The Nehor Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 3 hours ago, Tacenda said: The actual word "homosexual" was added in the 1980's in the bible. Please read the first article I shared to see it for yourself. In one translation of it which the Church does not use. The direct implication of general homosexuality has been in translations much longer and many of those references were originally (before that change) more a condemnation of pederasty and not explicitly about general homosexuality. 1
The Nehor Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 50 minutes ago, Sunslight said: I don't control them. Im tired of the liberal agenda controlling us. We have to defend and remove this sickness from our society. By running into the arms of anyone opposing them no matter what they stand for? That could lead to problems. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 31 minutes ago, Daniel2 said: Good catch; you're correct, I apologize, and I and my math were wrong... lol. Eight years, not eighteen, so FTSOY isn't as old as I mentioned... but my point still remains the same. In fact, a "revelation" from just 3 years ago has already been overturned, so as far as LGBT issues in the LDS church, 8 years ago isn't nearly as current as you imply it to be. As for your second paragraph.... nice job re-quoting the church's new policy, which I posted previously in full. Again, my point remains the same. Any thoughts on my response to your CFR providing numerous additional LDS leaders who clearly "made a fuss" over interracial marriage...? I responded to this post, but for some reason my post disappeared. Mysterious board glitch, because I know it got posted. You asked, “Any thoughts on my response to your CFR? ...” Only that you did your homework. Good job. Some of our long-dead Church leaders made some now-embarrassing statements in their lifetimes. I recognize that. I’ve said some dumb things too. I only hope that, weighed in the balance, I might come close to being a fraction of the men they were. Regarding the other, if a thing remains a serious transgression even after administrative policy has changed somewhat regarding how it is dealt with, there’s not much to commend it even now.
Meadowchik Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: I responded to this post, but for some reason my post disappeared. Mysterious board glitch, because I know it got posted. You asked, “Any thoughts on my response to your CFR? ...” Only that you did your homework. Good job. Some of our long-dead Church leaders made some now-embarrassing statements in their lifetimes. I recognize that. I’ve said some dumb things too. I only hope that, weighed in the balance, I might come close to being a fraction of the men they were. Regarding the other, if a thing remains a serious transgression even after administrative policy has changed somewhat regarding how it is dealt with, there’s not much to commend it even now. But if something prohibited by leaders has little to no backing in scripture, what to do? If the current prohibition appears most likely to depend on the taboos of the leaders' formative years? If the prohibited thing is proven to have good spiritual fruit and involving people who rejoice in righteousness and truth, the prohibited thing being characterized by Christlike love? And if it's not little thing, but critical to the emotional, physical, and spiritual health of the participants? In such a case, what is one's duty to the truth? Edited March 10, 2020 by Meadowchik
Daniel2 Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 This statement by Nathan Kitchen (Affirmation President and same author of the editorial I posted previously) just came across my FB feed. Interesting... When I met with BYU General Counsel in October, I was told that administration (as part of the "President's Council") created a plan for an on campus LGBTQ support group. President Worthen approved it and sent it to the Board of Trustees. It was returned with a one word answer, "No." No accompanying explanation. The new honor code was released and the Provo BYU honor code office immediately tells everyone that same sex hand holding, kissing, and even dating for fun or companionship was no longer an honor code violation. You know how the church works. A director of the honor code office sneezes by assignment. Someone higher up gave him the green light to communicate this new enforcement. If he had gone rogue he would have been immediately fired. BYU administration approached the hundreds of LGBTQ student protesters who had assembled on BYU campus outside the Wilkinson center. They told the student protestors that they needed a permit signed by administration to protest on campus.The students said they didn't have one and asked how long a permit takes to get. Instead of dispersing the student protestors, the administrators surprised everyone by saying they already did the leg work for them and had brought a signed permit for them to continue. Someone has anxiety about LGBTQ students at BYU and it is not BYU. If you want to read an anxiety laden statement about student public displays of affection, look at the CES Commissioner's letter. He might as well have written a letter explaining why beards are in violation of the spirit of the law, or why caffeinated sodas (that had been banned from campus for 30 years) were in violation of the spirit of the word of wisdom. Letting vulnerable LGBTQ students twist in the wind for two weeks in uncertainty is a symptom of power struggles happening at the highest levels. We are not done yet. Fasten your seat belts. Take your vitamins. 3
Popular Post california boy Posted March 10, 2020 Popular Post Posted March 10, 2020 I am a firm believer in the famous statement by Martin Luther King, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” When Prop 8 passed, I was pretty upset with the Church for doing all it could to take away the civil right for gay couples to marry in the state of California. The passage of Prop 8 brought this whole issue to the forefront of the American people. For the next couple of years, both for and against sides of the debate went on television and regularly presented their arguments on what was morally right. In the end, moral justice won out and I believe as a direct result of the passage of Prop 8, gay marriage was legalized across the country. The LGBT community owes a debut of gratitude for the key part the Mormon Church played in making that happen. The majority of the members of the Church no longer are celebrating their victory over Prop 8. Many regret the Church’s activism against the LGBT community. When the famous October policy against children of gay parents was issued, those on this board will remember that I stated over and over again,” I don’t care what policies the Church decides to implement against gay families.” I believed in the moral universe bending towards justice. As a result of this policy and the firestorm that occurred, the Church worked to pass laws protecting LGBT from housing and employment discrimination. I believe, this was partly to try and help their public image after the October policy.. The policy was dropped sooner than I think most of us expected. The majority of the members of the Church no longer are supporting that policy It would be interesting to resurrect that thread and see if the adamant reasons for support of that policy by Church defenders is still justified. The moral compass has bent once again to justice. We now can thank the Honor Code office for this next move forward. It has brought the injustice BYU policies has for its LGBT students to the nations attention. For the first time this injustice is now splattered across all the media in the country. For the first time, BYU LGBT students are standing up and stating this is wrong and asking for change. For the first time, members are standing outside the Church office building and saying, “This is wrong”. And the national media is once again paying attention. While there has been rumblings of BYU boycotts over LGBT issues, BYU has now made it difficult to overlook this issue. What will happen when those students at BYU start contacting LGBT organizations in schools that BYU plays this next football season? The next couple of years will be interesting to watch. Maybe this pattern is how God moves the Church slowly forward to being more inclusive and aligning its moral compass towards justice and towards His will. It seems to be a pattern that we have seen before. What Church leaders once thought was immoral (interracial marriage for example) now is perfectly acceptable. Yes, I know that many hard liners feel they are on solid ground on what they think is moral or not, I am just not sure Church leaders feel so strongly anymore. I think there is a reason why this latest course correction came from CES rather than the official Church newsroom with apostleship backing the change back to previous Honor Code positions. Perhaps in a couple of years, holding hands, kissing and hugging for gay couples will be no more sinful than for straight couples. Is that stance really off the table forever? Time will tell. But what do I know. I am just a former member who happens to be gay, watching from the sidelines. 5
gopher Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 17 hours ago, Daniel2 said: 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 Apparently we aren't having the same conversation.
Daniel2 Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 My. Wilcox nails it, here... Kendall Wilcox: LDS Church can’t get away with ambiguous language (George Frey | Special to The Tribune) BYU students and others gather in front of the Ernest L. Wilkinson Student Center on the campus of Brigham Young University to protest BYU's rollback of a newly announced policy change on LGBTQ students on March 5, 2020, in Provo. By Kendall Wilcox | Special to The Tribune · Published: 3 days ago I don’t see the recent events concerning the Honor Code at Brigham Young University as a “reversal” or “flip-flop” (though I understand why it feels like it is). Instead, I see it as a horribly mismanaged rollout of a sanitized-for-public-relations-and-correlation-purposes draconian policy that opened the door for misinterpretation and misplaced hopes. LDS Church HQ and the Honor Code Office weren’t communicating and, per usual, LGBTQ+ folks pay the price. But ultimately, this whole mess is due to the persistent and erroneous belief that the “Law of Chastity is applied the same way for all Mormons - straight and gay.” Or as President Dallin Oaks put it in April 2019: “Immoral conduct in heterosexual and homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way.” Church and BYU leaders continue to believe that this legalistic and vague wording will afford them the appearance of fairness and placate their critics. But the Law of Chastity has not been, and may never be, applied the same way to straight and gay members. Straight members are encouraged to pursue marriage by dating (and all the things that dating people do) while gay members are told to deny themselves of all of this. In other words, per Oaks’ statement, in the church’s eyes all “conduct” in a homosexual relationship is considered “immoral conduct.” There is no moral conduct in a homosexual relationship. So it appears that some well-intentioned yet ill-informed persons somewhere in the LDS Church Education System (from Elder Holland to an honor code office counselor) — feeling pressure from professional and athletic associations and a growing portion of church membership — thought it would be wise to remove the old explicit language from the Honor Code prohibiting all same sex intimacy and in its place, double down on that erroneous notion of equal application of the law of chastity. Church HQ thought they could get away with the new ambiguous wording and claim to be “nicer” to queer people while never actually changing anything of substance. Then the Honor Code counselors thought they could get away with taking the “simplified” wording literally (i.e. removal of prohibitive language must mean full ecclesiastical approbation). And no one spoke up and pointed out how problematic that would be or how it would open the door for many to believe that the change in wording would be taken to mean that the church would now allow same sex intimacy — something what would have merited a huge announcement from the church, not a buried simplification of wording in the honor code." And now we have this uproar and outrage and heartache. It’s justified and yet so avoidable if only someone, somewhere, in power had spoken up and stated the obvious: That the wording change does not mean that LDS Church is signaling that it is changing its standards regarding same sex relationships. That the removal of the the explicit language in the old honor code prohibiting “same-sex behavior” is going to lead some people to believe the fundamental prohibition has been removed. I recognize that this kind of analysis is of no comfort to most people right now. I just wanted to give my take on how/why things have played out as they have. But, hopefully, the church now understands that it cannot get away with the vague language and project an air of inclusivity and acceptance to its critics. And I hope middle managers will be more circumspect when — in their zeal to make the church a more welcoming space — they want to make pronouncements that are clearly not reflective of the realities we are facing. 1
Daniel2 Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, gopher said: Apparently we aren't having the same conversation. Ok...There’s not much more for me to say other than I’ve acknowledged the priesthood ban isn’t exactly the same as the ban on same-sex relationships (black members were denied the priesthood based only on their skin color, while gay members living by LDS rules may still hold the priesthood). But that’s not my main point in my discussion with you, which is the ban on same-sex relationships is more like the ban on interracial marriage, anyway, and that racial and homophobic discrimination share many parallels in a variety of ways. Clearly, interracial marriage and same-sex marriage are both a matter of choosing one’s spouse, and obviously behavior-based. Clearly, I’m not alone, and many people continue to see historical similarities in how BYU’s (and the LDS Faith’s) stance towards LGBT issues is mirroring how BYU’s (and the LDS Faith’s) views on racial issues changed and evolved over time. It’s mentioned in almost every commentary I see, whether in posts by CaliforniaBoy and other post-ers here, or those in the mainstream and social media. Even here in Utah, the comparisons are drawn: Quote The U. should protest BYU’s homophobic policies (Rick Bowmer | AP photo) BYU students and fans celebrate on the court following their victory over Gonzaga following an NCAA college basketball game Saturday, Feb. 22, 2020, in Provo, Utah. By Chris Campbell | The Public Forum Updated: 52 minutes ago I am a very proud Utah alum and am a strong supporter of Utah sports. We alums of the University of Utah all have a responsibility to protect our school’s legacy. In 1968, in protest of the LDS church’s racists policies, seven San Jose football players refused to play BYU in football. The San Jose State basketball team also boycotted BYU because of the LDS church’s racist policies. In 1969, students at the University of Wyoming demonstrated against BYU and the “Black 14” were kicked off the football team for attempting to wear black armbands in protest of BYU. Protests continued at many schools, including the University of Utah. Stanford and other prominent schools dropped BYU from their future sports schedules. Not coincidentally and in very large part due to the student and school protests and boycotts, in 1978 the LDS church took a large step forward in changing its racist policies. The BYU Honor Code specifically prohibits acts of physical intimacy between same-sex couples. Last month when BYU removed the “homosexual behavior” clause from its Honor Code, many thought BYU was taking a large step forward. Hopes were dashed, however, when the LDS church clarified by a follow-up letter stating that same-sex romantic behavior is “not compatible” with the BYU Honor Code. Why does the University of Utah continue to play a school that has blatant homophobic policies? These policies are harming our children. If the University of Utah continues to look the other way, why are the students of the University of Utah not demanding action? It’s time that we stop looking the other way. Allowing that team down south to come into our stadiums, fields and arenas is implicit support of their destructive and harmful homophobic policies. Please, U. of U., take action. Let’s get on the right side of history. This story will be told someday and this is our chance to do the right thing.[/quite] Edited March 10, 2020 by Daniel2 2
Duncan Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 8 hours ago, Sunslight said: I don't control them. Im tired of the liberal agenda controlling us. We have to defend and remove this sickness from our society. No, you're wrong. Do you control them about every bad thing in society? i can't imagine the weight of that! there is no such thing as a "liberal agenda" and you've already showed us your conservative agenda, which flies in the face of everything the Church espouses
hope_for_things Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 5 hours ago, california boy said: I am a firm believer in the famous statement by Martin Luther King, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” When Prop 8 passed, I was pretty upset with the Church for doing all it could to take away the civil right for gay couples to marry in the state of California. The passage of Prop 8 brought this whole issue to the forefront of the American people. For the next couple of years, both for and against sides of the debate went on television and regularly presented their arguments on what was morally right. In the end, moral justice won out and I believe as a direct result of the passage of Prop 8, gay marriage was legalized across the country. The LGBT community owes a debut of gratitude for the key part the Mormon Church played in making that happen. The majority of the members of the Church no longer are celebrating their victory over Prop 8. Many regret the Church’s activism against the LGBT community. When the famous October policy against children of gay parents was issued, those on this board will remember that I stated over and over again,” I don’t care what policies the Church decides to implement against gay families.” I believed in the moral universe bending towards justice. As a result of this policy and the firestorm that occurred, the Church worked to pass laws protecting LGBT from housing and employment discrimination. I believe, this was partly to try and help their public image after the October policy.. The policy was dropped sooner than I think most of us expected. The majority of the members of the Church no longer are supporting that policy It would be interesting to resurrect that thread and see if the adamant reasons for support of that policy by Church defenders is still justified. The moral compass has bent once again to justice. We now can thank the Honor Code office for this next move forward. It has brought the injustice BYU policies has for its LGBT students to the nations attention. For the first time this injustice is now splattered across all the media in the country. For the first time, BYU LGBT students are standing up and stating this is wrong and asking for change. For the first time, members are standing outside the Church office building and saying, “This is wrong”. And the national media is once again paying attention. While there has been rumblings of BYU boycotts over LGBT issues, BYU has now made it difficult to overlook this issue. What will happen when those students at BYU start contacting LGBT organizations in schools that BYU plays this next football season? The next couple of years will be interesting to watch. Maybe this pattern is how God moves the Church slowly forward to being more inclusive and aligning its moral compass towards justice and towards His will. It seems to be a pattern that we have seen before. What Church leaders once thought was immoral (interracial marriage for example) now is perfectly acceptable. Yes, I know that many hard liners feel they are on solid ground on what they think is moral or not, I am just not sure Church leaders feel so strongly anymore. I think there is a reason why this latest course correction came from CES rather than the official Church newsroom with apostleship backing the change back to previous Honor Code positions. Perhaps in a couple of years, holding hands, kissing and hugging for gay couples will be no more sinful than for straight couples. Is that stance really off the table forever? Time will tell. But what do I know. I am just a former member who happens to be gay, watching from the sidelines. Thanks for sharing this perspective. I think its helpful to see how these dynamics are contributing to movement in the culture. I can also appreciate taking a positive moral arch perspective and I have hopes that this is the case. The skeptic in me doesn’t believe that this is a universal principle and I think a view of history shows many time periods where the moral arch does not bend towards justice over time. I also have a hard time thinking that divine providence is guiding these actions from a philosophical perspective, because of what that says about a capricious God willing to inflict suffering on certain people in an ends justifies the means kind of way. If such a powerful being could intervene, there are clearly more effective ways of changing policies than this. Ultimately though, I like the idea that the light being shined on these policies will have an impact over time. I also agree with you that some of the church’s opposition to what the more hard-line conservatives within the faith think about LGBTQ issues is pushing this clash with the broader culture, and that this dynamic may ultimately force change to happen sooner as the consequences of these battles are found to have a measurable impact on the broader church membership. The bigger the church gets, the more diverse the church becomes, the harder it will be for it to maintain policies that are in direct conflict with the dominant culture. 2
Amulek Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 13 hours ago, Duncan said: you have to hit them where it hurts🤑🤑 For what it's worth, when BYU went independent they negotiated a very lucrative contract with ESPN (which was recently renewed for another seven years). Any outreach the university has had toward rejoining a major conference since then has been more about convenience of scheduling than money. So these articles suggesting that the Honor Code change had anything to do with some some secretive attempt to join a big athletic conference are just ridiculous. The only people who find them credible are those who, much like the authors of the conspiracy theories themselves, are ignorant of the actual state of affairs. 3
hope_for_things Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 17 minutes ago, Amulek said: For what it's worth, when BYU went independent they negotiated a very lucrative contract with ESPN (which was recently renewed for another seven years). Any outreach the university has had toward rejoining a major conference since then has been more about convenience of scheduling than money. So these articles suggesting that the Honor Code change had anything to do with some some secretive attempt to join a big athletic conference are just ridiculous. The only people who find them credible are those who, much like the authors of the conspiracy theories themselves, are ignorant of the actual state of affairs. I don't agree. Joining a P5 conference has been on the wish list of the coaching staff and Tom Holmoe the AD for quite a few years. They have all publicly spoken about it. BYU put together a presentation for the Big 12 and formally committed resources towards trying to be considered for admission into the conference the last time that they were considering expanding. The public push back from Iowa State surrounding LGBTQ was real and may have influenced other schools on the committee as well. I'm a BYU season ticket holder and I was really hoping they could get into the Big 12. I was following this quite closely. While much of the negotiations were behind the scenes and there was no public reasoning given for why BYU was not invited to the B12, many people close to the whole process believe that this issue likely had an impact. https://www.iowastatedaily.com/news/politics_and_administration/campus/student-government-passes-resolution-against-byu-joining-big/article_1ddc04ba-7576-11e6-8cbb-9f29101a3b2f.html https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/big12/2016/08/09/byu-usga-lgbt-big-12-conference-expansion/88446494/ https://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/25-lgbt-groups-send-letter-to-big-12-urging-it-to-shun-byu-080816 2
stemelbow Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 5 hours ago, california boy said: I am a firm believer in the famous statement by Martin Luther King, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” When Prop 8 passed, I was pretty upset with the Church for doing all it could to take away the civil right for gay couples to marry in the state of California. The passage of Prop 8 brought this whole issue to the forefront of the American people. For the next couple of years, both for and against sides of the debate went on television and regularly presented their arguments on what was morally right. In the end, moral justice won out and I believe as a direct result of the passage of Prop 8, gay marriage was legalized across the country. The LGBT community owes a debut of gratitude for the key part the Mormon Church played in making that happen. The majority of the members of the Church no longer are celebrating their victory over Prop 8. Many regret the Church’s activism against the LGBT community. When the famous October policy against children of gay parents was issued, those on this board will remember that I stated over and over again,” I don’t care what policies the Church decides to implement against gay families.” I believed in the moral universe bending towards justice. As a result of this policy and the firestorm that occurred, the Church worked to pass laws protecting LGBT from housing and employment discrimination. I believe, this was partly to try and help their public image after the October policy.. The policy was dropped sooner than I think most of us expected. The majority of the members of the Church no longer are supporting that policy It would be interesting to resurrect that thread and see if the adamant reasons for support of that policy by Church defenders is still justified. The moral compass has bent once again to justice. We now can thank the Honor Code office for this next move forward. It has brought the injustice BYU policies has for its LGBT students to the nations attention. For the first time this injustice is now splattered across all the media in the country. For the first time, BYU LGBT students are standing up and stating this is wrong and asking for change. For the first time, members are standing outside the Church office building and saying, “This is wrong”. And the national media is once again paying attention. While there has been rumblings of BYU boycotts over LGBT issues, BYU has now made it difficult to overlook this issue. What will happen when those students at BYU start contacting LGBT organizations in schools that BYU plays this next football season? The next couple of years will be interesting to watch. Maybe this pattern is how God moves the Church slowly forward to being more inclusive and aligning its moral compass towards justice and towards His will. It seems to be a pattern that we have seen before. What Church leaders once thought was immoral (interracial marriage for example) now is perfectly acceptable. Yes, I know that many hard liners feel they are on solid ground on what they think is moral or not, I am just not sure Church leaders feel so strongly anymore. I think there is a reason why this latest course correction came from CES rather than the official Church newsroom with apostleship backing the change back to previous Honor Code positions. Perhaps in a couple of years, holding hands, kissing and hugging for gay couples will be no more sinful than for straight couples. Is that stance really off the table forever? Time will tell. But what do I know. I am just a former member who happens to be gay, watching from the sidelines. Hey California Boy, thanks for this. I really enjoyed it. I wish we could get a better picture of what the average members thought the 30 or so years pre-1978 on the topic of race and the priesthood. I'm guessing we'd see a big difference between typical members views in 1947 compared to those of 1977. Recently Dan Peterson on his blog said "The removal of the priesthood ban for blacks was, theologically speaking, a small matter. It altered little if anything of substance beyond itself. " I found that interesting because I doubt it would be true in 1947. The evolution of thought on the topic in those decades was fairly drastic. There were plenty of leaders in the Church who continued to suggest there would never be a change, with at least seemingly, seeking for a change. I don't know that its completely comparable but there's plenty to consider. As members in 1950s and 60s decided sympathized more and more due to racial injustice it appears the leaders too bent more and more to consider change. In 1949 the Church declared the doctrines of the Church, which today are largely disavowed--the curse place on the race for their fathers sins, and pre-earth behaviors that caused a "handicap". No doubt the members must have thought the teachings from the leaders were God's will and inspired, back in the 40s. In time members were likely less sold and the leader's statements, although many still grievous, became less vexing and difficult. I don't know if 30 years does it or not. Generations pass and old attitudes die, even if many people favor tradition and fear change and tolerance. Also if 30 years, I don't know where to start the clock. But I do think attitudes have changed on the topic of LGBTQ since 1990. I just don't think the Church is very close yet.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 I wonder why my thread was shut down and this one is still going on.
hope_for_things Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 12 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Hey California Boy, thanks for this. I really enjoyed it. I wish we could get a better picture of what the average members thought the 30 or so years pre-1978 on the topic of race and the priesthood. I'm guessing we'd see a big difference between typical members views in 1947 compared to those of 1977. Recently Dan Peterson on his blog said "The removal of the priesthood ban for blacks was, theologically speaking, a small matter. It altered little if anything of substance beyond itself. " I found that interesting because I doubt it would be true in 1947. The evolution of thought on the topic in those decades was fairly drastic. There were plenty of leaders in the Church who continued to suggest there would never be a change, with at least seemingly, seeking for a change. I don't know that its completely comparable but there's plenty to consider. As members in 1950s and 60s decided sympathized more and more due to racial injustice it appears the leaders too bent more and more to consider change. In 1949 the Church declared the doctrines of the Church, which today are largely disavowed--the curse place on the race for their fathers sins, and pre-earth behaviors that caused a "handicap". No doubt the members must have thought the teachings from the leaders were God's will and inspired, back in the 40s. In time members were likely less sold and the leader's statements, although many still grievous, became less vexing and difficult. I don't know if 30 years does it or not. Generations pass and old attitudes die, even if many people favor tradition and fear change and tolerance. Also if 30 years, I don't know where to start the clock. But I do think attitudes have changed on the topic of LGBTQ since 1990. I just don't think the Church is very close yet. I believe Armand Mauss has some survey information in his book Angel and the Beehive, on this very topic that includes pre-1978 views about race within the church. I don't have the book in front of me right now, but I might be able to check and get back to you later this evening.
smac97 Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 13 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Hey California Boy, thanks for this. I really enjoyed it. I wish we could get a better picture of what the average members thought the 30 or so years pre-1978 on the topic of race and the priesthood. Per my father, the membership was overwhelmingly overjoyed at the 1978 announcement. 13 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I don't know that its completely comparable but there's plenty to consider. I think the comparison is being pushed. Hard. Not sure how valid it is. It's proving to be effective to some extent, though. 13 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I don't know if 30 years does it or not. I think no. We're 50+ years into observing the Sexual Revolution. The Church continues to prohibit fornication and adultery. 13 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Generations pass and old attitudes die, even if many people favor tradition and fear change and tolerance. I don't think "tradition" is much at work here. 13 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Also if 30 years, I don't know where to start the clock. But I do think attitudes have changed on the topic of LGBTQ since 1990. I just don't think the Church is very close yet. Same here. I think the bullying, hectoring, slanders, and other coercive efforts are shaming some members of the Church into turning away from this part of the Law of Chastity. I think that's unfortunate. I also think some members of the Church are motivated principally by emotion and social ties in turning away from this part of the Law of Chastity. I have alot more compassion for these folks, but it's still unfortunate. I also think some (relatively few) members of the Church have attempted to formulate and present a calm, respectful, reasoned, exegetical, evidence-based approach resulting in turning away from this part of the Law of Chastity. I say this because I have been reading about this for years, and have not seen much in the way of efforts along these lines, let alone successful efforts. If anyone has any resources along these lines, I would appreciate links/citations. Thanks, -Smac
Amulek Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I don't agree. With what, specifically? Quote Joining a P5 conference has been on the wish list of the coaching staff and Tom Holmoe the AD for quite a few years. They have all publicly spoken about it. BYU put together a presentation for the Big 12 and formally committed resources towards trying to be considered for admission into the conference the last time that they were considering expanding. I never said that BYU hasn't looked to move into a major conference - just that money isn't the driving reason. BYU has got a sweet contract with ESPN for both broadcasts and bowl games. As I said before, the desire to move to a bigger conference is more about scheduling than it is about money. Quote The public push back from Iowa State surrounding LGBTQ was real and may have influenced other schools on the committee as well. I'm a BYU season ticket holder and I was really hoping they could get into the Big 12. I was following this quite closely. While much of the negotiations were behind the scenes and there was no public reasoning given for why BYU was not invited to the B12, many people close to the whole process believe that this issue likely had an impact. Big whoop. I still think it strains credulity to believe that a change to the Honor Code was made to pave the way for BYU Football - especially when we literally just negotiated a seven year extension to our contract with ESPN through 2026. Sorry, BYU is planning on staying independent for the foreseeable future. Which is why seeing articles trying to link the current HCO kerfuffle with anything currently going on with the athletic department are ridiculous.
Daniel2 Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I wonder why my thread was shut down and this one is still going on. I wondered the same thing. Perhaps because there were two threads on the same topic open?
stemelbow Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 16 minutes ago, smac97 said: Per my father, the membership was overwhelmingly overjoyed at the 1978 announcement. Per the many I've known and talked to, it's a mixed bag. But what I'd be more interested in is seeing the evolution of thought over the course of the 30 years before the lifting of the ban. 16 minutes ago, smac97 said: I think the comparison is being pushed. Hard. Not sure how valid it is. It's proving to be effective to some extent, though. I think no. We're 50+ years into observing the Sexual Revolution. The Church continues to prohibit fornication and adultery. Same sex marriage is not fornication nor adultery. 16 minutes ago, smac97 said: I don't think "tradition" is much at work here. Same here. I think the bullying, hectoring, slanders, and other coercive efforts are shaming some members of the Church into turning away from this part of the Law of Chastity. I think that's unfortunate. What? So people are becoming more tolerant of LGBTQ because they are bullied, hectored, slandered and coerced into being more tolerant? Personally I think reason and love usually wins out as we scrape our ideas and feelings through the market place of ideas and I think members are becoming more and more accepting of reason and love. 16 minutes ago, smac97 said: I also think some members of the Church are motivated principally by emotion and social ties in turning away from this part of the Law of Chastity. I have alot more compassion for these folks, but it's still unfortunate. In time members will become more and more convinced that same sex marriage and relationships aren't in opposition to things like the law of Chastity. They'll be able to say, "Oh, the law of chastity forbids sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage. But homosexuals can marry, so there's no reason to think they aren't being chaste." In essence the attitudes and interpretations will change. Soon someone will look back and say, "Well the Church never really taught as gospel or doctrine that someone cannot be gay. That was just leaders who were speculating". It'll be some interesting replay of history to watch the twisted logic get repeated. 16 minutes ago, smac97 said: I also think some (relatively few) members of the Church have attempted to formulate and present a calm, respectful, reasoned, exegetical, evidence-based approach resulting in turning away from this part of the Law of Chastity. I say this because I have been reading about this for years, and have not seen much in the way of efforts along these lines, let alone successful efforts. If anyone has any resources along these lines, I would appreciate links/citations. Thanks, -Smac
Scott Lloyd Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 10 minutes ago, Daniel2 said: I wondered the same thing. Perhaps because there were two threads on the same topic open? That’s probably the reason.
smac97 Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 1 minute ago, stemelbow said: Per the many I've known and talked to, it's a mixed bag. But what I'd be more interested in is seeing the evolution of thought over the course of the 30 years before the lifting of the ban. As I understand it, missionary work in Brasil was a significant motivating factor. Few efforts at overcoming ignorance and prejudice like with with serving people of another culture/race via missionary work. In my immediately family, I have family members who have served in Argentina, Samoa, Brasil, Texas (a border town, comprised almost entirely of Hispanic folks), Romania, Taiwan, Zimbabwe, the Philippines, Arizona (Navajo Reservation), Vanuatu, Venezuela, St. Louis (in overwhelmingly African-American areas), and a few other places I can't think of offhand. My dad's parents grew up in Mexico. My brother, who works for the Church, is raising two Muslim boys from Afghanistan. 1 minute ago, stemelbow said: Same sex marriage is not fornication nor adultery. But it likely involves same-sex relations, and would therefore violate the Law of Chastity. 1 minute ago, stemelbow said: Quote I think the bullying, hectoring, slanders, and other coercive efforts are shaming some members of the Church into turning away from this part of the Law of Chastity. I think that's unfortunate. What? So people are becoming more tolerant of LGBTQ because they are bullied, hectored, slandered and coerced into being more tolerant? Some people, yes. Others are have simply been bullied into silence. 1 minute ago, stemelbow said: Personally I think reason and love usually wins out as we scrape our ideas and feelings through the market place of ideas and I think members are becoming more and more accepting of reason and love. I think Ralph Hancock does a pretty good job of addressing the "love wins" slogan: “Love Wins,” and Charity Loses. (Thanks to Scott for pointing it out.) 1 minute ago, stemelbow said: Quote I also think some members of the Church are motivated principally by emotion and social ties in turning away from this part of the Law of Chastity. I have alot more compassion for these folks, but it's still unfortunate. In time members will become more and more convinced that same sex marriage and relationships aren't in opposition to things like the law of Chastity. Like how members became more and more convinced, via the Sexual Revolution, that adultery, fornication, "free love," etc. "aren't in opposition to things like the law of Chastity"? Certainly some will convince themselves of this. It's already happening to some extent. But the members do not establish doctrine. 1 minute ago, stemelbow said: They'll be able to say, "Oh, the law of chastity forbids sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage. But homosexuals can marry, so there's no reason to think they aren't being chaste." In essence the attitudes and interpretations will change. I agree. Change is necessary. But I think this will become more a matter of détente, much as we have in coping with loosening ethics pertaining to other aspects of the Law of Chastity. 1 minute ago, stemelbow said: Soon someone will look back and say, "Well the Church never really taught as gospel or doctrine that someone cannot be gay. That was just leaders who were speculating". Piffle. 1 minute ago, stemelbow said: It'll be some interesting replay of history to watch the twisted logic get repeated. Again, piffle. Thanks, -Smac 1
stemelbow Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 7 minutes ago, smac97 said: As I understand it, missionary work in Brasil was a significant motivating factor. Few efforts at overcoming ignorance and prejudice like with with serving people of another culture/race via missionary work. In my immediately family, I have family members who have served in Argentina, Samoa, Brasil, Texas (a border town, comprised almost entirely of Hispanic folks), Romania, Taiwan, Zimbabwe, the Philippines, Arizona (Navajo Reservation), Vanuatu, Venezuela, St. Louis (in overwhelmingly African-American areas), and a few other places I can't think of offhand. My dad's parents grew up in Mexico. My brother, who works for the Church, is raising two Muslim boys from Afghanistan. But it likely involves same-sex relations, and would therefore violate the Law of Chastity. Some people, yes. Others are have simply been bullied into silence. I think Ralph Hancock does a pretty good job of addressing the "love wins" slogan: “Love Wins,” and Charity Loses. (Thanks to Scott for pointing it out.) Like how members became more and more convinced, via the Sexual Revolution, that adultery, fornication, "free love," etc. "aren't in opposition to things like the law of Chastity"? Certainly some will convince themselves of this. It's already happening to some extent. But the members do not establish doctrine. I agree. Change is necessary. But I think this will become more a matter of détente, much as we have in coping with loosening ethics pertaining to other aspects of the Law of Chastity. Piffle. Again, piffle. Thanks, -Smac I imagine in 1962 there were plenty of members who were shouting out things like "piffle!" at the notion that the leaders were all wrong about the curse and it's various reasons. But as we have today, the Church disavows those previously described God-inspired notions. If in the end, for you to stay consistent, we have to say "Piffle!" to Church teaching generally, well, then I suppose we'll come full circle.
Recommended Posts