Jump to content

Byu Honor Code Matches New Handbook


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, ALarson said:

Smac (and maybe others including the honor code section above) have used "homosexual relations" or "same-sex relations" to mean sexual intercourse.

 

The Handbook also refers to same sex activity and same sex attraction, so it appears to mean that same sex activity refers to more than just sexual intercourse and such may prevent an individual from going on a mission...which places such in the context of sin, does it not?  Section 24.5.2 is headed "Worthiness" and deals with  sins, repentance, and confessions.

Quote

24.5.2.3

Same Sex Activity

A recommendation for a candidate who has participated in same-sex activity during or after the last three teenage years will be reviewed by the Missionary Department.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/24-preparing-and-recommending-missionaries?lang=eng

Edited by Calm
Link to post
  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Permit me to share a little personal experience that might bring some insight into this policy change. When I came out to my bishop, I had quite a lengthy conversation with him on how I could nav

I spoke to a Mother last night (at a social gathering) who has a son who is gay.  I knew him growing up and he was and is just an incredible young man who was raised in a very strong LDS home with a l

If the intent of Church leaders was not to start allowing gay couples to (heaven forbid) hold hands, hug and kiss, it is pretty irresponsible of the Church leaders to let this wild fire continue for d

Posted Images

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Word of Wisdom has some "bright line" elements, but in the main it is a "balancing test."  Would you agree with that?  For example, tobacco is specifically prohibited in the Word of Wisdom ("bright line rule"), whereas heroin and cocaine are prohibited by construing it ("balancing test").

I guess my question is whether the Law of Chastity operates in the same way.  It has some "bright line" elements, but in the main it is a "balancing test."  For example, adultery, fornication, and same-sex relations are clearly prohibited in the Law of Chastity ("bright line rule"), whereas inappropriate touching, etc. are prohibited by construing it ("balancing test").

Seems to me most commandments are handled this way by the Church.

  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The myriad examples of jumping-to-unwarranted-conclusions we've seen in this thread is a symptom of the impatience borne of our overly-connected world.  

It was more than just jumping though...people were calling the HCO and being told by someone(s) it was okay.

And while I approve of patience and expected clarification myself, I find it highly problematic that there was nothing from BYU saying 'we are seeking clarification, please do not speculate or make assumptions of changes based on current phrasing'.

  • Like 2
Link to post
5 hours ago, rockpond said:

If you are married and want to argue that fidelity to your spouse means that you can kiss someone else, I guess you could try that.  But I would advise against it.

That's very good advice. Thank you. I genuinely appreciate it when people care enough about me to give me counsel that is in harmony with -- and demonstrates respect for -- the Law of Chastity in its entirety. Imagine what harm we could do to young people by suggesting to them that, just because it is not spelt out in the Handbook, Church leaders have no objection to romantically holding hands with another person's spouse! 

  • Like 3
Link to post
5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

That's very good advice. Thank you. I genuinely appreciate it when people care enough about me to give me counsel that is in harmony with -- and demonstrates respect for -- the Law of Chastity in its entirety. Imagine what harm we could do to young people by suggesting to them that, just because it is not spelt out in the Handbook, Church leaders have no objection to romantically holding hands with another person's spouse! 

Has anyone here done that?

Link to post
3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Has anyone here done that?

Exactly that? No. That's why I used the word imagine.

Link to post

My thoughts:,

BYU is a church-owned school that seeks a) to reflect and even promote the values and beliefs of the church that owns it, while b) also simultaneously striving to be a place of academia…  “the pursuit of research, education, and scholarship.”  Even during my time there, professors walked a fine line between promoting the pursuit of knowledge using the scientific method vs. ‘knowledge’ gained through the process of revelation, which were sometimes at odds with each other. 

In my life, organic evolution was a prime example in of this dichotomy; 25 years ago, as a recently-returned missionary staunchly defensive of my own indoctrination of Bruce R. McConkie’s condemnation of evolution as the means of creation of mankind, I recall meeting with one of my biology professors at the Y to discuss my concerns about how his teachings in class supported evolution.  My biology professor patiently listened to (what I now view as) my own overly-zealous objections to his teaching of ‘the scientific method,’ and gently explained to me that in his experience from many discussions with his fellow professors, within the teaching department at BYU, there was no doubt that organic evolution was real, but that despite the insistence of many general authorities’ absolute condemnations of evolution as a means of creation for mankind (indeed, as contrary to the gospel itself), each of the professors found a way to both incorporate and reconcile the undisputable scientific realities of evolution with their Faith in such a way that both their faith in ‘the gospel’ and their acceptance of organic evolution existed side-by-side.  He gave me a pamphlet on evolution that quoted many previous LDS leaders’ teachings on evolution, but carefully explained—even rationalized—why and how those quotes could be taken in context of the time they were shared, yet still could be seen as not conflicting with what he clearly believed to be demonstrably, scientifically real: the reality that all life on earth, including humans, evolved from other, less-complex forms of life.  This utterly challenged my Faith in the gospel; after all, if life evolved from other, less-complex forms of life, how did Adam and Eve come to exist?  How could the account of the creation and fall as related in the temple endowment, which I had sat through countless times and was integral to my Faith in the church, be ‘true’?  This professor, whom I had come to greatly respect, patiently took the time to explain how the temple was symbolic; how he believed the temple account of Adam and Eve was a symbolic representation of the covenants that all were making (as, indeed, the temple itself even alluded to), but wasn’t a historical or scientific explanation of how life actually began on earth.

What relevance does this have with this discussion about LGBT issues at the Y?  Well, again… BYU seeks to be both a reflection of the values and beliefs of the church that founded it, while simultaneously being a place of academia.  It’s unique in the culture of the LDS Faith, in that as an educational and professional institution, it relies on being viewed as a credible source of learning and scholarship.  It strives, even relies upon, being a place that doesn’t deny, and isn’t perceived as denying, the realities of science and medicine.  From it’s scholastic, sporting, and accreditation reputations, BYU relies upon being perceived as ‘in line’ with the general consensus of American ideals associated with preparing graduates to work as professionals in American society; it’s sporting programs, it’s legal accreditations, it’s ability to be seen as a place that doesn’t conflict with non-discrimination requirements, etc. are all intrinsically-tied to it’s academic mission.

It seems clear to me that BYU removed the language in its Honor Code prohibiting any and all same-sex romantic behaviors in an attempt to avoid the mistakes the university made around problematic doctrines and policies about race (which many perceived to be flat-out racist) when it came to accreditation and sporting problems. 

As the university strives to be seen as a place of enlightenment and learning, it depends on upholding the values of enlightened thinking; and the simple reality is, contrary to the principles of ‘the LDS gospel,’ that science and medicine and even society itself no longer view same-sex behaviors or homosexuality itself to be an aberration or abomination, but rather a natural, normal, and even healthy variation of human sexuality. 

So long as BYU seeks to prepare students to operate in a professional environment, as well as continue to work in conjunction and even coordinate with ‘the world’ (a.k.a. the rest of America) in terms of accreditation and sports, it can’t be perceived as unjustly and, increasingly, unlawfully discriminating against those that broader American society states cannot be discriminated against.  And THAT’S why I believe BYU removed the proscriptive language against same-sex behaviors.  If that doesn’t make sense, go back and re-read my first sentence of this paragraph.

I don’t believe for a second that the individuals answering the phones at the Honor Code Office who were saying that same-sex dating was ‘no longer prohibited’ were either going rogue or somehow giving out their own spin/unfounded conjecture on the University’s removal of that verbiage; given that numerous people consistently received the same story from different Honor Code employees, I believe those employees were all briefed on exactly what to say—and their explanations were consistent.  Neither do I believe that anyone involved was "jumping to unfounded conclusions"; as the numerous accounts reported in the press and even individual accounts in this very thread demonstrate, the explanations and verbiage from the Honor Code office were consistent; BYU “no longer prohibit[ed]” same-sex dating.  The BYU professor who earnestly sought to do the right thing by calling the Honor Code office and clarifying for himself even candidly stated in his video explanation that he asked the Honor Code office something to the effect of he wanted to be sure that what they were saying was accurate, since he was going to be sharing his conversation with the Honor Code with hundreds of his own students.  Numerous other accounts are all the same, including the posts here make reference to a bishop that called and got the same explanation.

In my view, contrary to what some have said, removing the language didn’t “clarify” anything.  And again, the explanations offered by the Honor Code office weren’t those of misguided or rogue Honor Code employees; I firmly believe those Honor Code agents were briefed and given exactly what they were supposed to say, and for the last two weeks, they gave the same consistent message that they’d been briefed to say.  And those explanations about the removal of the language prohibiting same-sex dating make perfect sense, in light of what I said previously: that BYU seeks to prepare students to operate in a professional environment, as well as continue to work in conjunction and even coordinate with ‘the world’ (a.k.a. the rest of America) in terms of accreditation and sports, it can’t be perceived as unjustly and, increasingly, unlawfully discriminating against those that broader American society states cannot be discriminated against. 

The main problem is that I don’t believe that BYU and the broader church were prepared for the ramifications of removing the language itself.  I think the Church, it’s leaders, and BYU’s board of directors thought they could quietly remove the language and hope the body of the church would still understand it’s implied prohibitive beliefs and views on same-sex behaviors and dating while simultaneously be seen by ‘the world’ as not being explicitly discriminatory, in order to still be viewed as  a credible place to prepare working professionals in a global society, as a non-discriminatory school worthy of being allowed to participate in sports, and worthy of accreditation in every meaningful way.

In short, the university struggles in ‘serving two masters,’ to a degree.  This time, IMO, it just got caught with it’s hand in that cookie jar, and it was unprepared for the fall out on both sides.

Edited by Daniel2
  • Like 1
Link to post
7 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

My thoughts:,

BYU is a church-owned school that seeks a) to reflect and even promote the values and beliefs of the church that owns it, while b) also simultaneously striving to be a place of academia…  “the pursuit of research, education, and scholarship.”  Even during my time there, professors walked a fine line between promoting the pursuit of knowledge using the scientific method vs. ‘knowledge’ gained through the process of revelation, which were sometimes at odds with each other. 

In my life, organic evolution was a prime example in of this dichotomy; 25 years ago, as a recently-returned missionary staunchly defensive of my own indoctrination of Bruce R. McConkie’s condemnation of evolution as the means of creation of mankind, I recall meeting with one of my biology professors at the Y to discuss my concerns about how his teachings in class supported evolution.  My biology professor patiently listened to (what I now view as) my own overly-zealous objections to his teaching of ‘the scientific method,’ and gently explained to me that in his experience from many discussions with his fellow professors, within the teaching department at BYU, there was no doubt that organic evolution was real, but that despite the insistence of many general authorities’ absolute condemnations of evolution as a means of creation for mankind (indeed, as contrary to the gospel itself), each of the professors found a way to both incorporate and reconcile the undisputable scientific realities of evolution with their Faith in such a way that both their faith in ‘the gospel’ and their acceptance of organic evolution existed side-by-side.  He gave me a pamphlet on evolution that quoted many previous LDS leaders’ teachings on evolution, but carefully explained—even rationalized—why and how those quotes could be taken in context of the time they were shared, yet still could be seen as not conflicting with what he clearly believed to be demonstrably, scientifically real: the reality that all life on earth, including humans, evolved from other, less-complex forms of life.  This utterly challenged my Faith in the gospel; after all, if life evolved from other, less-complex forms of life, how did Adam and Eve come to exist?  How could the account of the creation and fall as related in the temple endowment, which I had sat through countless times and was integral to my Faith in the church, be ‘true’?  This professor, whom I had come to greatly respect, patiently took the time to explain how the temple was symbolic; how he believed the temple account of Adam and Eve was a symbolic representation of the covenants that all were making (as, indeed, the temple itself even alluded to), but wasn’t a historical or scientific explanation of how life actually began on earth.

What relevance does this have with this discussion about LGBT issues at the Y?  Well, again… BYU seeks to be both a reflection of the values and beliefs of the church that founded it, while simultaneously being a place of academia.  It’s unique in the culture of the LDS Faith, in that as an educational and professional institution, it relies on being viewed as a credible source of learning and scholarship.  It strives, even relies upon, being a place that doesn’t deny, and isn’t perceived as denying, the realities of science and medicine.  From it’s scholastic, sporting, and accreditation reputations, BYU relies upon being perceived as ‘in line’ with the general consensus of American ideals associated with preparing graduates to work as professionals in American society; it’s sporting programs, it’s legal accreditations, it’s ability to be seen as a place that doesn’t conflict with non-discrimination requirements, etc. are all intrinsically-tied to it’s academic mission.

It seems clear to me that BYU removed the language in its Honor Code prohibiting any and all same-sex romantic behaviors in an attempt to avoid the mistakes the university made around problematic doctrines and policies about race (which many perceived to be flat-out racist) when it came to accreditation and sporting problems. 

As the university strives to be seen as a place of enlightenment and learning, it depends on upholding the values of enlightened thinking; and the simple reality is, contrary to the principles of ‘the LDS gospel,’ that science and medicine and even society itself no longer view same-sex behaviors or homosexuality itself to be an aberration or abomination, but rather a natural, normal, and even healthy variation of human sexuality. 

So long as BYU seeks to prepare students to operate in a professional environment, as well as continue to work in conjunction and even coordinate with ‘the world’ (a.k.a. the rest of America) in terms of accreditation and sports, it can’t be perceived as unjustly and, increasingly, unlawfully discriminating against those that broader American society states cannot be discriminated against.  And THAT’S why I believe BYU removed the proscriptive language against same-sex behaviors.  If that doesn’t make sense, go back and re-read my first sentence of this paragraph.

I don’t believe for a second that the individuals answering the phones at the Honor Code Office who were saying that same-sex dating was ‘no longer prohibited’ were somehow giving out their own spin on the University’s removal of that verbiage; given that numerous people consistently received the same story from different Honor Code employees, I believe those employees were all briefed on exactly what to say—and their explanations were consistent.  As the numerous accounts reported in the press and even individual accounts in this very thread demonstrate, the explanations and verbiage from the Honor Code office were consistent; BYU “no longer prohibit[ed]” same-sex dating.  The BYU professor who earnestly sought to do the right thing by calling the Honor Code office and clarifying for himself even candidly stated in his video explanation that he asked the Honor Code office something to the effect of he wanted to be sure that what they were saying was accurate, since he was going to be sharing his conversation with the Honor Code with hundreds of his own students.  Numerous other accounts are all the same, including the posts here make reference to a bishop that called and got the same explanation.

In my view, contrary to what some have said, removing the language didn’t “clarify” anything.  And again, the explanations offered by the Honor Code office weren’t those of misguided or rogue Honor Code employees; I firmly believe those Honor Code agents were briefed and given exactly what they were supposed to say, and for the last two weeks, they gave the same consistent message that they’d been briefed to say.  And those explanations about the removal of the language prohibiting same-sex dating make perfect sense, in light of what I said previously: that BYU seeks to prepare students to operate in a professional environment, as well as continue to work in conjunction and even coordinate with ‘the world’ (a.k.a. the rest of America) in terms of accreditation and sports, it can’t be perceived as unjustly and, increasingly, unlawfully discriminating against those that broader American society states cannot be discriminated against. 

The main problem is that I don’t believe that BYU and the broader church were prepared for the ramifications of removing the language itself.  I think the Church, it’s leaders, and BYU’s board of directors thought they could quietly remove the language and hope the body of the church would still understand it’s implied prohibitive beliefs and views on same-sex behaviors and dating while simultaneously be seen by ‘the world’ as not being explicitly discriminatory, in order to still be viewed as  a credible place to prepare working professionals in a global society, as a non-discriminatory school worthy of being allowed to participate in sports, and worthy of accreditation in every meaningful way.

In short, the university struggles in ‘serving two masters,’ to a degree.  This time, IMO, it just got caught with it’s hand in that cookie jar, and it was unprepared for the fall out on both sides.

Very well said, and I agree. BYU and the church cannot diverge from the world without consequences. The most important part of it all, in my opinion, is to do the right thing.

  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

My thoughts:,

BYU is a church-owned school that seeks a) to reflect and even promote the values and beliefs of the church that owns it, while b) also simultaneously striving to be a place of academia…  “the pursuit of research, education, and scholarship.”  Even during my time there, professors walked a fine line between promoting the pursuit of knowledge using the scientific method vs. ‘knowledge’ gained through the process of revelation, which were sometimes at odds with each other. 

In my life, organic evolution was a prime example in of this dichotomy; 25 years ago, as a recently-returned missionary staunchly defensive of my own indoctrination of Bruce R. McConkie’s condemnation of evolution as the means of creation of mankind, I recall meeting with one of my biology professors at the Y to discuss my concerns about how his teachings in class supported evolution.  My biology professor patiently listened to (what I now view as) my own overly-zealous objections to his teaching of ‘the scientific method,’ and gently explained to me that in his experience from many discussions with his fellow professors, within the teaching department at BYU, there was no doubt that organic evolution was real, but that despite the insistence of many general authorities’ absolute condemnations of evolution as a means of creation for mankind (indeed, as contrary to the gospel itself), each of the professors found a way to both incorporate and reconcile the undisputable scientific realities of evolution with their Faith in such a way that both their faith in ‘the gospel’ and their acceptance of organic evolution existed side-by-side.  He gave me a pamphlet on evolution that quoted many previous LDS leaders’ teachings on evolution, but carefully explained—even rationalized—why and how those quotes could be taken in context of the time they were shared, yet still could be seen as not conflicting with what he clearly believed to be demonstrably, scientifically real: the reality that all life on earth, including humans, evolved from other, less-complex forms of life.  This utterly challenged my Faith in the gospel; after all, if life evolved from other, less-complex forms of life, how did Adam and Eve come to exist?  How could the account of the creation and fall as related in the temple endowment, which I had sat through countless times and was integral to my Faith in the church, be ‘true’?  This professor, whom I had come to greatly respect, patiently took the time to explain how the temple was symbolic; how he believed the temple account of Adam and Eve was a symbolic representation of the covenants that all were making (as, indeed, the temple itself even alluded to), but wasn’t a historical or scientific explanation of how life actually began on earth.

What relevance does this have with this discussion about LGBT issues at the Y?  Well, again… BYU seeks to be both a reflection of the values and beliefs of the church that founded it, while simultaneously being a place of academia.  It’s unique in the culture of the LDS Faith, in that as an educational and professional institution, it relies on being viewed as a credible source of learning and scholarship.  It strives, even relies upon, being a place that doesn’t deny, and isn’t perceived as denying, the realities of science and medicine.  From it’s scholastic, sporting, and accreditation reputations, BYU relies upon being perceived as ‘in line’ with the general consensus of American ideals associated with preparing graduates to work as professionals in American society; it’s sporting programs, it’s legal accreditations, it’s ability to be seen as a place that doesn’t conflict with non-discrimination requirements, etc. are all intrinsically-tied to it’s academic mission.

It seems clear to me that BYU removed the language in its Honor Code prohibiting any and all same-sex romantic behaviors in an attempt to avoid the mistakes the university made around problematic doctrines and policies about race (which many perceived to be flat-out racist) when it came to accreditation and sporting problems. 

As the university strives to be seen as a place of enlightenment and learning, it depends on upholding the values of enlightened thinking; and the simple reality is, contrary to the principles of ‘the LDS gospel,’ that science and medicine and even society itself no longer view same-sex behaviors or homosexuality itself to be an aberration or abomination, but rather a natural, normal, and even healthy variation of human sexuality. 

So long as BYU seeks to prepare students to operate in a professional environment, as well as continue to work in conjunction and even coordinate with ‘the world’ (a.k.a. the rest of America) in terms of accreditation and sports, it can’t be perceived as unjustly and, increasingly, unlawfully discriminating against those that broader American society states cannot be discriminated against.  And THAT’S why I believe BYU removed the proscriptive language against same-sex behaviors.  If that doesn’t make sense, go back and re-read my first sentence of this paragraph.

I don’t believe for a second that the individuals answering the phones at the Honor Code Office who were saying that same-sex dating was ‘no longer prohibited’ were either going rogue or somehow giving out their own spin/unfounded conjecture on the University’s removal of that verbiage; given that numerous people consistently received the same story from different Honor Code employees, I believe those employees were all briefed on exactly what to say—and their explanations were consistent.  Neither do I believe that anyone involved was "jumping to unfounded conclusions"; as the numerous accounts reported in the press and even individual accounts in this very thread demonstrate, the explanations and verbiage from the Honor Code office were consistent; BYU “no longer prohibit[ed]” same-sex dating.  The BYU professor who earnestly sought to do the right thing by calling the Honor Code office and clarifying for himself even candidly stated in his video explanation that he asked the Honor Code office something to the effect of he wanted to be sure that what they were saying was accurate, since he was going to be sharing his conversation with the Honor Code with hundreds of his own students.  Numerous other accounts are all the same, including the posts here make reference to a bishop that called and got the same explanation.

In my view, contrary to what some have said, removing the language didn’t “clarify” anything.  And again, the explanations offered by the Honor Code office weren’t those of misguided or rogue Honor Code employees; I firmly believe those Honor Code agents were briefed and given exactly what they were supposed to say, and for the last two weeks, they gave the same consistent message that they’d been briefed to say.  And those explanations about the removal of the language prohibiting same-sex dating make perfect sense, in light of what I said previously: that BYU seeks to prepare students to operate in a professional environment, as well as continue to work in conjunction and even coordinate with ‘the world’ (a.k.a. the rest of America) in terms of accreditation and sports, it can’t be perceived as unjustly and, increasingly, unlawfully discriminating against those that broader American society states cannot be discriminated against. 

The main problem is that I don’t believe that BYU and the broader church were prepared for the ramifications of removing the language itself.  I think the Church, it’s leaders, and BYU’s board of directors thought they could quietly remove the language and hope the body of the church would still understand it’s implied prohibitive beliefs and views on same-sex behaviors and dating while simultaneously be seen by ‘the world’ as not being explicitly discriminatory, in order to still be viewed as  a credible place to prepare working professionals in a global society, as a non-discriminatory school worthy of being allowed to participate in sports, and worthy of accreditation in every meaningful way.

In short, the university struggles in ‘serving two masters,’ to a degree.  This time, IMO, it just got caught with it’s hand in that cookie jar, and it was unprepared for the fall out on both sides.

As I posted on the other thread in response to you, this is an excellent and very accurate analysis, IMO.  Thanks for posting it!

  • Like 2
Link to post

Maybe it's the continued horrible comparisons made between the priesthood ban and the church's teachings on homosexuality. It's offensive and probably racist to believe they are equal since blacks weren't denied receiving the priesthood because they engaged in "black" behavior.  There was nothing they could do but wait for the ban to be lifted.  But gay men can receive the priesthood and receive temple ordinances if they are willing to abstain from engaging in homosexual behavior.  Blacks weren't insisting the church declare behavior that's been declared a sin by every prophet ever recorded changed to no longer being a sin. 

And are homosexuals as interested in the lives of heterosexuals as heterosexuals are interested in theirs?  It's weird how many heteros feel qualified to speak on the behalf of gays.

  • Like 4
Link to post
1 hour ago, gopher said:

Maybe it's the continued horrible comparisons made between the priesthood ban and the church's teachings on homosexuality. It's offensive and probably racist to believe they are equal since blacks weren't denied receiving the priesthood because they engaged in "black" behavior.  There was nothing they could do but wait for the ban to be lifted.  But gay men can receive the priesthood and receive temple ordinances if they are willing to abstain from engaging in homosexual behavior.  Blacks weren't insisting the church declare behavior that's been declared a sin by every prophet ever recorded changed to no longer being a sin. 

And are homosexuals as interested in the lives of heterosexuals as heterosexuals are interested in theirs?  It's weird how many heteros feel qualified to speak on the behalf of gays.

Correction: It wasn’t “black” behavior the LDS church frowned upon. It was the mingling of “white” (pure and delightsome) and “black” (seed of Cain/cursed by God) that the LDS church frowned upon. In other words, “unnatural” sexual mingling (opposite-race coupling) that the Faith frowned upon.  In fact, BY (the author of BYU) declared mixed-race relations to be “death upon the spot.”

So please, spare me lectures that past (and now defunct) LDS doctrine were about “black behavior”... a.k.a. racism. It was about white MIXING with black that was “the problem.” Crazy if you can’t see or deny that was the case.

And... as if current LDS doctrine isn’t about “heterosexual supremacy” over “homosexual relationships.”

At least own up to what your doctrines plainly state. Popular or not.

Edited by Daniel2
  • Like 1
Link to post
19 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Correction: It wasn’t “black” behavior the LDS church frowned upon. It was the mingling of “white” (pure and delightsome) and “black” (seed of Cain/cursed by God) that the LDS church frowned upon. In other words, “unnatural” sexual mingling (opposite-race coupling) that the Faith frowned upon.  In fact, BY (the author of BYU) declared mixed-race relations to be “death upon the spot.”

So please, spare me lectures that past (and now defunct) LDS doctrine were about “black behavior”... a.k.a. racism. It was about white MIXING with black that was “the problem.” Crazy if you can’t see or deny that was the case.

And... as if current LDS doctrine isn’t about “heterosexual supremacy” over “homosexual relationships.”

At least own up to what your doctrines plainly state. Popular or not.

Do you have record of any Church leader after Brigham Young making a fuss over interracial marriage or of it being an issue in the Church in the 20th century? 
 

I ask, because I don’t recall it being an issue in my lifetime, even before 1978. I do remember President Kimball, just after the 1978 revelation, advising that individuals should marry within their respective nationalities or cultural backgrounds, but it was never a matter of it being a sin to do otherwise. It was because marriage, for most people, is a challenge even without the added pressure of adapting to a culture one is not used to. I think it would have been good advice back then; maybe not so much today. 
 

I don’t remember a Church leader after President Kimball reiterating that counsel. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to post
21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Do you have record of any Church leader after Brigham Young making a fuss over interracial marriage or of it being an issue in the Church in the 20th century? 
 

I ask, because I don’t recall it being an issue in my lifetime, even before 1978. I do remember President Kimball, just after the 1978 revelation, advising that individuals should marry within their respective nationalities or cultural backgrounds, but it was never a matter of it being a sin to do otherwise. It was because marriage, for most people, is a challenge even without the added pressure of adapting to a culture one is not used to. I think it would have been good advice back then; maybe not so much today. 
 

I don’t remember a Church leader after President Kimball reiterating that counsel. 

Watch this, in Brigham City, Utah

Link to post
8 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Watch this, in Brigham City, Utah

I wasn’t referring to an isolated occurrence here or there. I thought Daniel2 had reference to official doctrine and policy, and that’s what I was asking him about. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to post
5 hours ago, gopher said:

Maybe it's the continued horrible comparisons made between the priesthood ban and the church's teachings on homosexuality. It's offensive and probably racist to believe they are equal since blacks weren't denied receiving the priesthood because they engaged in "black" behavior.  There was nothing they could do but wait for the ban to be lifted.  But gay men can receive the priesthood and receive temple ordinances if they are willing to abstain from engaging in homosexual behavior.  Blacks weren't insisting the church declare behavior that's been declared a sin by every prophet ever recorded changed to no longer being a sin. 

And are homosexuals as interested in the lives of heterosexuals as heterosexuals are interested in theirs?  It's weird how many heteros feel qualified to speak on the behalf of gays.

I know that members of the Church want to classify the Priesthood Ban not about black behavior and the LGBT ban about behavior. To do that, you are going to have to convince those that want to boycott BYU that a gay person holding hands is a sin. Do you really think that is a strong moral position?  Just how do you think the Church could defend that position with the public in a way that would convince people to not repeat the string of boycotts that occurred over the Priesthood Ban? 

As I remember the defense of the Priesthood Ban was the claim that it came from God.  And that is the exact same defense for discriminating against LGBT students.  So you and others may think this is a horrible comparison, but do you think the public will be convinced of the difference?  Will the Church be able to convince them that a gay student holding hands is a sin in the sight of God?

Edited by california boy
Link to post

The public and press  has already made comparisons between the Priesthood Ban and the discrimination of LGBT students.

Quote

In the 1960s and 70s, college football players protested Brigham Young University because the Mormon Church still banned black men from the priesthood. Now, decades later, LGBT groups are applying a different kind of pressure to the privately-owned school by asking the Big 12 athletic conference to deny BYU’s admission application.

Quote

 

Their central complaint is that, unlike most current Big 12 schools, BYU does not have an anti-discrimination policy that includes sexual orientation and gender identity.

There are other issues, too: BYU’s honor code explicitly bans “homosexual behavior” on the grounds that it is “inappropriate.” And although the honor code does not specifically address transgender issues, it does require students to adhere to “the ideals and principles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”—a religion that considers sex reassignment surgery to be an excommunicable offense.

 

 

Link to post
7 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Correction: It wasn’t “black” behavior the LDS church frowned upon. It was the mingling of “white” (pure and delightsome) and “black” (seed of Cain/cursed by God) that the LDS church frowned upon. In other words, “unnatural” sexual mingling (opposite-race coupling) that the Faith frowned upon.  In fact, BY (the author of BYU) declared mixed-race relations to be “death upon the spot.”

So please, spare me lectures that past (and now defunct) LDS doctrine were about “black behavior”... a.k.a. racism. It was about white MIXING with black that was “the problem.” Crazy if you can’t see or deny that was the case.

And... as if current LDS doctrine isn’t about “heterosexual supremacy” over “homosexual relationships.”

At least own up to what your doctrines plainly state. Popular or not.

I don't think you understood my point at all.  I was mocking the idea that blacks would be denied the priesthood because of "black" behavior.  I didn't offer up any reasons or excuses for the ban.

My point was that it's not fair to black members to use the priesthood ban to argue against the church's doctrine on homosexuality.  They are much too different since black members couldn't receive the priesthood no matter how righteous they were.  Instead, maybe we can find a better comparison.  Any ideas?

  • Like 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, california boy said:

I would consider the source on anything from The Daily Beast, which is known to have a left-leaning bias. 
 

And from the above link it appears to have a paywall. This board has a policy against linking to content that one must pay money to access. 

Link to post
5 hours ago, california boy said:

I know that members of the Church want to classify the Priesthood Ban not about black behavior and the LGBT ban about behavior. To do that, you are going to have to convince those that want to boycott BYU that a gay person holding hands is a sin. Do you really think that is a strong moral position?  Just how do you think the Church could defend that position with the public in a way that would convince people to not repeat the string of boycotts that occurred over the Priesthood Ban? 

As I remember the defense of the Priesthood Ban was the claim that it came from God.  And that is the exact same defense for discriminating against LGBT students.  So you and others may think this is a horrible comparison, but do you think the public will be convinced of the difference?  Will the Church be able to convince them that a gay student holding hands is a sin in the sight of God?

Apparently gay students holding hands is as serious a sin as growing a beard at BYU.  Neither will get you kicked out the church, but both will get you in trouble for violating the honor code you agreed to follow.

Link to post
2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I would consider the source on anything from The Daily Beast, which is known to have a left-leaning bias. 
 

And from the above link it appears to have a paywall. This board has a policy against linking to content that one must pay money to access. 

Thats odd.  There is no paywall for me.  Here is the whole article.

 

Quote

 

The way to Mormonism’s heart may be through its football team.

In the 1960s and 70s, college football players protested Brigham Young University because the Mormon Church still banned black men from the priesthood. Now, decades later, LGBT groups are applying a different kind of pressure to the privately-owned school by asking the Big 12 athletic conference to deny BYU’s admission application.

“As organizations committed to ending homophobia, biphobia and transphobia both on and off the field of play, we are deeply troubled by this possibility,” over two dozen organizations wrote in an open letter to Big 12 Commissioner Bob Bowlsby, published on the Athlete Ally website on Monday.

“BYU’s anti-LGBT policies are bad for the Big 12 sports community, especially student-athletes,” the letter continues.

Its long list of signatories includes GLAAD, Lambda Legal, the National LGBTQ Task Force, the National Organization for Women, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the National Center for Transgender Equality.

Their central complaint is that, unlike most current Big 12 schools, BYU does not have an anti-discrimination policy that includes sexual orientation and gender identity.

There are other issues, too: BYU’s honor code explicitly bans “homosexual behavior” on the grounds that it is “inappropriate.” And although the honor code does not specifically address transgender issues, it does require students to adhere to “the ideals and principles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”—a religion that considers sex reassignment surgery to be an excommunicable offense.

Because of these policies, the Provo school was recently declared the sixth least LGBT-friendly campus in the country by the Princeton Review. No other school in the Big 12 ranks higher on that list.

Big 12 did not immediately respond to The Daily Beast’s request for comment.

BYU spokeswoman Carri Jenkins responded to the letter on Monday with a statement: “BYU welcomes as full members of the university community all whose conduct meets university standards. We are very clear and open about our honor code, which all students understand and commit to when they apply for admission. One’s stated sexual orientation is not an issue.”

Indeed, students can technically be gay, lesbian, or bisexual at BYU but there’s a catch: If they engage in romantic or sexual “forms of physical intimacy” with the same gender, they can be suspended or expelled.

This is not the first time that BYU has found itself at the center of a sports-themed controversy over discrimination. Nearly half a century ago, black college athletes helped bring national scrutiny to the Mormon Church’s ban on black men in the priesthood, which was eventually overturned in 1978.

In 1968, as Phil White recounted in a post for the Wyoming Historical Society, black football players at San Jose State boycotted a BYU game and only 2,800 ticketholders showed up at the stadium due to protests. The next year, the University of Texas at El Paso kicked black track athletes off the team for boycotting a match.

Then, in October 1969, 14 black University of Wyoming football players were ejected from their team for “threatening to wear black armbands” at a BYU game, as the Salt Lake Tribune reported.

Those players, later dubbed “the Black 14,” made a powerful statement anyway: As White noted, national TV networks and Sports Illustrated came to Laramie, Wyoming to interview the Black 14 and cover the fallout.

After Laramie, the protests and sanctions continued.

In 1969, Stanford ended athletic ties with BYU. And in 1970, black students at the University of Washington urged their school to do the same. As Dr. Craig Collisson reported for the Seattle Civil Rights and Labor History Project, the UW protests even prompted BYU to take out a defensive full-page ad in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

“Students of any race, creed, color, or national origin are accepted for admission to Brigham Young University provided they maintain ideals and standards in harmony with those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” the ad read.

For comparison, BYU’s statement on the Big 12 letter reads, “BYU welcomes as full members of the university community all whose conduct meets university standards.”

It was not until June 1978 that top Mormon leaders announcedthat “all worthy male members of the church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color.” The decision, they said, came after they spent “hours” together “supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.”

Those hoping for a similar reversal on LGBT issues may have to wait a while longer yet.

Last November, in response to the legalization of same-sex marriage, the Mormon Church instituted a policy changeprohibiting any child of same-sex parents from being baptized unless he or she “specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage.”

That policy prompted a wave of resignations among the Mormon membership, over a third of whom now say that homosexuality should be socially accepted.

Kyle Monson, a Mormon blogger at By Common Consent, has already outlined how the next couple of decades will play out if the church stays its current course: “Within ten years we’ll be seen as a fringe group. In 20 years, we’ll be a bigoted, extremist anachronism.”

But his most telling prediction was a question: “Think anyone will play BYU in sports?”

Money ball
This year marks the 100th playing of the "Holy War" between BYU and Utah, and the 89th meeting between BYU and USU, a game played for the honor of hoisting "the Old Wagon Wheel" trophy. 

While the inertia of history is strong, both Utah and Utah State have had BYU-free football schedules in recent decades. Most notably, Utah refused to play BYU in 2014 and 2015, showing a willingness to snub its long-term archrival when it was in its competitive and financial interests to do so. 

Utah fans were divided on that decision. Some cheered the brush-off as the ultimate spiking of the football over an inferior opponent. Others lamented the end of a long tradition. Few entertained the question of whether, as a public institution of higher education committed to non-discrimination, Utah should be playing BYU at all. 

Rob Moolman, the executive director of the Utah Pride Center, thinks it's time to have those conversations. 

"I understand the history and the importance of BYU in Utah, particularly, but I wonder about the choice to play BYU," he says. "I wonder about the decision-making, because the decision to play BYU indicates that the schools' officials believe LGBT representation is not important. It seems like it's a secondary or minor issue that they don't want to consider." 

The state's two most prominent public universities have spoken forcefully in favor of LGBTQ rights on campus. But Moolman says actions will speak louder than words. 

"I'm not sure if these schools understand the message they're sending to our community, to our members, when it looks like they're ignoring these issues entirely," he says. "The message is that the games are so important to our culture, to our way of life, that they're willing to look the other way about the impact it's having on a marginalized community ... it looks like their university is celebrating the decision to play BYU, when BYU is minimizing queer identities." 

While Utah and Utah State are the two teams with the longest history of competition against BYU, they aren't the only institutions that have roundly ignored that school's anti-gay policies. It takes a lot of schools to fill out a football schedule, after all. 

And it takes a lot of dough to make that happen. For coming to Provo to play football at BYU, other schools usually get a check for $250,000. BYU generally gets a similar part of the take when it goes on the road, according to contracts. 

That quarter-million payout is the same deal BYU has with Utah. At Utah State, the teams forego the exchange of payments, covering all their own expenses one year while reaping all of the rewards the next year. 

Such home-and-home contracts are typical between schools of similar sporting merit. But, like many large sports programs scheduling non-conference opponents, BYU pays larger "body bag" fees to schools that agree to come to Provo for a likely whooping. It has agreed, for instance, to pay Utah's Dixie State University, another public university, $425,000 for a game scheduled for 2022. 

Such arrangements work the other way, too. The University of Oregon will put $1.1 million into a BYU account to get the Cougars to come play football in Eugene in 2022. That's despite the fact that Oregon typically requires both contractors and subcontractors to not only commit to non-discrimination but also to "take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment individuals without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability or veteran status." 

That doesn't sit well with Liz Sauer, the communications manager at the LGBTQ advocacy organization Basic Rights Oregon. 

"It's really curious and, frankly, disappointing that the University of Oregon, which has generally done quite a good job of supporting LGBT equality, has gone out of its way to support and play BYU when it has such discriminatory policies," she says. "I would hope the university is open to criticism and open to discussion with the community on its policies." 

Sauer wants Oregon to answer some basic questions about the contract it signed. 

"Like, why is this the case? Why is it important? Since BYU is not in the same conference as the University of Oregon, and they're not required to play them, what is the point? What's their purpose here?" she asks. "I would hope they listen to students and the community on why BYU's policy is problematic to students." 

She hopes Oregon students, faculty and staff consider how to respond. 

When people "come together as a community and say, 'No. No more. Not on my watch,' it's one of the most powerful actions you can take," she says. 

If that were to happen, maybe athletics directors would think twice before signing contracts like the one Oregon athletics director Rob Mullens put his signature on in 2015, committing to a game seven years in the future against a school with a long history of discrimination. 

Mullen's top spokesman, Jimmy Stanton, declined to address the seeming hypocrisy that exists when a school refuses to sign contracts with institutions that aren't actively committed to non-discrimination, but ignores that policy when it comes to football. He notes that BYU has scheduled games with other Pac-12 opponents, too, "as they are a strong non-conference opponent within the region." 

Oregon, Stanton says, has "a strong culture of inclusivity and diversity," including the BEOREGON campaign, which "encourages all Ducks to be their most authentic selves." He declined, however, to address the fact that his university has agreed to pay more than $1 million to a school where student-athletes can't be their authentic selves. 

But at least a representative from Oregon said something. Officials from Utah and Utah State refused to comment on the issue at all. 

Playing dumb
With a devoted national following of members of the LDS church and a long-term television contract with cable sports giant ESPN, BYU is an enticing opponent for athletics directors looking for a chance to raise their program's profile. 

"When we compete against BYU, it's not an everyday matchup so I think it's going to help with our brand," says Tom Kleinlein, the athletics director at Georgia Southern University, which will trade payments of $100,000 with BYU for games in 2021 and 2024. "People are going to pay attention to us."

 

 

Edited by california boy
Link to post
14 minutes ago, gopher said:

Apparently gay students holding hands is as serious a sin as growing a beard at BYU.  Neither will get you kicked out the church, but both will get you in trouble for violating the honor code you agreed to follow.

You bring up an interesting question.  Does the Church consider a gay person sinning for holding hands, kissing or going on dates outside of BYU?  

Link to post
15 minutes ago, california boy said:

You bring up an interesting question.  Does the Church consider a gay person sinning for holding hands, kissing or going on dates outside of BYU?  

Yes, it's a sin.

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...