Letter Clarifies Intent of Byu Honor Code Change

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

that assumes that sexuality is imperfect, which is why exactly?

I wanted to answer again because I thought of a point I think needs to be made.

We are currently imperfect beings.  This means both that we sin, but even more important we are incomplete in our development.  Our sexuality is imperfect because it is incomplete, underdeveloped.

Does anyone here think we are perfect in our intelligence, in our physical strength, in our emotional understanding of ourselves and others, in our ability to communicate by our spirits, in our understanding and expression of our sex?  If all those qualities of our Selves and many more are in the process of development throughout this life and on into death and the Spirit world while we prepare ourselves for resurrection, why would we assume that any one factor alone...in this case our sexual attraction....was able already to reach its full development in early mortal life and therefore will never change throughout the eternities.

So if everyone's attributes that result in sexual attraction****  are morphing overtime, how can we be certain of what they will be when we are perfect?  

I am relatively intelligent for a mortal according IQ tests...or at least once was...and I have no concept of how my mind will function when it has risen to the capability of understanding and perceiving of the universe as a whole.  I cannot imagine what my emotions will feel like if the less productive aspects such as anxiety, fear, shame, anger are gone and the productive emotions are let lose to develop to their fullest potential.  Unbounded joy, endless creative passion, fierce intellectual dissection of the universe, all encompassing perception of all that exists...what will I be like when those are my daily experience?  What kind of labels that I use now would even come close to applying to what I will be like then?

What might be the pathway of development for sexual attraction?  If the starting point is taken as childhood (where if any, it's focused on their own body) and early youth (rather chaotic connection of internal sensations and feelings with external stimuli), what would the ultimate end be like after 100's, if not 1000's of years of experiences and contemplation and explorations and control of desires?  If unfocused pleasurable physical sensations are the beginning, maybe the end will be a tightly focused...IOW one other human being...and pleasure will be something much more advanced, mature in its passions, joyful passion that is as much emotional and mental as it is physical.   

Homosexuality, heterosexuality, pansexuality, asexuality, bisexuality seem to me just all different ways of doing what amounts to basic math worksheets, once we have mastered those then we move on to more mature forms of sexuality and continue to develop until what form it all takes in exaltation.

I think we have real need to get out of the habit of thinking of eternity and exaltation as mortality, just without suffering and endless supplies of the good stuff.  Mortality is no more exaltation than using our fingers or whatever is handy to count is differential equations.  Counting is absolutely necessary to master long before we even begin to consider we might want to try our hand at mastering differential equations, but by the time we get there we won't be using our fingers or framing our equations in such simple terms.  How are we going to be willing to lay our natural man, our habits of mortality on Christ's altar if we continue to think of them as necessary and essential parts of our eternal souls?

****I don't like the term "orientation" because of the baggage it carries of being a permanent, relatively simple, singular attribute that is not influenced by temporary factors since I believe attraction is a result of many, many biochemical, environmental, psychological and likely spiritual factors all interacting every day of a person's existence since before they were born (Mom's personalized environment for the baby just may have some highly significant life lasting influences.)

Edited March 6, 2020 by Calm

[provoman]

Just read this from the washingtonpost

"Carri Jenkins, a spokesperson for the university, said in an email Thursday that the church’s clarification enables the honor code administrators to better respond to students’ questions. She said the school had not received the clarifying information when the updated honor code was announced."

 

Edited March 6, 2020 by provoman

[hope_for_things]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

I think it all comes down to personal conscience.  There is no "what we know to be the revealed word of God".  We don't know anything in this life.  We have to act on faith in everything we do, a perfect knowledge is not what we have access to, that is one of the key principles of the mortal probationary state according to our theology.  

So we essentially have to do the research (study it out in your mind and heart).  If that research is truly diligent it ought to include learning from others and gathering information from whatever sources possible to get as absolutely informed as we can be on any issue.  Critical thinking, evaluation of evidence, study of history, science, other religions, literature, scripture, etc.  Pondering and prayer should be used throughout the process, and I would say mindfulness as I consider that part of these exercises now.  I also think we should evaluate this against the values that matter most to us and see if it is consistent with those values or if we need to adjust our values to become more in line with the new knowledge we’ve gained through our study process. 

After all of this is done, we will be much better prepared to make that decision.  But we still don’t have a perfect knowledge.  We still must proceed and act on faith.  This is what I mean when I say that he acted on conscience.  There is no substitute, unless someone means to outsource their conscience to a third party.  I would argue that the outsourcing of conscience is antithetical to Mormon theology.  I see the outsourcing of conscience to others as an early development stage of life that in order to be self actualized we need to grow past.  To become like God, we have to learn to make the hard decisions ourselves and to be accountable for the consequences of those decisions.  This is a mature way of operating, it isn’t easy, but it’s the only way for us to become more like God.  

As for the pure gospel, I wasn't strictly referring to James, only loosely.  Its pure gospel as I define it.  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

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

Why?  If you are attracted to someone because of their wit and the way they love you and they happened to be male, why would you be likely attracted to more males and having to choose not to be when it wasn't their maleness that attracted you?

Wouldn't it be more likely that you would be attracted to others with similar wit and expressions of love, male or female?

Quote

that sounds like bi sexuality for your third paragraph

It isn't if they aren't attracted to her because she is female.

Just to be clear, "heterosexuality" is not having sex with the opposite sex.  Otherwise homosexuals in mixed marriages would be heterosexuals, not gays.  So just because there is sex between a male and female, we don't label them as heterosexuals even if we might fairly describe the relationship as a heterosexual relationship (which is why terms like heterosexual and homosexual applied to attraction can be so confusing imo).  

The sexual fluidity article helps identify why we need to be careful not to make assumptions of orientation based on a physical relationship that might exist.

https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-sexual-fluidity-33120

Quote

Research by Lisa Diamond contains examples of women who identify as predominantly heterosexual in their lives, but find themselves falling deeply in love with one particular woman, while continuing to identify as straight. It does not mean these women are bisexual. They have developed such infatuation only for an individual person who happens to be of the same gender.

Longitudinal research shows that people sometimes change their sexual orientation. This is a very important point, because it means that we can’t lump everything together and call it “bisexuality.” It would be counterproductive to label all of these different behaviours “bisexual,” because it would impede scientific research on the true origins and varieties of sexual orientation, as well as sexual outcomes and expressions.

 

Edited March 6, 2020 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

57 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think it all comes down to personal conscience.  There is no "what we know to be the revealed word of God".  We don't know anything in this life.  We have to act on faith in everything we do, a perfect knowledge is not what we have access to, that is one of the key principles of the mortal probationary state according to our theology.  

So we essentially have to do the research (study it out in your mind and heart).  If that research is truly diligent it ought to include learning from others and gathering information from whatever sources possible to get as absolutely informed as we can be on any issue.  Critical thinking, evaluation of evidence, study of history, science, other religions, literature, scripture, etc.  Pondering and prayer should be used throughout the process, and I would say mindfulness as I consider that part of these exercises now.  I also think we should evaluate this against the values that matter most to us and see if it is consistent with those values or if we need to adjust our values to become more in line with the new knowledge we’ve gained through our study process. 

After all of this is done, we will be much better prepared to make that decision.  But we still don’t have a perfect knowledge.  We still must proceed and act on faith.  This is what I mean when I say that he acted on conscience.  There is no substitute, unless someone means to outsource their conscience to a third party.  I would argue that the outsourcing of conscience is antithetical to Mormon theology.  I see the outsourcing of conscience to others as an early development stage of life that in order to be self actualized we need to grow past.  To become like God, we have to learn to make the hard decisions ourselves and to be accountable for the consequences of those decisions.  This is a mature way of operating, it isn’t easy, but it’s the only way for us to become more like God.  

As for the pure gospel, I wasn't strictly referring to James, only loosely.  Its pure gospel as I define it.  

If it “all comes down to personal conscience,” then you can’t blithely discard the revealed word of God, because for many people, conscience (light of Christ, the Holy Ghost) affirms to them the verity of the revealed word of God. Both are essential in coming to a knowledge of the truth. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Heterosexuals can be exalted without their heterosexuality being called unacceptable ...

I think you (and many other members) may be missing something.

Jesus as recorded in Matthew:

Quote

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Jesus as recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants:

Quote

And he that looketh upon a woman to lust after her shall deny the faith, and shall not have the Spirit; and if he repents not he shall be cast out.

 

Edited March 6, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan

[Meadowchik]

12 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think you (and many other members) may be missing something.

Jesus as recorded in Matthew:

Jesus as recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants:

 

I didn't say heterosexuals have a free pass. 

[Meadowchik]

55 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If it “all comes down to personal conscience,” then you can’t blithely discard the revealed word of God, because for many people, conscience (light of Christ, the Holy Ghost) affirms to them the verity of the revealed word of God. Both are essential in coming to a knowledge of the truth. 

And there are very many who believe the Holy Ghost affirms their same-sex relationships and who see that the weight of scripture affirms it, and that loving same-sex marriages can be every bit as salvific as heterosexual ones.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

45 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I didn't say heterosexuals have a free pass. 

No one gets a free pass.

Pre-Christian Melanesian societies organised and constructed sex and sexuality in ways that most people on this board would find abhorrent. No doubt, these people assumed their ways of being and doing were normal and natural and were therefore going with them into the afterlife. The Christian God, however, says no.

In exact parallel, 21st-century Western societies currently organise and construct sex and sexuality in specific culturally bound ways. And like your earlier Melanesian brothers and sisters, you assume that your ways of being and doing are just explanations of reality instead of social constructs tied to a particular historical moment. Being therefore normal and natural, they must be going into the afterlife with you.

But on this point the Christian God again says no.

Edited March 7, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan

[Sunslight]

39 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And there are very many who believe the Holy Ghost affirms their same-sex relationships and who see that the weight of scripture affirms it, and that loving same-sex marriages can be every bit as salvific as heterosexual ones.

 

Then they don't understand the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost doesn't confirm immorality as being right in one's heart. Whatever these people feel or think, it's definitely not the Holy Ghost.

Edited March 7, 2020 by Sunslight

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

Then they don't understand the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost doesn't confirm immorality as being right in one's heart. Whatever these people feel or think, it's definitely not the Holy Ghost.

I don't know where you get the confidence to say that. Cue polygamy, today if someone said that God told them or the Holy Ghost to practice they'd be exed, 130 years ago it was different

[Nacho2dope]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

And there are very many who believe the Holy Ghost affirms their same-sex relationships and who see that the weight of scripture affirms it, and that loving same-sex marriages can be every bit as salvific as heterosexual ones.

 

What scripture are you referring to? Thanks

[Scott Lloyd]

48 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

Then they don't understand the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost doesn't confirm immorality as being right in one's heart. Whatever these people feel or think, it's definitely not the Holy Ghost.

They’re entitled to their opinions, but they are not binding on me. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours 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?

Since no one there will be homosexual, there will be no need to look for one. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Coming this close to quitting time just before the weekend, the timing was advantageous. 
 

I hope none of the protesters were planning to storm the COB. That would have been inexcusable. 

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Coming this close to quitting time just before the weekend, the timing was advantageous. 
 

I hope none of the protesters were planning to storm the COB. That would have been inexcusable. 

From the video I saw they were very civil. The crowd was facing the street and the speaker was facing them. As well behaved of a protest as I have ever seen. 

[mgy401]

44 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

They’re entitled to their opinions, but they are not binding on me. 

And of course, not binding on the Church such as may compel the Church to grant them a subsidized education or priesthood ordinances in contravention of its own express teachings.  

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If it “all comes down to personal conscience,” then you can’t blithely discard the revealed word of God, because for many people, conscience (light of Christ, the Holy Ghost) affirms to them the verity of the revealed word of God. Both are essential in coming to a knowledge of the truth. 

I’m not discarding it, I’m saying it’s imperfect and errant by definition.  Our goal is to trying and get closer to the divine will, but we unfortunately aren’t actually capable of getting there in this life.  Look at Mormon and Christian history.  How many horrible and tragic choices have been justified as the revealed word if God?  Tons. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 3/5/2020 at 11:36 AM, smac97 said:

Outrage Culture + Oppression Olympics = Virtue Signalling

Sounds like almost every church meeting I ever went too. It’s way to easy to point fingers here, but much harder to understand each other. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I’m not discarding it, I’m saying it’s imperfect and errant by definition.  Our goal is to trying and get closer to the divine will, but we unfortunately aren’t actually capable of getting there in this life.  Look at Mormon and Christian history.  How many horrible and tragic choices have been justified as the revealed word if God?  Tons. 

I’m not accountable for others’ past misdeeds and poor choices. I’m telling you what works for me, and that is the revealed word of God confirmed you me through personal revelation. 
 

And people who disbelieve in God and reject His revealed word have made horrible choices too — tons of them. 

Edited March 7, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, mgy401 said:

And of course, not binding on the Church such as may compel the Church to grant them a subsidized education or priesthood ordinances in contravention of its own express teachings.  

Yeah. Good point. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Nacho2dope said:

What scripture are you referring to? Thanks

I suspect by this they mean the mostly historically correct revision in the understanding of scripture where homosexual relationships are condemned in the Bible. Most of the Old Testament strictures refer to boy molesting. Some of the New Testament though I believe one is more about male prostitutes. The arguments tend to be from silence as far as the scriptures go that if that is the actual intent then there is no scriptural prohibition. LDS-specific scripture is silent on same sex relationships.

You can try to draw a prohibition from the story of destruction where Lot's neighbors demand to rape Lot's visitors. Some argue that we put in a euphemism there and that they were seeking to know them in a non-sexual sense (i.e. some kind of interrogation) and the sin was inhospitality. I agree to a point but inhospitality had a different meaning and so did sex in general. The story can rightly be used to condemn rape but I hope no one is arguing seriously that that should be legal.

The Old Testament is oddly silent on actual homosexual acts other then those. Some have tried to read them into Noah's nakedness story but that is pretty much it. Considering the Old Testament was eager to tell "dirty" stories about its enemies and may have even made them up it seems odd that no one uses it as an insult. When the Torah tells the birth of two despised nations they are attributed to Lot and his daughters committing incest. I doubt that story is true. It is basically a slur against the whole nation. So why no attempts to paint other characters as sodomists? They probably considered it a sin but how bad of a sin was it? Was the prohibition a general commandment of God or specific to the Chosen people of the time?

 

Of course LDS do not rely on that. The apostles have spoken on the issue and it will not change unless they say otherwise. We have our marching orders for now. Further revelation could change things possibly in ways that would astound people on both sides of the current discussion. It is also possible western culture and society may go off in some incredibly unexpected direction as it usually does every generation or so as it always seems to and the increased level of worldwide communication seems to have accelerated the process.

C.S. Lewis said it very well when he talked about why we should read books from previous ages:

"Nothing strikes me more when I read the controversies of past ages than the fact that both sides were usually assuming without question a good deal which we should now absolutely deny. They thought that they were as completely opposed as two sides could be, but in fact they were all the time secretly united—united with each other and against earlier and later ages—by a great mass of common assumptions. We may be sure that the characteristic blindness of the twentieth century—the blindness about which posterity will ask, “But how could they have thought that?”—lies where we have never suspected it, and concerns something about which there is untroubled agreement between Hitler and President Roosevelt or between Mr. H. G. Wells and Karl Barth. None of us can fully escape this blindness, but we shall certainly increase it, and weaken our guard against it, if we read only modern books."

In the mean time I do not think God will reveal anything to apostles because of protests or, if God does, the protestors are unlikely to be winning divine favor. I suggest the "end run" President Packer told everyone about around the entire Church structure: Prayer. If enough people are seeking revelation and enlightenment on how best to bless and help everyone regarding this matter I suspect it will come whether it aligns with our personal desires or not. I am convinced that was what brought the 1978 revelation.

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Sounds like almost every church meeting I ever went too. It’s way to easy to point fingers here, but much harder to understand each other. 

What kind of Church meetings are you going to? 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

From the video I saw they were very civil. The crowd was facing the street and the speaker was facing them. As well behaved of a protest as I have ever seen. 

And how considerate of them planning it this close to quitting time going into a weekend, probably knowing the workers would not be exiting through the lobby or the main doors. 
 

I read a “Daily Universe” story about one of the protests on campus, a sit-in. I marveled at how polite and well-organized the participants seemed. I thought, “Only at BYU!”

Edited March 7, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

What kind of Church meetings are you going to? 

The “world” is wicked (outrage); the “world” is persecuted us / infringing on our religious freedoms (persecution); very long prayers ending in very flowery language (virtue signaling)