Letter Clarifies Intent of Byu Honor Code Change

[MustardSeed]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

What is there to type out? All I see is a single short sentence declaring his support for the LGBTQ+ students of BYU. 

Am I missing something? 

Lds

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

No, I think you're failing to listen to someone who by any reasonable estimation has thought about this more than you and who is effected more by the issue than you.

I don’t think that’s a fair assessment at all. 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

Again, I think there is a lack of good faith here, so I'll decline to enter into a discussion on this point.

No, I think you're failing to listen to someone

No, it's a lack of good faith.

I listen to people who have differing opinions from my own.  All the time.  I can accommodate differences of opinion.  But which it comes to deliberately misrepresenting the beliefs and teachings of the Latter-day Saints, and refusing to retract such misrepresentations, then the good faith necessary for a useful discussion is not present.

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

who by any reasonable estimation has thought about this more than you

If so, all the more reprehensible, then, for such a person to deliberately misrepresent what we believe.

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

and who is effected more by the issue than you.

So what?  How does that justify misrepresenting our beliefs?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 6, 2020 by smac97

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Can a person be celibate and still obtain the highest degree of happiness in the Celestial Kingdom?

 

They cannot be unmarried and exalted.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Lds

In less time and with less effort than it took you to write, “Sorry chaps. I’m not going to type it all out,” you could have typed out “Latter-day Saints.”

Just sayin’. 

Edited March 6, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Meadowchik]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, it's a lack of good faith.

I listen to people who have differing opinions from my own.  All the time.  I can accommodate differences of opinion.  But which it comes to deliberately misrepresenting the beliefs and teachings of the Latter-day Saints, and refusing to retract such misrepresentations, then the good faith necessary for a useful discussion is not present.

If so, all the more reprehensible, then, for such a person to deliberately misrepresent what we believe.

So what?  How does that justify misrepresenting our beliefs?

Thanks,

-Smac

No, it is a reasonable claim. Tell me according to the gospel where one will meet a homosexual among the redeemed in the eternities?

Edited March 6, 2020 by Meadowchik

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

why would they be? I don't know that either would be attracted to other people? they chose each other and are assumingly having spirit children to place in mortality-however that all works

So no need for heterosexuality (meaning attraction to the opposite sex).  

One does not need to be attracted to the opposite sex to be attracted to one member of it.

I know a couple of men who identify as gay and who have only been attracted to men previous to their one loving relationship with a woman.  They are still sexually attracted to men.  They are also sexually attracted to their wife, not because she is a woman, but because they were first attracted to her as a person who was kind and exciting and supportive and filled a part of their soul.  She became their best friend.  Being physically attracted to her came later and there was no generalizing of that attraction to other women simply because both had breasts, curvy hips, whatever.

 

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Can a person be celibate and still obtain the highest degree of happiness in the Celestial Kingdom?

 

Sure.  I think the Lord looks at all factors and makes a determination form that.  I don't think any LDS member would say that if a 20 year old missionary who is celibate and is killed on their mission will be denied the highest degree of glory.  Think of how many children die.  I believe a lot of things are going on the spirit world that we don't know about. 

[smac97]

Just now, Meadowchik said:

Quote

No, it's a lack of good faith.

I listen to people who have differing opinions from my own.  All the time.  I can accommodate differences of opinion.  But which it comes to deliberately misrepresenting the beliefs and teachings of the Latter-day Saints, and refusing to retract such misrepresentations, then the good faith necessary for a useful discussion is not present.

If so, all the more reprehensible, then, for such a person to deliberately misrepresent what we believe.

So what?  How does that justify misrepresenting our beliefs?

No, it is a reasonable claim.

No, it's a false claim.  False claims are per se unreasonable.

The claim is about the teachings of the Church.  The claim is false.

Just now, Meadowchik said:

Tell me where one will meet a homosexual among the redeemed in the eternities?

I don't understand the question.  Are you saying homosexuals are beyond redemption?  If so, that is not an accurate statement about the Church's teachings.

I won't accept CB's misrepresentations about our beliefs.  Or yours.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

No, it is a reasonable claim. Tell me according to the gospel where one will meet a homosexual among the redeemed in the eternities?

Tell me according to the Gospel where one will meet a heterosexual among the redeemed post resurrection?

To put it bluntly, do you see heaven including us walking around checking out each other's "perfectly-formed arse"?***

***https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381061/characters/nm1200692#quotes

Edited March 6, 2020 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

No, it's a false claim.  False claims are per se unreasonable.

The claim is about the teachings of the Church.  The claim is false.

I don't understand the question.  Are you saying homosexuals are beyond redemption?  If so, that is not an accurate statement about the Church's teachings.

I won't accept CB's misrepresentations about our beliefs.  Or yours.

Thanks,

-Smac

Will there be homosexuals in the Celestial kingdom? Terrestrial? Tellestial? Where might they be?

[carbon dioxide]

7 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

No, it is a reasonable claim. Tell me according to the gospel where one will meet a homosexual among the redeemed in the eternities?

If homosexuality is a biological trait, that trait will end at death. 

Edited March 6, 2020 by carbon dioxide

[smac97]

Just now, carbon dioxide said:

Quote

Can a person be celibate and still obtain the highest degree of happiness in the Celestial Kingdom?

Sure.  I think the Lord looks at all factors and makes a determination form that.  I don't think any LDS member would say that if a 20 year old missionary who is celibate and is killed on their mission will be denied the highest degree of glory.  Think of how many children die.  I believe a lot of things are going on the spirit world that we don't know about. 

Carbon Dioxide is right.  This is a point that is not within reasonable dispute.

Among many proofs is D&C 137, which expressly states that Alvin Smith inherited, or will inherit, "the celestial kingdom of God."  This despite him not being married at the time of his death (or, for that matter, him not having been baptized/confirmed, nor having received temple ordinances).

Thanks,

-Smac

[carbon dioxide]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

Will there be homosexuals in the Celestial kingdom? Terrestrial? Tellestial? Where might they be?

The law of chastity applies to all orientations.  So those who are in compliance get Celestial or Terrestrial.  Those not in compliance get Telestial. 

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Will there be homosexuals in the Celestial kingdom? Terrestrial? Tellestial? Where might they be?

The Plan of Salvation is well and truly available to all, and made for all.  It is a rank falsehood, then, to assert that "{homosexuals} are just not included in the 'Plan of Salvation.'"

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

2 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

If homosexuality is a biological trait, that trait will end at death. 

Thanks for atleast addressing the question!

And that so, because it is considered a flaw according to the LDS gospel. 

And so consider one who has sung the song of redemption in their hearts with that blessing also on their same-sex marriage. The LDS plan makes no room for those blessings as being redemptive in mortality now nor in the eternities. In Mormonism, it is a hindrance, the salvatory nature of such a God-blessed relationship is denied and invalidated.

And what a waste and shame it is to stop those Spirit-filled relationships at the temple doors.

[MustardSeed]

59 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In less time and with less effort than it took you to write, “Sorry chaps. I’m not going to type it all out,” you could have typed out “Latter-day Saints.”

Just sayin’. 

Haha! So right.  Score! 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 3/4/2020 at 3:17 PM, smac97 said:

I credit the professor for attempting "due diligence" (contacting the Honor Code Office).  

However, I think the professor should have used common sense.  I don't think he did.  I also question the propriety of a professor using class time to talk about a sensitive topic that has little to no bearing on the subject matter of the class.  Basically, it seemed like he turned his class into his personal soap box.  BYU students are not paying to listen to him pontificate about his personal sociopolitical opinions.

-Smac

 

On 3/4/2020 at 3:31 PM, Lemuel said:

BYU professors are evaluated by students on how well they bring gospel topics into the classroom.

 

On 3/4/2020 at 3:34 PM, Calm said:

 

Thank you for the update.

In fairness to Professor Brau, I’ll mention that he is a firm believer in and advocate of presenting a spiritual thought in each of his classes. In 2011, he based an entire devotional address he gave at the university on this practice. I don’t fault him for it. He is inspired in it by the oft-quoted charge Brigham Young gave to Karl G. Maeser that even the alphabet should not be taught at the school without the Spirit of the Lord. 

Here’s a video of that 2011 devotional address from Professor Brau:

 

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

What is the preferred form since it appears "trans" is acceptable.

Thanks for asking.  From what I understand transgender and trans are both appropriate.  The reason transgenderISM isn't liked is because it implies a philosophy and choice, rather than identity.  

https://vaden.stanford.edu/health-resources/lgbtqia-health/transgender-health/glossary-terms-related-transgender-communities

FWIW, I'm frequently getting terms wrong myself and a lot of this is very new and has changed in recent years.  Out of a desire to be as respectful as possible, I'm trying my best to learn how to speak and use the best terminology.  

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not really participating in this thread anymore as its just been too hard emotionally for me the past few days.  But I did want to put this out there.  Thanks to Steve Young for his continued support. 

https://twitter.com/SteveYoungQB/status/1235836850670940160/photo/1

 

SteveYoung.jfif 49.66 kB · 7 downloads

Alas, some years ago, Steve Young took a course that put him at odds with the Church leaders when he began to publicly oppose the Church’s position on same-sex marriage. In this, he was apparently influenced by his wife, whose brother is gay and who has been an activist on this matter. 

I hope he hasn’t gone too far off the beam. 
 

Edited to add: After doing some checking I have to amend the above. 
 

During the Proposition 8 campaign in California, the Young’s had a “Vote no on Prop 8” sign in their yard. At the time, while Barbara Young was an activist on this, Steve Young remained silent and even disavowed public reports he had taken a position. 
 

Since then, both Youngs have been outspoken advocates for gay rights, but I don’t know what his current position is on same-sex marriage. 
 

I hope this late tweet expressing support for the LGBTQ+ students at BYU doesn’t mean he is opposing the Brethren in any way. 

Edited March 6, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Alas, some years ago, Steve Young took a course that put him at odds with the Church leaders when he began to publicly oppose the Church’s position on same-sex marriage. In this, he was apparently influenced by his wife, whose brother is gay and who has been an activist on this matter. 

I hope he hasn’t gone too far off the beam. 

I'm extremely proud of him for his support, not only of his wife and the LGBTQ community, but also of his conscience.  This is the pure gospel.  

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

A protest is planned for today at 3:00 p.m. on the northeast corner of the church’s main plaza in downtown Salt Lake City:

Hmm.  I hope they behave themselves.

And I hope they don't trespass.

Thanks,

-Smac

I’m thinking back now to President Ballard’s devotional address of a few days ago and his message that our membership in the family of God ought to be a higher priority than any other association or allegiance we might have (I’m paraphrasing here from personal recollection). I see some growing divisiveness here that I find very disquieting. 

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

So no need for heterosexuality (meaning attraction to the opposite sex).  

One does not need to be attracted to the opposite sex to be attracted to one member of it.

I know a couple of men who identify as gay and who have only been attracted to men previous to their one loving relationship with a woman.  They are still sexually attracted to men.  They are also sexually attracted to their wife, not because she is a woman, but because they were first attracted to her as a person who was kind and exciting and supportive and filled a part of their soul.  She became their best friend.  Being physically attracted to her came later and there was no generalizing of that attraction to other women simply because both had breasts, curvy hips, whatever.

 

Yes, I going out there to say that God the father and Mother with billions of kids are heterosexual.

I don't understand your second paragraph, I would imagine that if you are attracted to one member of the opposite sex then theoretically you're attracted to possibly more but choose not to be, i.e faithfulness in marriage

that sounds like bi sexuality for your third paragraph

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm extremely proud of him for his support, not only of his wife and the LGBTQ community, but also of his conscience.  This is the pure gospel.  

Adhering to conscience is good. But in the Church we are sometimes faced with finding a balance between relying on what we think our conscience is telling us and what we know to be the revealed word of God and inspired teachings that have come through prophets. 

The “pure gospel,” or “pure religion,” according to James, has two components. One is to care for and serve the needy. The other is to keep oneself unspotted from the world. Heeding the teachings of prophets that have been divinely given to them is one way we keep ourselves unspotted from the world. 
 

See James 1:27. 

Edited March 6, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

A protest is planned for today at 3:00 p.m. on the northeast corner of the church’s main plaza in downtown Salt Lake City:

Hmm.  I hope they behave themselves.

And I hope they don't trespass.

Thanks,

-Smac

The Church is apparently closing the Church Office Building and securing the lobby.

I hope AnnElise Guerisoli and her fellow organizers keep the protesters under control.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 6, 2020 by smac97