Byu Honor Code Matches New Handbook

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yep.  I previously addressed the "#DezNat" issue last fall: DezNat (Deseret Nation) = White Nationalism?

An excerpt:

I think missionary work is one of the best ways to foster mutual understanding and respect, and to reduce inclinations toward racial divisiveness.

Dunno.

Thanks,

-Smac

I’m afraid many on the left are prone to use the term “alt right” as code for “anybody whose politics I don’t like.” This may be happening at BYU too. 
 

By the way, in following your link, I now see that I responded to your post back then. So I guess I had heard of this group after all. I had forgotten. 

Edited March 12, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Agreed that there are extremists everywhere these days, and we ought to be careful about avoiding them.  I look to critical thinking and my conscious for direction and I also listen to a number of sources, experts in their fields of expertise.  I know the general authorities aren't experts on the topics of racism or LGBTQ issues, so I don't consider their perspectives very strongly when it comes to these issues. 

The General Authorities are experts on the teachings and positions of the Church and in revelation as given by God to govern His people. To deny or marginalize that role, or to put secular considerations above it, is in itself an extremist position. 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The General Authorities are experts on the teachings and positions of the Church and in revelation as given by God to govern His people. To deny or marginalize that role, or to put secular considerations above it, is in itself an extremist position. 

I don't consider them experts on church history, which I think would include the teachings and position of the church over time.  They seem woefully ignorant in the past, and perhaps getting better, thanks to the actual experts (historians).  

Am I marginalizing and denying, no, just stating my opinion on what I think is fairly obvious if someone tries to look at things objectively.  To call someone extremist because you don't agree seems like an overreach into ad hominem here.  

[Scott Lloyd]

13 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't consider them experts on church history, which I think would include the teachings and position of the church over time.  They seem woefully ignorant in the past, and perhaps getting better, thanks to the actual experts (historians).  

Am I marginalizing and denying, no, just stating my opinion on what I think is fairly obvious if someone tries to look at things objectively.  To call someone extremist because you don't agree seems like an overreach into ad hominem here.  

I didn’t say Church history. I said the teachings and position of the Church. No secular “expert,” whatever his claim to knowledge or scholarship, trumps the authorities of the Church in this respect. Such is contrary to the order of heaven. 

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I didn’t say Church history. I said the teachings and position of the Church. No secular “expert,” whatever his claim to knowledge or scholarship, trumps the authorities of the Church in this respect. Such is contrary to the order of heaven. 

In Mormonism, our history and our teachings are intertwined.  If they are experts in the teachings and they are pointing to historical evidence to support those teachings, like in the First Vision narrative for example, then their lack of expertise about the actual historical events and how they unfolded and how the narratives told about those events evolved over time in the church, leads to really poor exegesis.  

As for the order of heaven, who knows what it actually is, just because some leader asserted that their paradigm is supported by heavenly order, doesn't make it true.  Countless charismatic leaders throughout history have made appeals to authority like that before.  As far as I'm concerned, your guess is as good as mine on that one.  

[Bane]

On 3/9/2020 at 7:21 PM, Daniel2 said:

Not sure what this means, but families of many conservative Faiths that don't support same-sex relationships end up having gay children in their families.  It's not a matter of "how we're raised," at least in the sense that 'teaching children that same-sex behavior is wrong' certainly does not mean we'll all grow up to be  heterosexual.  My own devoutly-LDS parents' earnest as well as sincere efforts in teaching me that same-sex behaviors are wrong (including changing channels, et all) are evidence that is not the case. 

I'm genuinely curious, Daniel, and I ask because there's an indication that you might know... do families that follow conservative faiths on average produce a greater or lesser or equivalent quantity of gay children than other families do?