Byu Honor Code Matches New Handbook

[california boy]

1 hour 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. 

Don't like The Daily Beast?  Here is an article that also ties the discrimination against blacks to the discrimination against the LGBT community.  There are more if you don't like this one either

 

Unfair Acts.  Why is any public school still playing football against BYU?

Quote

 

Under current U.S. law, private institutions that receive federal funding can claim a "religious faith" exemption to Title IX, which famously provides women with equal access to educational services but has been expanded in recent years to protect LGBTQ students. BYU has a legal right to discriminate. 

But some LGBTQ rights advocates believe other universities should be grappling with the same questions that faced their predecessors after the Black 14 story put the LDS church's racial prejudice into the national spotlight 40 years ago.

 

 

Quote

 

A complicity of choice
Being gay isn't a choice. Playing football against BYU is. While both Utah and Utah State have a long tradition of competing against BYU on the gridiron, neither is bound to do so. BYU isn't in the Pac-12, like Utah, or the Mountain West Conference, like Utah State. In fact, BYU football isn't in an athletic conference at all. It has been independent since the 2011-12 season. And although it has openly sought to join a conference since then, the university's record on gay rights is one of the factors that seems to have prevented the major conferences from asking BYU to join. 

In 2016, when the Big 12 appeared to be entertaining the idea of inviting BYU into its ranks, 25 LGBTQ advocacy organizations signed onto a joint letter urging the conference to think twice. "As organizations committed to ending homophobia, biphobia and transphobia both on and off the field of play, we are deeply troubled by this possibility," the letter stated. "We feel it would be extremely problematic to include BYU in your conference expansion." 

The invite from the Big 12 never came, and no other major conference has shown any public interest in BYU. That means that BYU can't rely on a conference to set its schedule. When universities do compete against that school in football, they do so as the result of a voluntary and independent negotiation for revenue sharing. 

Those universities could do what the Big 12 did, simply declining to do business with a university that discriminates. In doing so, in many cases, such schools would simply be following the rules they have set for doing business with any other entity. But that's not happening. 

Hudson Taylor, the executive director of Athlete Ally, an LGBTQ advocacy organization that helped push the Big 12 to reject BYU, isn't surprised by the disconnect between the stated principles of individual institutions and their practices. 

"There are a lot of schools within the NCAA that are supportive of their LGBTQ athletes and fans, but that isn't necessarily evident through their actions, such as who they play," he says. "There is still a culture of looking the other way." 

 

 

 

 

[california boy]

9 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

Yes, it's a sin.

Do you have a reference for that or just an opinion?

[longview]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

Do you have a reference for that or just an opinion?

1995 Proclamation on the FAMILY . . . our Eternal Natures . . . our Destiny (yours and mine) . . .

[Sunslight]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

Do you have a reference for that or just an opinion?

How is this. 

"Homosexual and lesbian behavior is a serious sin." (For the Strength of Youth; Sexual Purity)

Edited March 9, 2020 by Sunslight

[Sunslight]

Like other violations of the law of chastity, homosexual activity is a serious sin. It is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality (see Romans 1:24–32). It distorts loving relationships and prevents people from receiving the blessings that can be found in family life and the saving ordinances of the gospel. (True to the Faith; chastity)

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, california boy said:

Don't like The Daily Beast?  Here is an article that also ties the discrimination against blacks to the discrimination against the LGBT community.  There are more if you don't like this one either

 

Unfair Acts.  Why is any public school still playing football against BYU?

 

 

No one is denying there are mass media  organizations that are unfriendly to the Church. That the Church would allow their biased reporting and jaundiced commentary to influence its promulgation of gospel truths is not axiomatic. The Church will fulfill its latter-day mission as the prophets and apostles are directed under divine inspiration notwithstanding the consequences. 

Edited March 9, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[gopher]

25 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?  

Or is it a sin that requires church discipline?  There are lots of sins that don't require a visit to the bishop.  I don't know about holding hands or kissing for gays.  There was a man baptized in our ward who was living with his girlfriend.  They slept in separate rooms and claimed there was no hanky panky going on.  They would hold hands and kiss at church.  They had both been married before and didn't want to get married again.  The mission president performed the baptism. 

I'm curious what actions bishops and stake presidents have taken today.  I don't think they are excommunicating any gay members for holding hands.  I'd imagine there has to be a line somewhere that can't be crossed before it becomes sexual sin that may require action to be taken.  Maybe holding hands and kissing doesn't cross that line, but swords fights in the shower do.  I don't know.

Have you read about the Reverend Richard Coles?  He was with the 80's band The Communards.  He's gay and lived with his partner who recently passed away, but claims they remained celibate while they were together.  Maybe we are heading in that direction in the church.  Probably unlikely.

[Sunslight]

5 minutes ago, gopher said:

Or is it a sin that requires church discipline?  There are lots of sins that don't require a visit to the bishop.  I don't know about holding hands or kissing for gays.  There was a man baptized in our ward who was living with his girlfriend.  They slept in separate rooms and claimed there was no hanky panky going on.  They would hold hands and kiss at church.  They had both been married before and didn't want to get married again.  The mission president performed the baptism. 

I'm curious what actions bishops and stake presidents have taken today.  I don't think they are excommunicating any gay members for holding hands.  I'd imagine there has to be a line somewhere that can't be crossed before it becomes sexual sin that may require action to be taken.  Maybe holding hands and kissing doesn't cross that line, but swords fights in the shower do.  I don't know.

Have you read about the Reverend Richard Coles?  He was with the 80's band The Communards.  He's gay and lived with his partner who recently passed away, but claims they remained celibate while they were together.  Maybe we are heading in that direction in the church.  Probably unlikely.

The line is where behavior takes place, where action is taken on that same sex attraction. This means holding hands, having a relationship, kissing, dating, etc.

[hope_for_things]

52 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?  

I don't think the church is a monolith, so I think it would more accurate to say that some people, perhaps some of the more conservative types on this message board for example, would consider it a sin.  Some people also considered interracial marriage a sin even after the 1978 revelation.  So, I'm not too concerned with what some people think is a sin in this church.  I know plenty of great members who don't consider it a sin, who love their LGBTQ brothers and sisters, who look forward to the day that church leaders open themselves up to the further light and knowledge available on this topic.  

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Sunslight said:

How is this. 

"Homosexual and lesbian behavior is a serious sin." (For the Strength of Youth; Sexual Purity)

Thanks.  Nice to know the official position.

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

Thanks.  Nice to know the official position.

Pretty sad that we have to look at a handbook of guidelines for teenagers as the "official position" of the church.  And even worse, some people think that this handbook of guidelines for teenagers = God's divine will perfectly captured.  Sometimes I think our culture is attempting to train members to be a bunch of robots.  

[Daniel2]

3 hours ago, gopher said:

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?

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that "it's not fair to black members" to point out parallels between the priesthood ban and the church's doctrines on homosexuality.

I acknowledge and agree there ARE differences; the two are not identical.  Targets of racial discrimination don't experience exactly the same things as targets of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

But it's clear that many see the obvious parallels.  From an LDS perspective, due to their innate gender, legally-married same-sex couples can't receive temple blessings or exercise any priesthood, no matter how monogamous they are; just as the innate ancestral skin color historically disqualified blacks from participation in LDS temple ordinances and the priesthood. 

On a broader note, many people of all racial backgrounds can see the parallels between discrimination based on race and discrimination based on sexual orientation, including Coretta Scott King, wife of Dr. Martin Luther King:

In November 2003 in a speech at the opening session of the 13th annual Creating Change Conference, organized by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, King made her now famous appeal linking the Civil Rights Movement to the LGBT agenda: "I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people. ... But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.' I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream, to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."

King's support of LGBT rights was strongly criticized by some black pastors. She called her critics "misinformed" and said that Martin Luther King's message to the world was one of equality and inclusion.

"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood.  This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all to early to vicitimize the next minority group."

"I believe very strongly that all forms of bigotry and discrimination are equally wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere. Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination.

 

"My husband, Martin Luther King Jr., once said, 'We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny... an inescapable network of mutuality,... I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be.' Therefore, I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."--From remarks delivered by the late Coretta Scott King, wife of civil rights icon Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., at the Creating Change conference in Atlanta on November 9, 2000.

More quotes of her drawing the parallels can by seen by clicking here.  Given that Ms. King sees the parallels, I don't consider it "unfair" of me in recognizing the same.

Edited March 9, 2020 by Daniel2

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Pretty sad that we have to look at a handbook of guidelines for teenagers as the "official position" of the church.  And even worse, some people think that this handbook of guidelines for teenagers = God's divine will perfectly captured.  Sometimes I think our culture is attempting to train members to be a bunch of robots.  

Does it make sense that the Church would publish “a handbook of guidelines for teenagers” that conflicts with its official position? I should think the inclination would be to do the opposite. 

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Pretty sad that we have to look at a handbook of guidelines for teenagers as the "official position" of the church. 

Teenagers generally need more instruction than adults.  Makes sense to me it would be spelled out in a book for them where adults are assumed to know it already or to understand what is required through teachings of the Spirit.

Quote

I think our culture is attempting to train members to be a bunch of robots. 

Strange then to me that you seem to think there should be a handbook for adults with all the official positions of the Church.

Edited March 9, 2020 by Calm

[smac97]

54 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Quote

Thanks.  Nice to know the official position.

Pretty sad that we have to look at a handbook of guidelines for teenagers as the "official position" of the church. 

Not sad at all.  It's not like FTSOY is the only way of understanding the Church's teachings on this topic.  It's more a matter of convenience and concision.

Quote

And even worse, some people think that this handbook of guidelines for teenagers = God's divine will perfectly captured. 

Oh, brother.  Nobody is claiming "perfection."  But what we have is pretty clear.

Quote

Sometimes I think our culture is attempting to train members to be a bunch of robots.  

We live in a very interconnected world.  If I was indifferent to the well-being of my fellow Saints, I would either remain silent on important topics like this, or else voice my opinion and then withdraw.  As it is, however, there is a "Marketplace of Ideas" in which we are all making "purchases."  I think we need to participate in it.  Including the Church.  So I am glad the Church is presenting ideas in that marketplace.  

Frankly, I think it's kind of weird some people object to the Church making its position clear and widely known.

THanks,

-Smac

Edited March 9, 2020 by smac97

[hope_for_things]

36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Does it make sense that the Church would publish “a handbook of guidelines for teenagers” that conflicts with its official position? I should think the inclination would be to do the opposite. 

The church doesn't have a consistent list of official positions that I'm aware of.  In the internet age, they seem to be leaning towards this concept of lists of teachings more recently with the gospel topics essays and other pages on church owned web sites where people can see topics listed, but I don't think we can call these official positions necessarily.  I would point out that many of those essays list multiple ways of viewing issues, like for the BoA essay. There have been many different positions published in manuals for Sunday School discussions over the years, but I also wouldn't call those official, and clearly they have developed and evolved as well.   

The only document of church teachings that seems to carry some authoritative weight would be the canonized articles of faith.  Otherwise, I would say the church, historically speaking, has seemed to leave things open for interpretation when it comes to official teachings and has instead focused on broad principles.  

You could make an argument for what the dominant narrative is, but I don't think thats the same thing as official teachings.  The dominant narrative has also evolved significantly over time.  

[Daniel2]

13 hours 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. 

Absolutely.  Though your modern LDS manuals understandably don't reference them, a quick search of Wiki reveals several sources from multiple LDS leaders:

Joseph Smith:

 

Joseph Smith expressed opposition to white-black marriages, but endorsed polygamous marriage between white Mormon men and Native American women.[35] [36] [16].  In January 1843 church founder Joseph Smith wrote, "Had I [anything] to do with the Negro I would confine them by strict [l]aw to their own species," in reference to interracial marriage.[35] [37] A year later as mayor of Nauvoo, Illinois, he held a trial and fined two black men the modern equivalent of thousands of dollars for trying to marry white women.[36] [38] However, a decade earlier hundreds of non-Mormon citizens of Jackson County, Missouri stated that the Mormons were inviting black people to live among them, thus, creating the risk of interracial marriage, citing this as one of the reasons for requesting the removal of the Mormon people from the state.[39]  The apostle Parley Pratt denied this invitation had taken place, however.[40]

 

There are other records of Smith's teaching on interracial marriage. For example, in 1897 First Presidency member George Cannon stated in his journal that Joseph Smith had taught a later president of the church, John Taylor , that a white man married to a woman with black ancestry could not receive the priesthood and they both would be killed along with any of their children if the penalty of the law were executed.[41] [42] Three years later Cannon also stated that Joseph Smith had taught John Taylor the doctrine that any male child born with any black heritage from one or more parents could not receive the priesthood as he was "tainted with Negro blood." [43]

 

In 1908, Smith's nephew Joseph F. Smith stated that the church founder had declared that the priesthood ordination was void for Elijah Abel who only had one black great-grandparent (Abel was referred to as an octoroon man at the time for his one-eighth black heritage) from a mixed-race marriage long ago.[44] Abel's petitions for temple ordinances were also denied by the next two church presidents Brigham Young and John Taylor because of his mixed heritage.[2] 

 

Brigham Young

 

Smith's successor Brigham Young publicly taught on at least three occasions (1847, [17] 1852,[45] and 1865 [46] ) that the punishment for black-white interracial marriage was death, and that killing a black-white interracial couple and their children as part of a blood atonement would be a blessing to them.[29] [47] He further stated his belief that interracial children should remain childless "like a mule". [17]

 

Young taught that the moment the church consents to white members having children with black individuals the church would go to destruction, [29] [48] and that, "Any man having one drop of the seed of Cane in him cannot hold the priesthood." [49] Young also taught that people who had children with a black person would be cursed to the priesthood. [29] 

 

1847 — Young heard of a Mormon family composed of a black man Enoch Lovejoy Lewis (son of ordained priesthood holder Kwaku Walker Lewis), a white woman Mary Matilda Webster, and their interracial child living in Massachusetts and responded that if the family wasn't living so close to non-Mormons "they would all have to be killed" since the law is that black and white seed should not be "amalgamated". [17]

 

1852— As territory governor, Young stated before the territory legislature that if a white man had children with a black woman, he should request to have his head chopped off. He continued saying that if someone were to kill the man, woman and any children of such a union, that it would be a blessing to them and "it would do a great deal towards atoning for the sin".[50] [45]

 

1865— In a speech in the Salt Lake Tabernacle Young repeated the teaching of death as punishment for black and white individuals producing interracial offspring, stating that this penalty would always be in place. [46] [29] 42–43

 

Interracial marriages of William McCary

 

In 1847, former slave [52] and Mormon convert William McCary drew the ire of Brigham Young and others in Nauvoo for his marriage to the white Mormon Lucy Stanton, and his later alleged mixed-race polygamous sealings to other white women without authorization. [52]  McCary claimed Native American heritage in order to marry Stanton and avoid the greater stigma that the few black people in Nauvoo faced.[52]  The most common interpretation of the interracial events around McCary and his excommunication is that they contributed to or precipitated the subsequent ban of black members from temple ordinances and priesthood authority.[52]

 

McCary elicited the first recorded general authority statement connecting race and the priesthood when the apostle Parley Pratt referred to him as the "black man who has got the blood of Ham in him which linege [sic] was cursed as regards the priesthood." [53]

 

Lynching of Thomas Coleman

 

In 1866 Thomas Coleman, a black member of the LDS church, was murdered in Salt Lake City after it was discovered that he was courting a white woman. His throat was slit so deeply from ear to ear that he was nearly decapitated, and his right breast was slit open, similar to the penalties illustrated in the temple ritual and taught by Brigham Young. He was castrated and a note warning black men to stay away from white women was pinned to his chest. Historian Michael Quinn states that this murder was a fulfillment of Young's 1852 teaching that the penalty for miscegenation was decapitation. [54]

 

Under Wilford Woodruff

 

In the late 1800s at least two white members were denied church ordinances after they had married a black person. In 1895 a white woman was denied a temple sealing to her white husband because she had previously married a black man, even though she had divorced him. [56]  First Presidency member George Cannon argued that allowing her access to the temple would not be fair to her two daughters, whom she'd had with her former husband. [57] [56] [58]

 

Another white man was denied the priesthood in 1897 because he had married a black woman, though, then senior apostle Lorenzo Snow stated that the man would be eligible if he divorced his wife and married a white woman.[56]  Additionally, Cannon recorded in his journal having stated in 1881 that when it came to the important question of interracial marriage, Mormons believed against "intermarriage with inferior races, particularly the negro." [59]

 

1900–1950 teachings

 

George Cannon

 

In 1900, George Cannon, first counselor under Lorenzo Snow, repeated Brigham Young's teachings that if a man who had the priesthood married a black woman, then according to the law of the Lord, the man and any offspring should be killed so that the seed of Cain did not receive the priesthood.[57] [56] 

 

Under Joseph F. Smith

 

Some other early 20th century teachings on the subject include notes from a 1907 Deseret News book by church seventy and influential Mormon theologian B.H. Roberts. In it Roberts approvingly quoted a Southern author who stated that a social divide between white and black people should be maintained at all costs as socializing would lead to mixed-race marriages with an inferior race and no disaster would compare to this as it would doom the Caucasian race. [10] [60]  Additionally, a 1913 church publication in the church's Young Woman's Journal encouraged young women to maintain white racial purity and health by avoiding "race disintegration" and "race suicide". [12] [61]

 

Reuben Clark

 

The apostle Reuben Clark spoke against mixed-race marriage several times in the 1940's, once calling it a "wicked virus." [2]

 

First Presidency member Reuben Clark under George Smith told Young Women's general leaders in 1946 that, "It is sought today in certain quarters to break down all race prejudice, and at the end of the road ... is intermarriage. ...[D]o not ever let that wicked virus get into your systems that brotherhood either permits or entitles you to mix races which are inconsistent. Biologically, it is wrong; spiritually, it is wrong." [2]

 

The quote was reprinted in the church's official Improvement Era magazine (a predecessor to the current Ensign magazine).[62] Three years later as senior vice-president of the church-owned Hotel Utah which then banned black people, Clark stated that the ban was in place to prevent interracial socializing that could hurt church leaders' efforts "to preserve the purity of the race that is entitled to hold the priesthood." [63]  In response to inquiries from a Californian stake president about whether white members were required to associate with black people he also wrote that the church taught white members to avoid social interaction with black people since it could lead to mixed-race marriages and multi-ethnic children. [29] [64]

 

Under George Smith

 

In 1947 the First Presidency, sent a response letter to a member inquiring on the subject stating, "Social intercourse between the Whites and the Negroes should certainly not be encouraged because of leading to intermarriage, which the Lord has forbidden. ... [T]rying to break down social barriers between the Whites and the Blacks is [a move] that should not be encouraged because inevitably it means the mixing of the races if carried to its logical conclusion." [56] [2]

 

Two months later in a letter to Lowry Nelson, the First Presidency stated that marriage between a black person and a white person is not sanctioned by the church and is "contrary to church doctrine".[65] [66] [67]

 

1950–1978 teachings

 

Under David McKay

 

The latter half of the 20th century saw many changes in U.S. legal, and social views of interracial marriage, and many changes in top church leaders' teachings on the topic. For instance, church apostle Mark Petersen said in a 1954 address that church doctrine barred black people and white people from marrying each other. [68]

 

The speech was circulated among BYU religion faculty, much to the embarrassment of fellow LDS scholars, and over twenty years later Petersen denied knowing if the copies of his speech being passed around were authentic or not, apparently out of embarrassment. [29] [69]

 

In 1958, church apostle Bruce McConkie published "Mormon Doctrine" in which he stated that "the whole negro race have been cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste apart, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should not intermarry." [29]  The quote remained, despite many other revisions, [29] until the church's Deseret Book ceased printing the book in 2010. [70]  The apostle Delber Stapley

wrote in a 1964 letter to Mitt Romney's father that black people should not be entitled to "inter-marriage privileges with the Whites." [71] [72]

 

In 1966, a white woman who had received her endowments was banned by local leaders from going to the temple and was told her endowments were invalid because she had since married a black man. Church president McKay upheld the ban on her going to the temple, but said her endowments were still valid. [3]

 

Spencer Kimball

 

Kimball gave several addresses in the 50's, 60's and 70's discouraging interracial marriage. 

 

Top church leader Spencer W. Kimball gave several speeches addressing the subject. [73] In a June 1958 address at Brigham Young University, he stated that "When I said you must teach your people to overcome their prejudices and accept the Indians, I did not mean that you would encourage intermarriage ... we must discourage intermarriage ... it is not expedient." [26] [73] He clarified, however, that interracial marriage was not considered a sin. [74]

 

In a January 1959 address he taught that church leaders were unanimous in teachings that Caucasians should marry Caucasians stating that interracial marriage was selfish because the background differences could pose challenges to the marriage and children. [75]  He also told BYU students in 1965 that "the brethren feel that it is not the wisest thing to cross racial lines in dating and marrying",[76] something he repeated to them as church president over a decade later in 1976.[77] 

To your final point, of course there isn't much said condemning interracial marriage since Kimball.

And yes, it's clear LDS leaders' language has softened and changed over time to no longer consider it sinful, worthy of death, against biology, contrary to Church doctrine, or a wicked virus.

That's entirely central to MY point; the church and it's leadership have since moved past condemning it, and even went on record that interracial marriage was no longer considered sinful, as recently as 2013.

That said, it takes a great deal of mental gymnastics to try to pin the LDS Faith's past racist teachings only on Brigham Young or a couple of leaders who somehow went rogue or were misguided or products of their time.  The church clearly held that interracial marriage was contrary to the doctrines of the church for decades--for more than 100 years--across multiple leaders, prophets, seers, revelators, apostles, and First Presidencies.

Thankfully, that all changed in 1978, as memorialized by McConkie's now-famous talk:

"We have read these passages and their associated passages for many years. We have seen what the words say and have said to ourselves, “Yes, it says that, but we must read out of it the taking of the gospel and the blessings of the temple to the Negro people, because they are denied certain things.” There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

 

"We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more.

 

"It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year (1978). It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."

 

 

Edited March 9, 2020 by Daniel2

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The church doesn't have a consistent list of official positions that I'm aware of.  In the internet age, they seem to be leaning towards this concept of lists of teachings more recently with the gospel topics essays and other pages on church owned web sites where people can see topics listed, but I don't think we can call these official positions necessarily.  I would point out that many of those essays list multiple ways of viewing issues, like for the BoA essay. There have been many different positions published in manuals for Sunday School discussions over the years, but I also wouldn't call those official, and clearly they have developed and evolved as well.   

The only document of church teachings that seems to carry some authoritative weight would be the canonized articles of faith.  Otherwise, I would say the church, historically speaking, has seemed to leave things open for interpretation when it comes to official teachings and has instead focused on broad principles.  

You could make an argument for what the dominant narrative is, but I don't think thats the same thing as official teachings.  The dominant narrative has also evolved significantly over time.  

I still say it makes no sense that the Church would publish an official guide for youth with unauthoritative content — not in an age of priesthood correlation. And the Church is more consistent in its positions than you are willing to believe. 

[hope_for_things]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not sad at all.  It's not like FTSOY is the only way of understanding the Church's teachings on this topic.  It's more a matter of convenience and concision.

Oh, brother.  Nobody is claiming "perfection."  But what we have is pretty clear.

We live in a very interconnected world.  If I was indifferent to the well-being of my fellow Saints, I would either remain silent on important topics like this, or else voice my opinion and then withdraw.  As it is, however, there is a "Marketplace of Ideas" in which we are all making "purchases."  I think we need to participate in it.  Including the Church.  So I am glad the Church is presenting ideas in that marketplace.  

Frankly, I think it's kind of weird some people object to the Church making its position clear and widely known.

THanks,

-Smac

Like I mentioned in my post, there are some who believe that these instructions for teenagers are authoritative, and thats fine if that paradigm works for you.  I see some serious drawbacks in this kind of perspective.  Yes, they are clear.  Clarity is important if you're interested in following instructions exactly.  I believe if you're looking to grow as a person, to develop an inner authority, rather than rely external authority for strict moral guidance, then I would argue that this paradigm is very limited and stifling.  

I would agree with you on the market place of ideas.  In which case I think our participation and conversations matter as we seek to articulate ideas and explain perspectives.  I don't think the church is making any strong authoritative official doctrinal positions with respect to the FTSOY pamphlet.  See my response to Scott for more on that perspective.  

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I still say it makes no sense that the Church would publish an official guide for youth with unauthoritative content — not in an age of priesthood correlation. And the Church is more consistent in its positions than you are willing to believe. 

I don't see the FTSOY as meeting the definition for an "official position", thats what was being discussed.  Its authoritative power largely comes from how local leaders interpret and administer the guidelines.  I don't see the church as consistent with respect to a historical view, I think its clear they are quite inconsistent over time, but perhaps if you're looking from a day to day perspective or a country to country perspective, I think you could argue for great consistency.  So it depends on what you're looking at.  

[Scott Lloyd]

39 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't see the FTSOY as meeting the definition for an "official position", thats what was being discussed.  Its authoritative power largely comes from how local leaders interpret and administer the guidelines.  I don't see the church as consistent with respect to a historical view, I think its clear they are quite inconsistent over time, but perhaps if you're looking from a day to day perspective or a country to country perspective, I think you could argue for great consistency.  So it depends on what you're looking at.  

You’re quibbling over venues. 
 

I just lost a fairly lengthy reply to a “401 error.” Before trying to recreate it, I’ll see if this one goes through. 
 

Trying again.
 

It makes no sense the Church would publish a guide as pervasive and important as For the Strength of Youth without scrutinizing it for consistency with doctrine and policy. Not with what I know about Church correlation. 
 

You seem inclined to marginalize official word from the Church based on venue. I don’t think that squares with reality. 
 

The recent clarification, for example, identifying green tea, cold coffee beverages, ice tea and e-cigarettes as contrary to the Word of Wisdom appeared initially in the New Era, the Church magazine for youth. Yet it is just as binding as anything else. 

Edited March 9, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Like I mentioned in my post, there are some who believe that these instructions for teenagers are authoritative, and thats fine if that paradigm works for you. 

Well, yes.  FTSOY is authoritative for those who submit to the authority of the Church.

31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I see some serious drawbacks in this kind of perspective.  Yes, they are clear.  Clarity is important if you're interested in following instructions exactly.  I believe if you're looking to grow as a person, to develop an inner authority, rather than rely external authority for strict moral guidance, then I would argue that this paradigm is very limited and stifling.

There are plenty of things in the Restored Gospel about which reasonable minds can disagree.

However, there are also plenty of things which are important, which are clearly and repeatedly and emphatically taught, and which therefore are beyond the realm of reasonable dispute.

By way of example: A person purportedly "looking to grow as a person, to develop an inner authority, rather than rely external authority for strict moral guidance" may decide for himself that the prohibitions against adultery and fornication do not apply to him.  Do you think that is a justifiable, reasonable conclusion to be reached by a member of the Church?

31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I would agree with you on the market place of ideas. 

Okay.  Why, then, is the clarity set forth in the FTSOY pamphlet incompatible with "looking to grow as a person, to develop an inner authority"?

If the "marketplace" can accommodate clear and concise instruction for youth, why is that a problem for you?

32 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't see the FTSOY as meeting the definition for an "official position", thats what was being discussed. 

I don't see how it could be construed as anything but the Church's "official position."  It's published by the Church.  It is prefaced by a message from the First Presidency.

32 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its authoritative power largely comes from how local leaders interpret and administer the guidelines. 

No, it's authoritative power comes from the First Presidency.  Bishops have some discretionary authority to "interpret and administer," but not as much as you seem to suggest.

Thanks,

-Smac

[carbon dioxide]

Looking at the protests and the messages they send the main issue they bring up is that God loves gay people.  They are children of God, Love is all that matters and so on and so on.  Yes they are right.  God does love gays and transgenders like God loves heterosexuals.  God also loves the pedophile, murder, drunk, drug user and dealer, prostitute and pimp, thieves, liars, and so forth.  God loves everyone in the Celestial Kingdom.  God loves all in the Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdom.  Not sure about outer darkness.  Anyway God love pretty much everyone.  That does not mean God approves of any behavior nor does God dismiss behavior or consequences due to love.  I love my kids to death but there are things my kids can do that will warrant consequence and punishment.  My love for them does not wash that away. 

So yes God loves the gay person just as he loves me.  I can't use the love argument to justify behavior that might come naturally to me or that I want to do.   The scriptures are clear.  I the Lord can not look upon sin with the least degree of allowance and the natural man is an enemy to God.  That is not going to change regarding what calendar year one uses.

Edited March 9, 2020 by carbon dioxide

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Looking at the protests and the messages they send the main issue they bring up is that God loves gay people.  They are children of God, Love is all that matters and so on and so on.  Yes they are right.  God does love gays and transgenders like God loves heterosexuals.  God also loves the pedophile, murder, drunk, drug user and dealer, prostitute and pimp, thieves, liars, and so forth.  God loves everyone in the Celestial Kingdom.  God loves all in the Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdom.  Not sure about outer darkness.  Anyway God love pretty much everyone.  That does not mean God approves of any behavior nor does God dismiss behavior or consequences due to love.  I love my kids to death but there are things my kids can do that will warrant consequence and punishment.  My love for them does not wash that away. 

So yes God loves the gay person just as he loves me.  I can't use the love argument to justify behavior that might come naturally to me or that I want to do.   The scriptures are clear.  I the Lord can not look upon sin with the least degree of allowance and the natural man is an enemy to God.  That is not going to change regarding what calendar year one uses.

What is sinful about two men marrying each other, having a loving relationship, and rejoicing in righteousness and truth together?  Tell me where God forbids same-sex marriage. You won't find such a thing in scripture.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Looking at the protests and the messages they send the main issue they bring up is that God loves gay people.  They are children of God, Love is all that matters and so on and so on.  Yes they are right.  God does love gays and transgenders like God loves heterosexuals.  God also loves the pedophile, murder, drunk, drug user and dealer, prostitute and pimp, thieves, liars, and so forth.  God loves everyone in the Celestial Kingdom.  God loves all in the Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdom.  Not sure about outer darkness.  Anyway God love pretty much everyone.  That does not mean God approves of any behavior nor does God dismiss behavior or consequences due to love.  I love my kids to death but there are things my kids can do that will warrant consequence and punishment.  My love for them does not wash that away. 

So yes God loves the gay person just as he loves me.  I can't use the love argument to justify behavior that might come naturally to me or that I want to do.   The scriptures are clear.  I the Lord can not look upon sin with the least degree of allowance and the natural man is an enemy to God.  That is not going to change regarding what calendar year one uses.

This, of course is not new. It’s pervasive in society today, symptomatic of what Ralph Hancock called the “love wins” mentality. 
 

Hancock gave a presentation at the FairMormon Conference back in 2016. 
 

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2016/love-wins-charity-loses

Said he:

”Love Wins” – you recognize the slogan that became viral in the summer of 2015 among those celebrating the U.S. Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges, which held that homosexual marriage is a fundamental right under the Constitution.   A similar sensibility is conveyed in the “Love Has No Labels” propaganda campaign on television and the internet.

”What is the thrust of these images, these appeals? What they imply is that there is no difficult question of constitutional law or political philosophy to examine, nothing to debate regarding moral and social purposes of the natural family or the ethical principles that underlie our social compact: the simple word ’love,’ and the feeling it is supposed to evoke, are held to have settled all such questions. If you are not against love, then you cannot oppose the indefinite expansion of ’rights’ protecting sexual expression and affirming diverse lifestyles. And who can be against love?’ “

 

 

Edited March 9, 2020 by Scott Lloyd