"Y" on Mountain Above BYU Lit Up with Rainbow Colors

[california boy]

2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I'm trying to understand your logic here.

The scriptures already give us clear laws against:

1. Sexual relations between a man and a woman outside of marriage (fornication)
2. Sexual relations of a married man or woman with a woman or a man outside of their marriage (adultery)
3. Sexual relations of a man with a man, or a woman with a woman (active homosexual behavior)
4. Sexual relations of a man with a beast or a woman with a beast (bestiality) 

Marriage (or lack of a marriage) is the basis for the laws listed in #1 and #2, whereas #3 and #4 have no association with marriage.  Why would a revelation be needed to clear this up?  Would you also say that a revelation would be needed in the event that laws are passed where a man or woman could marry animals?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

Yes there is laws against homosexual relationships outside of marriage just like there are for straight couples..  There are no scriptures dealing with homosexual relationships within the bonds of marriage.  In fact, there are no modern day scriptures that even mention homosexual relationships. Not a single one in the D&C, Pearl of Great Price or the Book of Mormon.  

Hope that explains my logic.  While you might not agree with it, it is still a valid point.

I would appreciate you not comparing homosexual relationships with bestiality.  It is offensive and unnecessary and irrelevant.  I doubt very much if you would like your marriage compared to bestiality.

[InCognitus]

42 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yes there is laws against homosexual relationships outside of marriage just like there are for straight couples..  There are no scriptures dealing with homosexual relationships within the bonds of marriage.  In fact, there are no modern day scriptures that even mention homosexual relationships. Not a single one in the D&C, Pearl of Great Price or the Book of Mormon.  

Hope that explains my logic.  While you might not agree with it, it is still a valid point.

I would appreciate you not comparing homosexual relationships with bestiality.  It is offensive and unnecessary and irrelevant.  I doubt very much if you would like your marriage compared to bestiality.

I simply summarized all the commandments in the scriptures I could think of about sexual relations.  I included bestiality because it is one of the commandments related to human sexual relations, whether it offends you or not (and for the record, my intention was not to offend you, but to be all inclusive of what was listed).  And my question is still a valid one given that the commandments I listed are all related to sexual relations.  And you didn't answer my question.   Would you also say that a revelation would be needed in the event that laws are passed where a man or woman could marry animals?  If so, why?  If not, why not?  

As to your logic, the commandments against homosexual relationships in the scriptures don't say whether the acts are done outside of marriage or not, they simply say such acts are forbidden.  The same with bestiality.  Even so, you say, these are "laws against homosexual relationships outside of marriage".  Do we need a revelation to tell us that those commandments are only for acts outside of marriage?  If so, do you know of one?  Or otherwise, how do you know they are only "outside of marriage"?

Regarding modern day scriptures and homosexual relationships, why does that matter?  How many times does God have to say something for it to be true?

This all has to do with your reasoning as to why a new revelation is needed.  You insist we need one.  But I'm still left with the question "why"?

Edited March 8, 2021 by InCognitus

[california boy]

37 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I simply summarized all the commandments in the scriptures I could think of about sexual relations.  I included bestiality because it is one of the commandments related to human sexual relations, whether it offends you or not (and for the record, my intention was not to offend you, but to be all inclusive of what was listed).  And my question is still a valid one given that the commandments I listed are all related to sexual relations.  And you didn't answer my question.   Would you also say that a revelation would be needed in the event that laws are passed where a man or woman could marry animals?  If so, why?  If not, why not?  

As to your logic, the commandments against homosexual relationships in the scriptures don't say whether the acts are done outside of marriage or not, they simply say such acts are forbidden.  The same with bestiality.  Even so, you say, these are "laws against homosexual relationships outside of marriage".  Do we need a revelation to tell us that those commandments are only for acts outside of marriage?  If so, do you know of one?  Or otherwise, how do you know they are only "outside of marriage"?

Regarding modern day scriptures and homosexual relationships, why does that matter?  How many times does God have to say something for it to be true?

This all has to do with your reasoning as to why a new revelation is needed.  You insist we need one.  But I'm still left with the question "why"?

Sorry, I am NOT going to answer questions about bestiality.  It is not relevant.  It is inappropriate.  And it is offensive.  If you can't tell the difference between relationships with humans and animals, frankly, I would rather not talk with you.

Edited March 8, 2021 by california boy

[InCognitus]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

Sorry, I am NOT going to answer questions about bestiality.  It is not relevant.  If you can't tell the difference between relationships with humans and animals, frankly, I would rather not talk with you.

That's fine.  I wasn't going to press my question further anyway because I can tell this is an important issue to you, and I honestly wasn't trying to offend you.  But I think you can see the flaw in your logic, and that was my one and only reason for making the post.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

The answer, IMO, is no, the two sealings are in force.  Sealings have meaning in the here and now as well as eternally.

I never said the privilege was only young widows.

I suspect the reason why it is not open to all is tradition, given changes have already been made to seal all after death instead of limiting it to one husband for a woman as they did in the past.

Your third is a possibility, but that justification was removed from the handbook for proxy sealings, so we should IMO be cautious about assuming that.

I think we should be cautious about reading too much into what you have referred to as exceptions. And whether or not you intended to say the privilege was only given to young widows, (and you did say it is mainly young widows whom it has been granted to) I do get the impression it is extremely infrequent — hence it being called an “exception.” Which leaves the same problem: Why is it granted to so very few and not available to anyone who wants it?

I think the third possibility I suggested is the most plausible, that we don’t know in every single case what will transpire after this life, so the First Presidency, in cases with extenuating circumstances, allows the subsequent  sealing to be performed so the ordinance will be present and recorded, trusting that a wise and merciful Heavenly Father will work it all out in the end. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

and you did say it is mainly young widows whom it has been granted to

“Most” obviously means there were some that were not young widows.  I don’t see how you think it is reasonable to go to “only”.  
 

Besides, what I meant was the examples I was aware of were mostly young widows.  Since I have likely only heard a small percentage of them, I can’t say if that is typical or not.  
 

Your logic for third possibility makes little sense to me because the women want to have both sealings from the cases I have been told about as they love both husbands...just as a man wants to be sealed to multiple wives because he loves them all.  They are not looking at it as putting off the choice.  Now maybe your view is typical and the stories I have heard the wives are wrong in what it means, but it seems to me the authorities would be lying if they really thought she had to choose when they were reassuring the wife both sealings are in force.

It makes no sense to reason men should be allowed to be sealed to all the women they married because they shouldn’t have to choose, but demand that of women.

But it makes sense to me to actually believe a sealing is a sealing as long as all are worthy.

Unless there is a reason men have to accumulate wives and children to progress, but women don’t and thus marriage is not actually about love, but numbers.....but nothing doctrinally demonstrates that IMO.

 If otoh, it is about being with someone you want to eternally be a partner with in raising an eternal family, it makes just as much sense to allow women to be sealed to multiple men since if knowing who the father is matters, the father can be easily identified.  This was not possible back when the tradition of one husband, many wives was established in many cultures...when children were often viewed as possessions, could even be sold.

Edited March 8, 2021 by Calm

[JustAnAustralian]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

But it makes sense to me to actually believe a sealing is a sealing as long as all are worthy.

This is actually addressed in the Handbook

Quote

38.4.1.8 Effects of Withdrawal of Membership or Resignation

After a husband and wife have been sealed in a temple, if Church membership is withdrawn from one of them or if one of them has resigned membership, his or her temple blessings are revoked. However, personal blessings of the sealing for the spouse and children remain in force if they remain worthy.

So the blessings related to sealings are there, like you said, if a member is worthy to have them, regardless of what happens to the person that makes up the other half of the sealing. 

Like we've discussed before, if all involved are deceased, numbers of partners sealed to don't matter. Seems like the exception is a good way of allowing people to be sealed in life who might not otherwise have the chance to make and keep the sealing covenants.

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Like we've discussed before, if all involved are deceased, numbers of partners sealed to don't matter. Seems like the exception is a good way of allowing people to be sealed in life who might not otherwise have the chance to make and keep the sealing covenants.

I personally believe we are at the beginning of the development of the marriage and family relationships and they have been fashioned for the rough and tumble of mortal life where short lives and immature emotions including territorial ones require a simple structure, easy to learn, easy to function effectively.  Looks at all the confusion as it is with just two adults making decisions.  How much more so if there were several more adults thrown into the equation.  But in eternity our minds will be able to handle the complexities of structure and our hearts will be able to handle the emotions....since we will already be working as one.  Sealings being more expansive rather than less is therefore logical to me.  Why does everything else expand except for the loves of a woman, and those are supposed to shrink down to one and only one by many?  Just seems so out of place to me.

I would not be the least bit surprised if Joseph saw a vision of what families were like in the eternities and his efforts with polygyny and polyandry were attempts modeled on what he had seen...but he had few mortal relationship models to work with and like all other mortal reflections of eternity, his attempts fell far short and ultimately could not be sustained in a limited world with limited numbers, limited time to develop associations. And the Church turned even narrower to promoting the nuclear family as the ideal...even the slightly extended family isn’t given much attention.  I have never heard anyone teach we should be having grandparents or unmarried brothers or sisters live with us, for example, as would be automatic in the past.   For as much as we promote in very concrete, specific ways the associations of Wife, Husband, children if any, it is strange to me that there is little instruction beyond vague ‘be there to show love and help if they need it’ for any other family relationships.  Where did the family compounds go?

Edited March 8, 2021 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

55 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

This is actually addressed in the Handbook

So the blessings related to sealings are there, like you said, if a member is worthy to have them, regardless of what happens to the person that makes up the other half of the sealing. 

Like we've discussed before, if all involved are deceased, numbers of partners sealed to don't matter. Seems like the exception is a good way of allowing people to be sealed in life who might not otherwise have the chance to make and keep the sealing covenants.

The other day, I cited a teaching from President Oaks that, while the wording in a priesthood blessing is important, the essential thing is the performance of the ordinance itself and that God will honor the performance of the ordinance, even if there is deficiency in the wording of the blessing. 
 

I think we can apply that as an analogy to temple sealings. It is the ordinance itself that is essential and will remain in force regardless of whom one actually ends up sealed to. 

Edited March 8, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I'm trying to understand your logic here.

The scriptures already give us clear laws against:

1. Sexual relations between a man and a woman outside of marriage (fornication)
2. Sexual relations of a married man or woman with a woman or a man outside of their marriage (adultery)
3. Sexual relations of a man with a man, or a woman with a woman (active homosexual behavior)
4. Sexual relations of a man with a beast or a woman with a beast (bestiality) 

Marriage (or lack of a marriage) is the basis for the laws listed in #1 and #2, whereas #3 and #4 have no association with marriage.  Why would a revelation be needed to clear this up?  Would you also say that a revelation would be needed in the event that laws are passed where a man or woman could marry animals?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

That is not a logical correlation. Also I would dispute the first rule a bit. Fornication wasn’t forbidden. You just had to cover the economic damages caused to her father and then dad decides whether you get a shotgun wedding or not.

It is also quite silly in many ways to go to the Old Testament law and act like it is based on some eternal standard. I was flipping through Leviticus 18 and I can say that my great-great grandfather who crossed the plains is going to hell because he had two wives and they were sisters which is explicitly forbidden in the Law. Another fun tidbit showing the lack of eternal standing of those laws is that Jacob/Israel also violated it. You could even cautiously suggest that that story led to that law being there.

Reading along I find the command to only take virgins to wife and not harlots. Clearly Salmon didn’t listen when he took Rahab the heroic prostitute as his wife and ended up as part of the royal genealogy of Jesus. Read what the Law says about Moabites (gotta love the Lot and his daughters story for really trying to make them out to be pure scum). The Law says they can’t enter the religious life of Israel for at least ten generations. Ruth was a Moabite and got in in one generation and also ended up in the ancestry of Jesus. How?

I also shouldn’t be administering the sacrament. I am “crookbakt” with my (admittedly mild) scoliosis so I shouldn’t be dealing with bread before the congregation but I do it anyways. Taking ancient laws that we may not have in their original form that were given to a specific people and not to the world at large as eternal is dangerous. If a copy of the Word of Wisdom went back in time to the days of Abraham would it mean they are forbidden to drink any wine.

[Meadowchik]

13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

No...safe from being doxed and cancelled. 

Who would be doxxing and cancelling the students who brought rainbow lights up the Y? 

[AtlanticMike]

Wouldn't it be great if we took all the energy from both sides in this country and focused it on countries that still kill or beat homosexuals? Think of how that would change the world. 

[Meadowchik]

12 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

I don't understan what you mean by this. I said "I hope that we can all respect the opinions of each other and assume good intent. Regardless of where everyone is on this spectrum, I don't think they are coming from a place of hate and don't wish any harm on any LGBT individuals." And you respond with the above about 'impact,' 'discrimination against homosexuals,' 'neglicence,' and a a need for more love.

Do you consider BYU having an honor code that students have to abide by to be discrimination?

What about alcoholics, fornicators, the lazy who don't get good grades, atheists, men with beards, nudists, Satanists, cheaters, and those who live with opposite-sex roommates? Does BYU discriminate against anyone in the above categories?

Unless there is some dark secret of things happening today at BYU to homosexuals that I am not aware of, I really feel like rhetoric with claims of "discrimination" is exactly the lact of respect and assuming good intent that I would like to see less of in conversations like this. 

First, I mean that if we want to be moral, we cannot depend on our own good intent to ensure our own moral behavior. We must be mindful about more than intent. We must we mindful about impact, as much as we can. To put it simply, good intent is not enough.

Second, I was addressing how you previously analyzed the Rainbow Day organizer's statements when they referred to BYU's discrimination and negligence. They said that Rainbow Day is not a protest. You said that the former remarks indicated otherwise. But there is no reason to assume otherwise when the discrimination and negligence creates a need for the expression of love and support, namely, a need for Rainbow Day being exactly as it purports to be.

[Meadowchik]

23 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Wouldn't it be great if we took all the energy from both sides in this country and focused it on countries that still kill or beat homosexuals? Think of how that would change the world. 

I think that we can work on less severe forms of discrimination while addressing the more severe ones. It's not one or the other.

[AtlanticMike]

7 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I think that we can work on less severe forms of discrimination while addressing the more severe ones. It's not one or the other.

And in my opinion that's the problem.  There's one side in this country that is always pedal to the metal on social issues. And when that's your game plan, sometimes you totally pass your destination because your driving to fast. Sometimes you need to take a break and realize what you actually should be grateful for. That's what the map I put up should show you. 

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

And in my opinion that's the problem.  There's one side in this country that is always pedal to the metal on social issues. And when that's your game plan, sometimes you totally pass your destination because your driving to fast. Sometimes you need to take a break and realize what you actually should be grateful for. That's what the map I put up should show you. 

You're talking about more than 7 billion people, hundreds of countries with countless individuals, backgrounds and cultures. The model for global social change is not so simplistic as targeting one thing at a time. In fact, it might even be a hindrance to do so. I would say that more progressive places/countries are a major force in the world as they show other countries the overall incentives of growth. 

More specifically, though, when it comes down to it, there is a moral obligation to minimize harm wherever we are. We cannot use worse outcomes elsewhere in the world to stall progress where we are. They are not an excuse.

 

Edited March 8, 2021 by Meadowchik

[HappyJackWagon]

On 3/5/2021 at 4:19 PM, bluebell said:

I get what you are saying, but not being explicitly clear on this issue is what caused the whole mess last year that students this year are trying to offset.

BYU took the parts about homosexual behavior out of the honor code, thinking people would know their stance on it already, and people did not know, thought homosexual behavior was no longer against the honor code, and had a very emotional “betrayed” response to BYU clarifying.

So given that history, I don’t think BYU should ever just assume the student body knows their standards again. 

Just to be clear, you're mentioning hmsxual "behavior" that does not break the law of chastity. We're talking about holding hands, kissing etc. So, yes, BYU handled it terribly last year and IMO they didn't seem to learn much as they handled this poorly too.

The only problem in understanding their position is the double meaning of the Law of Chastity. There is one version for hetero and a different version for Homo. That's the confusion. Fixing the inconsistency would be the best way to end the confusion.

[HappyJackWagon]

On 3/5/2021 at 4:22 PM, Rain said:

Considering that this came from some who thought they could show the behavior and then the church came out and said it was still against the honor code and what the March 4th date signified I'm not sure it would be clear to everyone.  

 

That just illustrates BYU's ineptitude at handling this issue. If they had 1 honor code and 1 law of Chastity that applied evenly to all people, there wouldn't be confusion.

Telling a SS couple that holding hands is a violation of the honor code is absurd and frankly BYU deserves all the negative attention it is getting.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Just to be clear, you're mentioning hmsxual "behavior" that does not break the law of chastity. We're talking about holding hands, kissing etc. So, yes, BYU handled it terribly last year and IMO they didn't seem to learn much as they handled this poorly too.

The only problem in understanding their position is the double meaning of the Law of Chastity. There is one version for hetero and a different version for Homo. That's the confusion. Fixing the inconsistency would be the best way to end the confusion.

As you've noted, there is a problem understanding their position for some, especially in a group that is desperate for acceptance on campus and very willing to look for it in in less than explicit terms. 

That's why I disagreed with you and believed the part in my hypothetical "what BYU should have said" concerning not accepting homosexual behavior was relevant and needed.  We saw the hurt that happened last year when BYU didn't think it was necessary.

But all of that is a completely different issue that BYU's honor code and how it's applied.

Edited March 8, 2021 by bluebell

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Wouldn't it be great if we took all the energy from both sides in this country and focused it on countries that still kill or beat homosexuals? Think of how that would change the world. 

Not really. Externally imposed social engineering rarely works that well outside of positive (or negative) example. How would you focus that energy? As an example of this a lot of money and “energy” has been put into stopping Japanese whaling but they recognize the external pressure is from outside and that makes it easier for them to double down and hobbles the internal efforts to end the practice. Taking all that money and giving it to locals would help more but even that could sabotage the effort if the flow of donations made it look like a front.

Each nation should encourage other nations to do better but we can really do more good where we are. One thing we could do is stop sending homophobic preachers to Africa where they can rant at will and encourage horrific laws. Then they slip back into the states and try to ‘reasonably’ state that they are just opposed to the practice and disapprove of the death laws that they were directly encouraging. Pelting them with mud balls whenever they appear in public afterwards should also be normalized.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

And in my opinion that's the problem.  There's one side in this country that is always pedal to the metal on social issues. And when that's your game plan, sometimes you totally pass your destination because your driving to fast. Sometimes you need to take a break and realize what you actually should be grateful for. That's what the map I put up should show you. 

A realization that some things are better now and that it is worse in other places is not a justification for “taking a break”. It is necessary to keep reality in perspective of course.

It is also disappointing that the ever-so-reasonable “taking a break” and “being grateful” rhetoric generally comes from the people not marginalized by current injustice. Of course they don’t mind keeping the status quo as much and slowing things down.

Dr. King talked about the frustration of dealing with people who sort of agreed with him but thought things were going too fast.

Quote

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.

Seriously if you haven’t read that letter in full it is a masterpiece: https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

It is also odd that when something minor disadvantages or even appears to disadvantage groups that are actually (speaking generally) in power we get frothing anger about cake stores, Muppets, Dr. Seuss, the huge threat of reverse racism, and cancel culture. Where is the “take a break” and “realize how good you have it” rhetoric there? A suspicious person would come to the conclusion that the seriousness of injustice is often decided by self-interest.

[Calm]

9 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Wouldn't it be great if we took all the energy from both sides in this country and focused it on countries that still kill or beat homosexuals? Think of how that would change the world. 

And what would you see us doing effectively?

[Ahab]

10 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Wouldn't it be great if we took all the energy from both sides in this country and focused it on countries that still kill or beat homosexuals? Think of how that would change the world. 

You mean like a laser gun focusing all of that energy on all of those countries?  Like a big ZAP gun ?

Yeah I think that would be great.  Some people might even be working on that now, as far as I know.

[AtlanticMike]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

You mean like a laser gun focusing all of that energy on all of those countries?  Like a big ZAP gun ?

Yeah I think that would be great.  Some people might even be working on that now, as far as I know.

If you want a zap gun you can buy one on Amazon, everything is on Amazon 😁😁

[AtlanticMike]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

And what would you see us doing effectively?

We could fly a bunch of planes over those countries and release a bunch of rainbow colored glitter😁