Letter Clarifies Intent of Byu Honor Code Change

[california boy]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And so the conspiracy theories begin to emerge. 

Well the Church did create the mess didn't it.  There would be no articles if the honor code had been left as it was, since the punishment has been left as it always was.

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

Not sure where this is coming from, but having HIV rarely is something you die from.  The medications currently used are highly effective.  I know many guys that have HIV and have for years.  Some of these post seem to be implying that if you are positive, you are on a certain road to an early death.  That simply is not true.  

Of course I am completely. unaware of your friends history, but I did not want a false narrative narrative  that being positive means your health is compromised.  

I might also add, since those reading this blog may be unaware of current science on this issue, that a person may be positive and still safely have sex with another person.  The current medication makes it possible to have a zero viral load, which makes infecting another person very rare.  That said, I am not advocating not taking prudent precautions.  This post is meant to inform, not some kind of political post.  

I didn't know this, thanks I'll read more about it. Why it takes lives of some and not for others, thanks again, grateful that the meds are available!

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

How do you think this all plays out if a gay person marries someone on earth to someone of the same sex?  Are they forever blacklisted from the Celestial Kingdom?

The doctrines of repentance and the Atonement of Christ rule out any notion of blacklist. 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

My thoughts:,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[reposted from “the other” thread, since there’s now two topics]

This is exactly how I believe it went down, perfect answer to this whole thread!

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well the Church did create the mess didn't it.  There would be no articles if the honor code had been left as it was, since the punishment has been left as it always was.

I’ve already said I’m agnostic about that tinkering with the honor code. It was apparently a misstep — an attempt to “teach correct principles and let them govern themselves” that went awry —. but perhaps I don’t understand it yet. 
 

But that doesn’t mean I accept ludicrous conspiracy theories. 

Edited March 5, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

Just now, california boy said:

How do you think this all plays out if a gay person marries someone on earth to someone of the same sex?  Are they forever blacklisted from the Celestial Kingdom?

First, I think we know that the same-sex relationship, whether as a "marriage" or not, will end at the death of one or the other participants.  We know this from D&C 132:7 :

Quote

And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

There is no provision in the Restored Gospel for a same-sex relationship to endure beyond death.  In a de minimis sense, I am open to the mean possibility that revelation in the future could alter this understanding (though I find that exceedingly unlikely).  But for now we work with what we've got.

Second, we also know that "{w}ithin the celestial glory are three levels, and to obtain the highest requires a temple marriage or sealing."  Thus, "{e}ven unmarried, we may reach the celestial kingdom, but we will be ministering angels only."

Third, we also know that all sins, save two (neither of which is entering into a same-sex marriage), can be repented of.

Fourth, we also know that Heavenly Father "judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son" (John 5:22).  It is therefore not within our province to render judgment as to anyone.  I also think it is inappropriate to speculate about such things.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

45 minutes ago, Duncan said:

the church is the obstacle (unless Elder Johnson represents someone else?) and that is crazy to me, just as it was to Elder Packer not being able to talk about Temples to the Tongan Saints

You are struggling with the same questions I had when I first came out.  What happens to gay people after they die if they remain celibate through their life here on earth?  Will they get the chance for an eternal marriage and the Celestial Kingdom?  Well only if they marry someone of the opposite sex.  

Wait, something that a gay person did not want to do their entire earthly life, they get to do when they die?  How is that something to look forward too?  I personally have no desire to be married to a woman in this life or especially throughout eternity.  That is suppose to be some kind of "reward" for being celibate?  Excuse me for not being excited about that "vision of eternal reward".  This is the exact reason why I left the Church.  If you are gay, you are just not included in the "Plan of Salvation".   Being gay in incompatible with eternal marriage as the Church defines it.  

[california boy]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The doctrines of repentance and the Atonement of Christ rule out any notion of blacklist. 

How do you repent for not being attracted to the opposite sex?

 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

If you are gay, you are just not included in the "Plan of Salvation".  

Wildly, flagrantly false.

-Smac

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

First, I think we know that the same-sex relationship, whether as a "marriage" or not, will end at the death of one or the other participants.  We know this from D&C 132:7 :

There is no provision in the Restored Gospel for a same-sex relationship to endure beyond death.  In a de minimis sense, I am open to the mean possibility that revelation in the future could alter this understanding (though I find that exceedingly unlikely).  But for now we work with what we've got.

Second, we also know that "{w}ithin the celestial glory are three levels, and to obtain the highest requires a temple marriage or sealing."  Thus, "{e}ven unmarried, we may reach the celestial kingdom, but we will be ministering angels only."

Third, we also know that all sins, save two (neither of which is entering into a same-sex marriage), can be repented of.

Fourth, we also know that Heavenly Father "judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son" (John 5:22).  It is therefore not within our province to render judgment as to anyone.  I also think it is inappropriate to speculate about such things.

Thanks,

-Smac

I will ask you the same question.  How does one repent of not being attracted to the opposite sex?

As far as speculation goes, the Church leaders have totally speculated on this whole gay marriage issue.  There has never been a revelation from God concerning gay marriage.

[california boy]

Just now, smac97 said:

Wildly, flagrantly false.

-Smac

No it is not.  How can you participate in the Plan of Salvation when you have no desire to marry someone of the opposite sex?

[smac97]

Just now, california boy said:

I will ask you the same question.  How does one repent of not being attracted to the opposite sex?

Oh, brother.  I'm having difficulty believing this question is presented in good faith.

The Church doesn't teach that same-sex attraction is a sin.  How many hundreds of times has that point been made?

Just now, california boy said:

As far as speculation goes, the Church leaders have totally speculated on this whole gay marriage issue.  

First, no, I don't think they have.

Second, if they have, they have done so as a component of their calling.  Such is within their stewardship, and is not in ours.

Just now, california boy said:

There has never been a revelation from God concerning gay marriage.

I think there has been ample revelation about marriage.

The issue is not, I think, the absence of revelation, but rather an unwillingness to accept the revelation we have already received.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

Quote

Quote

If you are gay, you are just not included in the "Plan of Salvation".  

Wildly, flagrantly false.

-Smac

No it is not.  

Yes, it is.  It is patently false.  You are telling a lie.  About us.  And we all know it.

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

How can you participate in the Plan of Salvation when you have no desire to marry someone of the opposite sex?

The false statement was "{homosexuals} are just not included in the 'Plan of Salvation.'"

I could directly answer your question, but I don't think the discussion could allow for it.  Because the discussion is based on a falsehood being propagated against us, by you.

-Smac

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

I can give you my perspective.  I knew that when I came out to Church members, my relationship with them would never been the same.  That proved to be true.  Of all of the friends both in the ward as well as the stake, I had at Church there were only 2 or 3 that ever talked to me again.  When you are gay, you already feel marginalized.  There is a constant struggle in your mind questioning whether you should stay in the Church, or just leave.  Family, friends, a lot of the teachings and that sense of community wants you to stay in the church.  But attitudes towards being gay and the kind of life the Church expects you to live, which seems unreasonable and even self destructive makes you want to leave the Church behind.  \When there is even the slightest hope that perhaps these two conflicts might somehow be resolved, to the point where you can at least date someone of the same sex, to have those hopes dashed once again becomes pretty devastating.  

Eventually, most gay members solve the conflict by simply leaving the Church.  I am not sure what the exact retention rate of gay members, but I do know it is not very big. I probably know well over 50 former gay members and only one that is now still in the Church.  I personally am glad to be watching all of this from the sidelines and not have to be emotionally involved in what happens.  Given the ups and downs of the Church's attitudes towards gays, it is quite the rollercoaster of emotions and disappointments.

Hope that helps you understand what their viewpoint might be.

 

Yes, that does help, thank you.  

I can understand the emotions that come from finding out something you had celebrated wasn't real.  And I don't blame gay church members for leaving.  Would I stay?  I really don't know.  A celibate life without even the hope of a romantic partner or companionship is such a hard thing to ask of someone, especially when you yourself don't have to pay the same price to receive the same blessings.  Those who do stay are better disciples of Christ than I would probably be put to the same test.   

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

the church is the obstacle (unless Elder Johnson represents someone else?) and that is crazy to me, just as it was to Elder Packer not being able to talk about Temples to the Tongan Saints

I'm sorry I'll need to ask for more clarity -- why was Elder Packer unable to speak about the temple to the Tongans (do you have a link)? How are the temple ordinance requirements an obstacle to exaltation?

Perhaps better asked, how is the lack of opportunity (whether imposed or personally chosen as in the best interest of self and potential mates) to marry in this life an obstacle to exaltation?

[Tacenda]

I wish the church would look into this! https://www.forgeonline.org/blog/2019/3/8/what-about-romans-124-27

YOU HAVE BEEN PART OF A RESEARCH TEAM THAT IS SEEKING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE DECISION WAS MADE TO PUT THE WORD HOMOSEXUAL IN THE BIBLE. IS THAT TRUE?

Ed: Yes. It first showed up in the RSV translation. So before figuring out why they decided to use that word in the RSV translation (which is outlined in my upcoming book with Kathy Baldock, Forging a Sacred Weapon: How the Bible Became Anti-Gay) I wanted to see how other cultures and translations treated the same verses when they were translated during the Reformation 500 years ago. So I started collecting old Bibles in French, German, Irish, Gaelic, Czechoslovakian, Polish… you name it. Now I’ve got most European major languages that I’ve collected over time. Anyway, I had a German friend come back to town and I asked if he could help me with some passages in one of my German Bibles from the 1800s. So we went to Leviticus 18:22 and he’s translating it for me word for word. In the English where it says “Man shall not lie with man, for it is an abomination,” the German version says “Man shall not lie with young boys as he does with a woman, for it is an abomination.” I said, “What?! Are you sure?” He said, “Yes!” Then we went to Leviticus 20:13— same thing, “Young boys.” So we went to 1 Corinthians to see how they translated arsenokoitai (original Greek word)  and instead of homosexuals it said, “Boy molesters will not inherit the kingdom of God.” 

I then grabbed my facsimile copy of Martin Luther’s original German translation from 1534. My friend is reading through it for me and he says, “Ed, this says the same thing!” They use the word knabenschander. Knaben is boy, schander is molester. This word “boy molesters” for the most part carried through the next several centuries of German Bible translations. Knabenschander is also in 1 Timothy 1:10. So the interesting thing is, I asked if they ever changed the word arsenokoitai to homosexual in modern translations. So my friend found it and told me, “The first time homosexual appears in a German translation is 1983.” To me that was a little suspect because of what was happening in culture in the 1970s. Also because the Germans were the ones who created the word homosexual in 1862, they had all the history, research, and understanding to change it if they saw fit; however, they did not change it until 1983. If anyone was going to put the word homosexual in the Bible, the Germans should have been the first to do it!

[california boy]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Yes, it is.  It is patently false.  You are telling a lie.  About us.  And we all know it.

The false statement was "{homosexuals} are just not included in the 'Plan of Salvation.'"

I could directly answer your question, but I don't think the discussion could allow for it.  Because the discussion is based on a falsehood being propagated against us, by you.

-Smac

The whole goal of the Plan of Salvation is eternal marriage in the Celestial Kingdom.  It is so central the the Plan of Salvation that we don't have any other plan.  How can you be a part of a plan that doesn't allow someone who is attracted to the same sex to participate. 

Call me a liar all you want.  But the truth is what it is.  Every prophet, ever lesson manuals every talk concerning the Plan of Salvation centers around an opposite sex eternal marriage.

[Duncan]

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, they can.  The same parameters for dating apply to everyone. 

Unmarried persons, regardless of sexual orientation, can date members of the opposite sex. 

Unmarried persons, regardless of sexual orientation, cannot date members of the same sex.

Nobody, regardless of sexual orientation, can engage in same-sex relations or same-sex romantic behavior.

Thanks,

-Smac

that's what i'm saying two law of chastity's one for gay people, one for non gay people, it's abundantly clear to me

[Duncan]

23 minutes ago, california boy said:

You are struggling with the same questions I had when I first came out.  What happens to gay people after they die if they remain celibate through their life here on earth?  Will they get the chance for an eternal marriage and the Celestial Kingdom?  Well only if they marry someone of the opposite sex.  

Wait, something that a gay person did not want to do their entire earthly life, they get to do when they die?  How is that something to look forward too?  I personally have no desire to be married to a woman in this life or especially throughout eternity.  That is suppose to be some kind of "reward" for being celibate?  Excuse me for not being excited about that "vision of eternal reward".  This is the exact reason why I left the Church.  If you are gay, you are just not included in the "Plan of Salvation".   Being gay in incompatible with eternal marriage as the Church defines it.  

that's the sad reality of gay people in the church, I wish it were different, I really wish that everyone could actually find a place in the church, without these policies and statements by the leaders.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Essentially, it's an effort to manipulate and coerce BYU (and the Church) through guilt tripping.  

I think there are three potential phenomena/ingredients here:

1. Outrage Culture / Call-Out Culture / Public Shaming:

Outrage Culture doesn't rely on reasoning or persuasion.  To the contrary, folks resorting to this mentality and strategy seek to subdue and set aside such things in favor of, well, bullying.  Fomenting ill will.  Building a mob mentality.

2. Oppression Olympics:

BYU students are there by choice.  They knew about and voluntarily accepted the Honor Code as a condition to admission.  And there are literally thousands of other schools they could attend that do not have the Honor Code provisions in question.  Given these circumstances, students who oppose the Honor Code need to find some sort of rationale for their righteous indignation.  Cue the "I'm being oppressed!" stuff.

The Honor Code therefore becomes a tool of oppression, even though the students voluntarily agreed to abide by it, and even though there is nothing keeping them at BYU anyway.  Claims of oppression therefore become obviously ridiculous, which leads to...

3. Virtue Signalling:

False claims of oppression + outrage/call-out/shaming = virtue signalling.  On a grand scale.

Protests on campus to show how brave they are.  Protesting a set of moral and religious principles they agreed to abide by as a condition for attending BYU.

Thanks,

-Smac

By way of examples of the above, see here:

Quote

Queer Mormons say they’ve been put in danger by ‘cruel’ university as it U-turns on homosexuality policy
LILY WAKEFIELD MARCH 5, 2020

"Danger."  Right.

Quote

LGBT+ students at the Mormon university celebrated by kissing friends and partners of the same gender in various places around campus, including in front of the Honor Code office.

But a few days after altering the Honor Code, the university released a statement saying that there had been some “miscommunication” about what the amendments meant.

Which obviously should have given the celebrants pause.  Instead...

Quote

The policy flip-flop has been branded “cowardly”, “manipulative”, “gaslighting” and “incredibly cruel”.

But more than raising and then crushing the hopes of LGBT+ students, the university’s actions have also put them in danger.

One student wrote on Twitter: “Dangerous move. So many kids came out because they thought they were safe.

“Now they’re on your black-list of apostates. False hope from false teachers of love.

“Sad that my university would backpedal with such possibly life threatening consequences.”

"Dangerous."

"Thought they were safe."

"False hope from false teachers."

"Possibly life threatening consequences."

Quote

Students have been protesting on campus, and a fund has been set up by the Out Foundation, a group created by LGBT+ people who attended or graduated from Brigham Young University, to help LGBT+ students transfer to other universities.

The GoFundMe page states: “Understandably, many of these queer students no longer feel safe on campus.

“However, if they try to transfer out of BYU, they are at risk for losing scholarships, income from on-campus employment, and even their own housing.

Oh, brother.

They knew about the Honor Code was a condition of admission.

And this:

Quote

The Salt Lake Tribune reports that sang ‘Love One Another’ and chanted ‘Hey hey, ho ho, the Honor Code has got to go.’

No reasoning.  No effort to persuade.  Just chants and rants and demands.

-Smac

[california boy]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, that does help, thank you.  

I can understand the emotions that come from finding out something you had celebrated wasn't real.  And I don't blame gay church members for leaving.  Would I stay?  I really don't know.  A celibate life without even the hope of a romantic partner or companionship is such a hard thing to ask of someone, especially when you yourself don't have to pay the same price to receive the same blessings.  Those who do stay are better disciples of Christ than I would probably be put to the same test.   

And even someone who is celibate their whole life here on earth, is still not promised a marriage in the next life except to a person of the opposite sex, which they had no desire to enter into during their whole life here on earth.  

Being gay doesn't mean you aren't a disciple of Christ.  For me, it means trusting in God more than Church leaders who have never even claimed  to have received an actual revelation on gay marriage.  Given the rocky performance of Church leaders on this issue, doesn't really inspire confidence that they know what they are doing.  It seems to be in a constant state of evolving.  I think it is best for a gay person to find their own relationship with God and feel His guidance on what is the right path.  Leaving the Church does not mean leaving God.

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, california boy said:

Quote

Yes, it is.  It is patently false.  You are telling a lie.  About us.  And we all know it.

The false statement was "{homosexuals} are just not included in the 'Plan of Salvation.'"

I could directly answer your question, but I don't think the discussion could allow for it.  Because the discussion is based on a falsehood being propagated against us, by you.

The whole goal of the Plan of Salvation is eternal marriage in the Celestial Kingdom.  

That is the highest aspiration, but not "the whole goal."

For pete's sake, you used to be a member of the Church, so I cannot attribute such flagrant mischaracterizations to ignorance.  That leaves . . . bad faith.  You are telling lies about what we believe.  It is not appreciated.

9 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is so central the the Plan of Salvation that we don't have any other plan.  How can you be a part of a plan that doesn't allow someone who is attracted to the same sex to participate. 

There's no good faith as long as the false statement remains.

9 minutes ago, california boy said:

Call me a liar all you want.  But the truth is what it is.  

No.  You have told a falsehood.  About us.

9 minutes ago, california boy said:

Every prophet, ever lesson manuals every talk concerning the Plan of Salvation centers around an opposite sex eternal marriage.

Again, the false statement was "{homosexuals} are just not included in the 'Plan of Salvation.'"

-Smac

[california boy]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Oh, brother.  I'm having difficulty believing this question is presented in good faith.

The Church doesn't teach that same-sex attraction is a sin.  How many hundreds of times has that point been made?

We are talking about more than just being gay. So a gay person dies, then what?

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

First, no, I don't think they have.

Second, if they have, they have done so as a component of their calling.  Such is within their stewardship, and is not in ours.

I think there has been ample revelation about marriage.

The issue is not, I think, the absence of revelation, but rather an unwillingness to accept the revelation we have already received.

Thanks,

-Smac

No one is saying that the Church doesn't know what a straight marriage is suppose to be.  There have been plenty of revelations on straight marriages.  What I asked for is the revelation on gay marriages.  The two are not the same thing.

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Quote

Yes, they can.  The same parameters for dating apply to everyone. 

Unmarried persons, regardless of sexual orientation, can date members of the opposite sex. 

Unmarried persons, regardless of sexual orientation, cannot date members of the same sex.

Nobody, regardless of sexual orientation, can engage in same-sex relations or same-sex romantic behavior.

that's what i'm saying

No, you and I are saying different things.

12 minutes ago, Duncan said:

two law of chastity's one for gay people, one for non gay people, it's abundantly clear to me

It's abundantly false, that's all.

There is one Law of Chastity that applies to everyone the same way, regardless of sexual orientation.

Sexual activity is allowed between a husband and wife, and prohibited for everyone else.

Adultery is prohibited for everyone.

Fornication is prohibited for everyone.

Same-sex relations is prohibited for everyone.

-Smac

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, Duncan said:

that's the sad reality of gay people in the church, I wish it were different, I really wish that everyone could actually find a place in the church, without these policies and statements by the leaders.

Mark my words it will happen, maybe I'll be dead by then, but you're young enough and will witness it!