissing, holding hands, etc.

Quote

Quote

I'm not inclined to have a public discussion about it.

Ok....interesting you choose to avoid answering,

It's an exceedingly sacred topic, one about which there is a lot of missing data, and one I therefore choose not to discuss in a public forum.

Quote

but I do understand because we honestly do not know the answers to the questions I asked.

I'm not sure that's true.

Quote

Quote

Because the evidence that same-sex relations will be ratified in the future is not only non-existent,

I'm going to disagree with you on that one.  

You cut off my statement.  Here it is: "Because the evidence that same-sex relations will be ratified in the future is not only non-existent, but plainly controverted by every piece of prophetic counsel we have received on the subject (the most obvious being the Proclamation)."

I have not seen any evidence or substantive hint or indication that same-sex relations will be ratified in the future.  I've seen some guesses and hearsay and wishful thinking, but that's about it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 27, 2020 by smac97

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I take this to mean that you can see a situation in which a member of the church, in good standing, can be dating someone of the same gender.

Essentially no.  But I think the issue is going to be handled over time by the individual and his/her bishop, rather than summarily and principally through the Honor Code Office.

Quote

Because if the answer to that is always an unequivocal no, than there really is no point in a case-by-case handling.

Issues with pornography are also handled on a case-by-case basis.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 27, 2020 by smac97

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  Nothing substantive.

Not for you maybe, but it definitely is for many.

 

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hearsay. 

Yes....but the same has been reported by many who contacted the Honor Code Office.  I think it's reasonably safe to assume that students who are gay will be allowed to openly date, hold hand, hug and kiss, without being in violation of the Honor Code.  That's a change and the entire section titled "Homosexual Behavior" has been removed and is no longer prohibited.  So that's more than just hearsay, IMO.

I do agree that there may be more clarification from the leaders and they may state the officers misunderstood.  We will see.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Relations" = sex

Thanks for clarifying.  I tend to believe we can have relationships that don't actually involve the sex act....so that was a bit confusing.  

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure that's true.

I've seen no answers given specifically regarding how procreation takes place after this life.  Do you have any quotes from our leaders regarding that?  (If not, then what I stated is the truth....we simply do not know....)

[smac97]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Quote

Okay.  Nothing substantive.

Not for you maybe, but it definitely is for many.

I disagree.  Wishful thinking is prevalent, but no substantive evidence of a material change.

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Quote

Hearsay. 

Yes....but the same has been reported by many who contacted the Honor Code Office. 

Multiple instances of hearsay.  Still hearsay.

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I think it's reasonably safe to assume that students who are gay will be allowed to openly date, hold hand, hug and kiss, without being in violation of the Honor Code. 

Hard to square that with the statement from the Honor Code Office: “Even though we have removed the more prescriptive language, the principles of the Honor Code remain the same.”

I think this issue will be addressed in an ecclesiastical setting over time, rather than principally through the Honor Code Office.

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

That's a change and the entire section titled "Homosexual Behavior" has been removed and is no longer prohibited. 

"Has been removed," yes.

"Is no longer prohibited," no.

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

So that's more than just hearsay, IMO.

Not sure what you are referencing here.

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Quote

"Relations" = sex

Thanks for clarifying.  I tend to believe we can have relationships that don't actually involve the sex act....so that was a bit confusing.  

"Relations" in this context refers to the sexual act, not the "relationship."

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Quote

Quote

but I do understand because we honestly do not know the answers to the questions I asked.

I'm not sure that's true.

I've seen no answers given specifically regarding how procreation takes place after this life. 

"Specifically?"  Okay.  

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Do you have any quotes from our leaders regarding that?  (If not, then what I stated is the truth....we simply do not know....)

Again, not willing to discuss publicly.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  Nothing substantive.

Once again, not for you....but this recent change (if true) is substantive for many.

Quote

 

sub·stan·tive

adjective

having a firm basis in reality and therefore important, meaningful, or considerable.

 

 

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Multiple instances of hearsay.  Still hearsay.

By me saying "yes", I agreed with you.  What is not hearsay is the removal of the section "Homosexual Behavior" (That's what I was referring to....).

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Has been removed," yes.

"Is no longer prohibited," no.

That's what we don't really know yet....not for sure anyway.  The statements that have been attributed to the Honor Code officers (if true), state that they are no longer prohibited.

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, not willing to discuss publicly.

Ok, I respect that.  I also believe there have been no statements from our leaders on this and none of us really knows how procreation takes place after this life.

But enough on that 

Edited February 27, 2020 by ALarson

[rockpond]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Essentially no.  But I think the issue is going to be handled over time by the individual and his/her bishop, rather than summarily and principally through the Honor Code Office.

So your anticipated "clarification" is that gay dating is still prohibited, unequivocally, but that rather than stating that in the honor code or handbook, they're going to tell each individual personally?

I'm just trying to follow the logic...

1. BYU removed prohibition of gay dating from Honor Code.
2. BYU states that questions about gay dating will be handled on a case-by-case basis.
3. So, does that mean there are situations where gay dating will be permitted?
4. No, never, but we're going to communicate that separately to each student who asks.

Does this not seem odd?

[ALarson]

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Issues with pornography are also handled on a case-by-case basis.

And pornography is still specifically named in the Honor Code as being prohibited.

Same-sex dating and the showing of public affection is no longer prohibited (according to statements attributed to Honor Code officers) and the entire section "Homosexual Behavior" that was in the Honor Code has been deleted.

(And yes...I know the statements are hearsay....but we've got many sources reporting the same thing coming from the HCO by those asking questions.  And that section is now gone from the online Honor Code)

This has also been reported by many news sources.  I know we are all waiting to see if we hear more from our leaders on this, but their silence is a bit odd, IMO.  I honestly believe they are in a really tough spot and are most likely working on something that will need to be perfectly and carefully worded.  If they come out and entirely walk this back, it will do an incredible amount of damage and undo a lot of the progress they've made regarding this issue.

Edited February 27, 2020 by ALarson

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So your anticipated "clarification" is that gay dating is still prohibited, unequivocally, but that rather than stating that in the honor code or handbook, they're going to tell each individual personally?

I think it's going to be handled individually.

It's not like the Law of Chastity is a big secret.

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm just trying to follow the logic...

1. BYU removed prohibition of gay dating from Honor Code.

And also stating that “Even though we have removed the more prescriptive language, the principles of the Honor Code remain the same.”

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

1. BYU states that questions about gay dating will be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Apparently so.

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

1. So, does that mean there are situations where gay dating will be permitted?

I doubt it.

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

1. No, never, but we're going to communicate that separately to each student who asks.

Or such matters are going to be handled individually and over time in an ecclesiastical context, rather than principally through the Honor Code Office.

BYU students can remain at BYU despite struggling with pornography, and despite that struggle being a violation of the Honor Code.  Such situations are handled on a case-by-case basis.  But I don't think anyone can seriously suggest that this means the Church is condoning or authorizing the viewing of pornography.

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Does this not seem odd?

Not really.

Clarification is in order, to be sure.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

Issues with pornography are also handled on a case-by-case basis.

And pornography is still specifically named in the Honor Code as being prohibited.

Yes.  And?

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Same-sex dating and the showing of public affection is no longer prohibited (according to statements attributed to Honor Code officers) and the entire section "Homosexual Behavior" that was in the Honor Code has been deleted.

Again, hard to square that conclusion ("no longer prohibited") with the statement from the Honor Code Office: “Even though we have removed the more prescriptive language, the principles of the Honor Code remain the same.”

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

So you think that there is a situation in which a gay member could apply the general counsel offered by the prophet and apostles and date members of the same gender while remaining in full fellowship in the church?

Of course (generally speaking!), but it also depends specifically on his pesonal definition and behavior for "date" -- hence the need for further, case-specific consideration in the event he presses for actual permission to do so, or for more clarity or explanations of the Honor Code or Law of Chastity, counsel, advice, etc. which are very much tailored to his capacities. He can get all this from the HCO for some things and his bishop for others. Which is why "group" pressing isn't very effective.

Edited February 27, 2020 by CV75

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  And?

Just contrasting that with how "Homosexual Behavior" has now been removed from the Honor Code.  (You made that comparison.)

Unless the leaders state otherwise, same-sex dating and openly showing affection are no longer prohibited for students at BYU.

Pornography is still prohibited (and was not removed from the Honor Code).

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, hard to square that conclusion ("no longer prohibited") with the statement from the Honor Code Office

You keep posting that and I get what you are saying.  But we have statements that have given us more details regarding this (yes...hearsay....but many statements and press reports saying the same thing).

We can continue to go back and forth, but we really just need to wait and see if the statements are true (or accurate) that have been reported from the officers working in the Honor Code Office.

Edited February 27, 2020 by ALarson

[smac97]

Just now, ALarson said:

Just contrasting that with how "Homosexual Behavior" has now been removed from the Honor Code.  (You made that comparison.)

Unless the leaders state otherwise, same-sex dating and openly showing affection is no longer prohibited.

I think that is a very unwarranted conclusion.  Very.

Again, from the Honor Code Office: “Even though we have removed the more prescriptive language, the principles of the Honor Code remain the same.”

Just now, ALarson said:

Pornography is still prohibited (and was not removed from the Honor Code).

You keep posting that and I get what you are saying.  But we have statements that have given us more details regarding this (yes...hearsay....but many statements and press reports saying the same thing).

Multiple instances of hearsay are still hearsay.

Just now, ALarson said:

We can continue to go back and forth, but we really just need to wait and see if the statements are true that have been reported from the officers working in the Honor Code Office.

I agree.  I'll let you have the last word if you like.

Thanks,

-Smac

[kllindley]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

BYU students can remain at BYU despite struggling with pornography, and despite that struggle being a violation of the Honor Code.  Such situations are handled on a case-by-case basis.  But I don't think anyone can seriously suggest that this means the Church is condoning or authorizing the viewing of pornography.

I agree that this is a very important point.  

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

That's why I'm asking the question... I'm seeking to understand @CV75's point that this should just be handled on a case by case basis using the general counsel from the Fifteen and that no further clarification is needed.

I said that clarification beyond what the HCO has published, and what some have reported hearing from the HCO, is needed for some in order to make a decision concerning their intentions and behavior, in which instance it is best obtained on a case-by-case basis.

Edited February 27, 2020 by CV75

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  I'll let you have the last word if you like.

Thanks....but we're good.  I think we agree that more clarification on this will be good 👍

One thing that would be interesting to know is if students have seen an increase of same-sex couples holding hands or showing affection on campus since this was announced?   If anyone has or knows a student attending there, it would be interesting to hear from them regarding that.  If they have seen an increase, it would also be interesting to hear about reactions and if these couples are being called into the Honor Code Office or if this is being allowed now.

 

[rockpond]

35 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Of course (generally speaking!), but it also depends specifically on his pesonal definition and behavior for "date" -- hence the need for further, case-specific consideration in the event he presses for actual permission to do so, or for more clarity or explanations of the Honor Code or Law of Chastity, counsel, advice, etc. which are very much tailored to his capacities. He can get all this from the HCO for some things and his bishop for others. Which is why "group" pressing isn't very effective.

If we're saying that there are cases where gay dating would be permitted, than I can accept that logic.

However, without more clarity, we'll have situations of "leadership roulette" where local leaders for some members will be totally fine with gay dating and others will instruct them to stop or face a membership council.

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, kllindley said:

Here is a very well written and thoughtful article on the situation:  https://latterdaysaintmag.com/letter-to-an-activist-byu-professor-and-those-youre-confusing/

A few relevant quotes:

I very much agree with the perspective that it is more reasonable to believe that rather than encouraging or endorsing, this represents a more personalized approach to discipleship. 

I'm surprised that the changes to the missionary standards haven't been similarly heralded as a sign of greater enlightenment.  But as Jacob explains, this has a lot more to do with the assumptions we bring to the situation than the actual facts behind the situation.  

Indeed.  I see that same dynamic playing out here.  

And finally, this:

I agree with Jacob.  I cannot believe that the prophet and apostles are endorsing the pursuit of romantic attachment that would lead precious sons and daughters of God further away from their eternal potential.  

Unfortunately, I can imagine the same kinds of concerns being felt and voiced right after the 1978 priesthood restriction was lifted, especially with respect to those who were prejudiced against interracial marriage.  Its hard for people to accept dramatic change in the moment and its only human nature to hold onto perspectives previously held.  

Edited February 27, 2020 by hope_for_things

[rockpond]

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

BYU students can remain at BYU despite struggling with pornography, and despite that struggle being a violation of the Honor Code.  Such situations are handled on a case-by-case basis.  But I don't think anyone can seriously suggest that this means the Church is condoning or authorizing the viewing of pornography.

And there is not going to be a case where a bishop tells a member that they don't need to stop using pornography.

So if, similarly, there is not going to be a case where a bishop tells a member they can continue dating someone of the same gender, than why remove it from the Honor Code?

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Unfortunately, I can imagine the same kinds of concerns being felt and voiced right after the 1978 priesthood restriction was lifted, especially with respect to those who were prejudiced against interracial marriage. 

Not really.  Honestly, I think very few Latter-day Saints are motivated by prejudice against gay people, and are instead motivated by a desire to preserve the uphold the Law of Chastity.

The Priesthood Ban seems to lack known revelatory provenance.  The same can't be said for the Law of Chastity.  Not even close.

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its hard for people to accept dramatic change in the moment and its only human nature hold onto perspectives previously held.  

Yep.  It's also hard for people to accept and follow the precepts of the Restore Gospel when doing so is socially/politically difficult or unpopular, or when it causes hurt feelings, or when it goes against one's individualized preferences and opinions, etc.

This is not the first time that the disciples of Jesus have been asked to live out-of-step with their neighbors, including those who are members of the faith.  I recognize that many things the Church of Jesus Christ teaches are difficult for its members and others to accept.  I hope each of us finds the happiness we are seeking.  That said, as much as we tend to emphasize the "love-one-another" aspect of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it's not as though everyone who has ever heard Christ's teachings did not ever have any problems with them.  Sometimes the Lord asks us to do difficult things, to accept difficult things.  Consider the Savior's "Bread of Life" sermon in John 6.  What was the result of it?

Quote

42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
...
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
...
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heardthis, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
...
66 ¶ From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Jesus Christ said something that was not popular.  Many of those who heard it "murmured at him."  Many of those who heard it "strove among themselves."  Many of those who heard it "went back, and walked no more with him."  I think we are seeing similar dynamics in today's climate.

Christ said and did things that were not well-received by the society around Him.  I'm quite okay with that.  I'm also quite okay with His servants doing the same thing.  I am of course interested in the reputation of the Church.  Our reputation affects our ability to fulfill various mandates from God, not the least of which is the Great Commission.  But preserving and ehnancing the Church's "reputation" cannot come at the expense of other mandates, such as upholding and proclaiming and teaching principles pertaining to marriage and the Law of Chastity.

Christ did not upend the moneychangers' tables in the temple because it was popular.  He did so because it was right.

Christ did not preach the "Bread of Life" sermon in John 6 because it was popular.  He did so because it was right.

Christ preached a gospel that was not going to be popular in the minds of an increasingly wicked world.  He knew that.  But He preached it anyway.  I think He knew beforehand that His message would alienate many people, including some otherwise good and decent people.  But He preached anyway.  I think He did so because those who were ready for His message needed to hear it, and needed to be gathered out of the World.  

Perhaps this is why He said: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."  

Perhaps this is why He also said (several times, actually) : "Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words."

 

There was a "sifting" in John 6.  Is there a "sifting" today?  I think so.  I am saddened by those we are losing, and I hope they eventually return.  However, I continue to be persuaded that the Church is fulfilling its divine mandates.  Not perfectly, and with plenty of stumbles and mis-steps along the way.  But the work continues forward.  I am excited about that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

For those who want to maintain that nothing has changed standards wise so that they can continue to believe that physical displays of affection are violations of God's law of chastity, I have a hard time believing that you're going to feel supported by the church moving forward on this topic, since there is nothing codified in policy, whether from the handbook or BYU honor code, to support this view explicitly.  On many other issues from our history, prohibitions around birth control, discouragement of fertility treatments, discouragement of certain sexual practices within marriage, etc.  These are all items that just got removed from the prohibitions list and now they are commonly considered Kosher by the culture even though they were never "explicitly endorsed".  I see the same thing happening here.  

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Quote

BYU students can remain at BYU despite struggling with pornography, and despite that struggle being a violation of the Honor Code.  Such situations are handled on a case-by-case basis.  But I don't think anyone can seriously suggest that this means the Church is condoning or authorizing the viewing of pornography.

And there is not going to be a case where a bishop tells a member that they don't need to stop using pornography.

Pretty much.  

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So if, similarly, there is not going to be a case where a bishop tells a member they can continue dating someone of the same gender, than why remove it from the Honor Code?

I don't know.  I've not been a party to the internal decision-making processes at BYU.  But I am proceeding on the idea that "the principles of the Honor Code remain the same," and that the Church has likely not resorted to "back door" re-workings of substantial and important policies (such revising the Law of Chastity so as to authorize same-sex "penumbra" behaviors by members of the Church).

I think the clarification is coming. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

If the “principles ... remain the same” as they were in the previous iteration of the Honor Code, then one might expect that a bishop or whoever handles instances “on a case-by-case” basis will be guided by those principles even though they are no longer as explicitly stated as before. 
 

I agree that the pornography analogy is a good one: It is handled case by case, but that doesn’t mean implicit approval of pornography consumption. 
 

Likewise, those who infer from the recent change that romantic expression of homosexual attraction is now approved  are misguided in their inference. 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

For those who want to maintain that nothing has changed standards wise so that they can continue to believe that physical displays of affection are violations of God's law of chastity, I have a hard time believing that you're going to feel supported by the church moving forward on this topic, since there is nothing codified in policy, whether from the handbook or BYU honor code, to support this view explicitly. 

Nor is there an "explicit" prohibition against a married man kissing / dating / holding hands with someone other than his wife.  I am reminded here of D&C 58:26-27:

Quote

26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness.

My perspective on this issue is informed by huge amounts of precedent set by the Church.  I think the idea that the Church has substantially revised its approach to the Law of Chastity so as to authorize same-sex "penumbra" behaviors is . . . unlikely.

I guess we'll see.

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

On many other issues from our history, prohibitions around birth control, discouragement of fertility treatments, discouragement of certain sexual practices within marriage, etc.  These are all items that just got removed from the prohibitions list and now they are commonly considered Kosher by the culture even though they were never "explicitly endorsed".  I see the same thing happening here.  

I don't.  I think the prohibition against same-sex relations (and likely its associated "penumbra" behaviors) is pretty much categorical.  As much as are the prohibitions againt adultery and fornication.  Has the Church acquiesced to social norms about these?  Nope.

Again, I guess we'll see.  I hope the clarification comes soon.  I am concerned that this issue has, for some, become a litmus test.  The ambiguity about the changes to the Honor Code is, I fear, fomenting a lot of wishful thinking in some quarters.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

 

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not really.  Honestly, I think very few Latter-day Saints are motivated by prejudice against gay people, and are instead motivated by a desire to preserve the uphold the Law of Chastity.

The Priesthood Ban seems to lack known revelatory provenance.  The same can't be said for the Law of Chastity.  Not even close.

Yep.  It's also hard for people to accept and follow the precepts of the Restore Gospel when doing so is socially/politically difficult or unpopular, or when it causes hurt feelings, or when it goes against one's individualized preferences and opinions, etc.

This is not the first time that the disciples of Jesus have been asked to live out-of-step with their neighbors, including those who are members of the faith.  I recognize that many things the Church of Jesus Christ teaches are difficult for its members and others to accept.  I hope each of us finds the happiness we are seeking.  That said, as much as we tend to emphasize the "love-one-another" aspect of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it's not as though everyone who has ever heard Christ's teachings did not ever have any problems with them.  Sometimes the Lord asks us to do difficult things, to accept difficult things.  Consider the Savior's "Bread of Life" sermon in John 6.  What was the result of it?

Jesus Christ said something that was not popular.  Many of those who heard it "murmured at him."  Many of those who heard it "strove among themselves."  Many of those who heard it "went back, and walked no more with him."  I think we are seeing similar dynamics in today's climate.

Christ said and did things that were not well-received by the society around Him.  I'm quite okay with that.  I'm also quite okay with His servants doing the same thing.  I am of course interested in the reputation of the Church.  Our reputation affects our ability to fulfill various mandates from God, not the least of which is the Great Commission.  But preserving and ehnancing the Church's "reputation" cannot come at the expense of other mandates, such as upholding and proclaiming and teaching principles pertaining to marriage and the Law of Chastity.

Christ did not upend the moneychangers' tables in the temple because it was popular.  He did so because it was right.

Christ did not preach the "Bread of Life" sermon in John 6 because it was popular.  He did so because it was right.

Christ preached a gospel that was not going to be popular in the minds of an increasingly wicked world.  He knew that.  But He preached it anyway.  I think He knew beforehand that His message would alienate many people, including some otherwise good and decent people.  But He preached anyway.  I think He did so because those who were ready for His message needed to hear it, and needed to be gathered out of the World.  

Perhaps this is why He said: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."  

Perhaps this is why He also said (several times, actually) : "Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words."

 

There was a "sifting" in John 6.  Is there a "sifting" today?  I think so.  I am saddened by those we are losing, and I hope they eventually return.  However, I continue to be persuaded that the Church is fulfilling its divine mandates.  Not perfectly, and with plenty of stumbles and mis-steps along the way.  But the work continues forward.  I am excited about that.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't see any significant differences.  People have used scriptures and statements from leaders to support other prejudices throughout time, including slavery and interracial marriage.  Thats why I brought that particular example up because its no longer considered taboo in Mormon culture, yet there were church leaders who felt that it wasn't ordained of God, even after the priesthood and temple bans were done away with.  From my vantage point, we're seeing a similar expression of prejudice today after the BYU honor code change.