Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

BYU under investigate by US Government


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Is there any scripture that suggest that homosexual actions and gay marriage are right?   I can make a good case for polygamy that there are times it is right.   One can use this argument for a variety of things.   What about this man who built a robot and married it? 

884.jpg?width=620&quality=85&auto=format

 

600.jpg?width=620&quality=85&auto=format

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/04/chinese-man-marries-robot-built-himself

Look at the happy couple.  Perhaps a revelation from God will come that says this is ok and we can start sealings in the temple soon of man with robots.  I am sure that you might think the idea of marrying a robot is absurd.  No more absurd that gay marriage was in the minds of most Americans 30 years ago.  Who knows what society will accept 30 years from now. 

The reality is the whole idea that God might be accepting of same sex marriage is based on wishful thinking.  A hope that God has a revelation out there that its ok.  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

You think that an athiest activist will think that rule is fair?  Are you as willing to go to bat for the athiest activist simply on the grounds that he thinks the rule is unfair?  You want fairness, yet fairness is such a subjective term, it would be impossible to write any kind of law or rule that everyone will think is fair.  Policies, rules and laws are not about fairness, as much as we might try to make them so, they are about what any given entity determines to be right for itself.  BYU's policy on dating may not seem fair to everyone, but it is the same for everyone.

maybe that's why you can notify your instructor 2 weeks in advance and work it out, at least the option is there, at least that exists

maybe atheism isn't a religion too

it isn't the same for everyone and hopefully the government can make it fair for everyone, because BYU seems unwilling. My school figured it out almost ten years ago, it's time BYU got into the game

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

You think that an athiest activist will think that rule is fair?  Are you as willing to go to bat for the athiest activist simply on the grounds that he thinks the rule is unfair?  You want fairness, yet fairness is such a subjective term, it would be impossible to write any kind of law or rule that everyone will think is fair.  Policies, rules and laws are not about fairness, as much as we might try to make them so, they are about what any given entity determines to be right for itself.  BYU's policy on dating may not seem fair to everyone, but it is the same for everyone.

That's a garbage argument. Pretty sure most atheists wouldn't care one bit. Having been labeled an atheist more than once, I'll just say it wouldn't bother me in the least. We live in a pluralistic society and accommodations allow for harmony.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Duncan said:

My school figured it out almost ten years ago, it's time BYU got into the game

Figured what out?  You seem to be focusing on the wrong thing.  No matter the rule, whether it is a college, a State, a nation or a company, someone will feel it is unfair.  That is all I am saying.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, ttribe said:

That's a garbage argument. Pretty sure most atheists wouldn't care one bit. Having been labeled an atheist more than once, I'll just say it wouldn't bother me in the least. We live in a pluralistic society and accommodations allow for harmony.

If I were an atheist, I would find it patently unfair that religious folks could reschedule their exams while I could not.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

Figured what out?  You seem to be focusing on the wrong thing.  No matter the rule, whether it is a college, a State, a nation or a company, someone will feel it is unfair.  That is all I am saying.

maybe you are asking me the wrong questions then. I gave you examples. I have yet to hear about the Government of Canada getting involved in my university's affairs. You are free to look up and see if people think my school's policies are unfair or countless other universities'

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

If I were an atheist, I would find it patently unfair that religious folks could reschedule their exams while I could not.

then talk to your instructor, you have two weeks to do it

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

The reality is the whole idea that God might be accepting of same sex marriage is based on wishful thinking.    

 

This might be the reality, but no one here is qualified to proclaim it as fact.

Remember that His ways are not our ways, and we see through a glass darkly.  Anytime we try to use our own logic and reason to teach someone else what God will do, we'd probably better tack on a "maybe" at the end of it.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, smac97 said:

I understand that approach.  But it's like saying teetotalers are treated differently at BYU from people who like to drink.

Except . . . they aren't.  Regardless of personal preference or inclination or desire, the treatment under the Honor Code is the same.  Nobody can drink alcohol.

Thanks,

-Smac

An old dress code is reestablished to help students recall more dignified days.  Identical treatment for everyone:  all students must wear a dress or skirt and blouse, optional jacket with tights or hose; BYU is not blind to the safety and comfort of their students so they included the exception of dress pants only allowed in winter weather.
 

This was the dress code required to work at BYU when I attended BYU and that is the dress code that I accepted and conscientiously lived by.  Since I had no problem living those standards, even though I had not once worn a skirt in 4 years of high school, it should not be too hard for anyone to do so.

Regardless of personal preference or inclination or desire, the treatment under the Honor Code is the same.  Those who do not want to wear the uniform have a multitude of other universities to choose from. 
 

This is a valid limitation if BYU defines itself as a woman’s school.  Plenty of women’s school have had a similar dress code in the past as has BYU, so not that unusual, if a bit old school.  If however, BYU states that it intends to be a coed university and welcomes men and women who are willing to live its standards, perhaps some might think such a dress code is odd and not that consistent with its public stance.
 

The behaviour code at BYU is straight sexual behaviour only, before and after marriage. Not hard to see why some see BYU as saying “No gays need apply”.  To those who think refraining from sexual behaviour is not a hardship, well, wearing a skirt isn’t much to ask either as half of the student population past and present of BYU can probably tell you and you can always wear mid calf if you don’t like the look of your knees, but I suggest you shave your legs as it makes hose more comfortable. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Calm said:

An old dress code is reestablished to help students recall more dignified days.  Identical treatment for everyone:  all students must wear a dress or skirt and blouse, optional jacket with tights or hose; BYU is not blind to the safety and comfort of their students so they included the exception of dress pants only allowed in winter weather.
 

This was the dress code required to work at BYU when I attended BYU and that is the dress code that I accepted and conscientiously lived by.  Since I had no problem living those standards, even though I had not once worn a skirt in 4 years of high school, it should not be too hard for anyone to do so.

Regardless of personal preference or inclination or desire, the treatment under the Honor Code is the same.  Those who do not want to wear the uniform have a multitude of other universities to choose from. 
 

This a valid limitation if BYU defines itself as a woman’s school. If however, it states that it is a coed university, perhaps some might think such a dress code is odd. 
 

The behaviour code at BYU is straight sexual behaviour only, before and after marriage. Not hard to see why some see BYU as saying “No gays need apply”.  To those who think refraining from sexual behaviour is not a hardship, well, wearing a skirt isn’t much to ask either as half of the student population past and present of BYU can probably tell you and you can always wear mid calf if you don’t like the look of your knees, but I suggest you shave your legs as it makes hose more comfortable. 

Genius.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Okay, nice dismissive.  I served my mission in Tennessee and Kentucky and can say without hesitation that it was extremely difficult to convince black Americans that there was anything worth pursuing with regard to the LDS Church. I can also say, without hesitation, that the Church's history of waiting so long to allow equality was a major stumbling block to conversion.

No, I've lived none of the places you stated.

Living in those places would show you how well the Church is doing with OD2. It also seems to me that your difficulty in convincing Black Americans was more a societal issue, and perhaps a personal communications / effectiveness issue, than any fault in Church policy. You may not have been aware of a long tradition of segregation in the churches of the American South, and held unrealistic expectations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_of_churches_in_the_United_States

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Living in those places would show you how well the Church is doing with OD2. It also seems to me that your difficulty in convincing Black Americans was more a societal issue, and perhaps a personal communications / effectiveness issue, than any fault in Church policy. You may not have been aware of a long tradition of segregation in the churches of the American South, and held unrealistic expectations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_of_churches_in_the_United_States

The condescending you are responding with is both unwarranted and a conversation killer.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

This might be the reality, but no one here is qualified to proclaim it as fact.

Remember that His ways are not our ways, and we see through a glass darkly.  Anytime we try to use our own logic and reason to teach someone else what God will do, we'd probably better tack on a "maybe" at the end of it.

I suppose that is true for anything.  Perhaps even a revelation that one does not have to accept Christ or an atonement.  I think there are some absolutes that will not change.  

Edited by carbon dioxide
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, ttribe said:

The condescending you are responding with is both unwarranted and a conversation killer.

I did not mean it to come across that way, just offering a couple of facts on the topic and a couple of possibilities that I would consider for myself and any other person of missionary age.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I did not mean it to come across that way, just offering a couple of facts on the topic and a couple of possibilities that I would consider for myself and any other person of missionary age.

I am very familiar with the issue of segregation amongst churches in the American South.  Moreover, I was not the only missionary with this 'struggle;' it was universal. The overwhelming majority of persons of color who discovered that the Church: 1) ever had a prohibition; and 2) that it took them until 1978 to fix it, walked away. They would hear nothing more, and rightfully so; the prohibition was shameful.

Edited by ttribe
Link to comment
13 hours ago, kimpearson said:

I will ask all of you once again.  How do you expect queer people to live their lives?  David Archuleta just gave a very thorough predicament queer members find themselves in.  Go view it and tell me what you would tell David on how best to live his life.  By many of your posts, you seem perfectly content to tell queer members they have no right to the happiness, joy, peace and growth that comes from romantic relationships that you all enjoy.  It appears you believe in a God who has created laws that do nothing but make life a living hell for most queer members.  Please explain why God would do that.  I believe many of you feel that if queer folks just followed Church guidance they would be happy at and peace.  I would love to hear your personal stories of the queer individuals you know that are happy and prospering in the gospel.  I hear no compassion or even a minimal attempt to consider the life faced by a queer member of the Church.  By the way, it is impossible to love someone yet tell them to live a life of sadness, despair, self loathing and by the way you will be better off after you are dead.

So tell me what is the life a queer person should live.

 

12 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

You won't receive any responses because nobody has a good one.
And you certainly won't receive the response you want, because the truth is that the standards aren't different for different people.
Redefining things to make people feel better is an exercise in futility.

The life of a queer Latter-day Saint, in my opinion and experience, should be focused on a gradually increasing covenant relationship with Jesus Christ through one's endowment in the Temple. 

By making their covenant relationship with Him their treasure, their daily/weekly focus, and subsequently growing closer to Him and receiving more grace as they strive to be truly converted and reborn regularly their emotional needs and sexual feelings will be informed by a new perspective. What I want has changed as I've come closer to His presence.

What I mean is that Jesus Christ, through His Atonement, has the power to change our nature such that our lives come to revolve around Him and the relationship we're growing into with Him. This has a powerful effect on us when all other needs, particularly emotional, are aligned with the Savior's will. He has the power to help queer Saints, like myself, live the covenant path if such a course, in His wisdom, means living a celibate life.

He has power unto the fulfilling of all His commandments and promises, and if He does expect chastity to be honored as taught by His Apostles then He will be faithful to queer Saints who both hold fiercely to their Temple covenants as well as tune out voices that take their focus off of the Savior.

It's a lot like what I'd imagine Peter experienced when walking on the water. He asked the Savior to bid him to do something the world through all ages would consider impossible and ridiculous. Celibacy as a queer Saint seems just as impossible and ludicrous to many, but I testify and witness that both miracles are accomplished, fulfilled, and maintained in the exact same way. 

Satan works overtime on queer Saints, I think, by enticing them to believe that celibacy is the worst hell. How can it be hell if it brings you nearer to the literal presence of the Lord? I mean exactly what I say.

I accept and understand that celibacy and chastity as maligned may seem just as impossible and reckless as trying to walk on water. Agency must be preserved, honored, and cherished, but a lifestyle that goes against the law of chastity is not the only option for queer Saints (or even a desirable one, imo). We may have to agree to disagree.

Edited by Gillebre
Link to comment
6 hours ago, kimpearson said:

I keep waiting for someone to share the revelation from God declaring homosexual actions and gay marriage to be wrong.

Here you go:

22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (Leviticus 18)

13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20)

17  There shall be no... sodomite of the sons of Israel. (Deuteronomy 23)

 

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; (Romans 1)

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, (1 Corinthians 6)

 

9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; (1 Timothy 1)

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. (Jude 1)

Link to comment
3 hours ago, bluebell said:

This might be the reality, but no one here is qualified to proclaim it as fact.

Remember that His ways are not our ways, and we see through a glass darkly.  Anytime we try to use our own logic and reason to teach someone else what God will do, we'd probably better tack on a "maybe" at the end of it.

I think in this case we are definitely qualified to say that God will never accept same-sex relations. 

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74284-byu-under-investigate-by-us-government/?do=findComment&comment=1210077361

 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

Here you go:

22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (Leviticus 18)

13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20)

17  There shall be no... sodomite of the sons of Israel. (Deuteronomy 23)

 

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; (Romans 1)

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, (1 Corinthians 6)

 

9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; (1 Timothy 1)

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. (Jude 1)

If you are going to use the OT as an authority, then you will need to accept all of the OT and not cherry pick what you like and ignore all the crazy mean stuff.  A quick example is in verse 13 that you quoted.  So do you believe men in a relationship should be put to death?  If not you (royal you) are cherry picking.  The OT when taken is not a good standard to use.  Just  the God condoned genocide alone is enough to disqualify it IMO.

Link to comment
On 1/20/2022 at 2:12 PM, bluebell said:

Could this end up being an illustration of the "slippery slope" argument coming true?  So many members have argued that eventually the government would try to use different laws to stop the church from having its own policies or beliefs, but just as many others have said that that would never happen.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

I haven’t read the rest of the thread yet, but in answer to your question if this is an illustration of the slippery slope coming true after, in your words, “so many have said this would never happen,” once again—I would say no, this exactly what many of us have said would happen, just as it happened with racial discrimination at BYU after the government decided not to tolerate racial prejudice by colleges. Those of us advocating for LGBT equality have long been predicting the same parallel that BYU would ultimately face the same consequences for LGBT discrimination that it faced for racial discrimination. This isn’t a shock or a surprise; it’s what we’ve been predicting all along. 

Edited by Daniel2
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

If you are going to use the OT as an authority, then you will need to accept all of the OT and not cherry pick what you like and ignore all the crazy mean stuff.  A quick example is in verse 13 that you quoted.  So do you believe men in a relationship should be put to death?  If not you (royal you) are cherry picking.  The OT when taken is not a good standard to use.  Just  the God condoned genocide alone is enough to disqualify it IMO.

I quoted from both the New and Old Testaments. God no longer requires that men who engage homosexual relations be put to death, but the eternal punishment that awaits those who are guilty of this abomination and do not repent is the same. 

Link to comment
13 hours ago, SkyRock said:

1st, all people need to stop defining themselves by their sexual attractions.   

2nd, Most every person experiences sexual attraction to others.  And to conform ourselves to God's laws, we are required to limit our sexual activity to a heterosexual marriage.  We are required to overcome whatever impulses and desires to do as God requires.   In today's world almost no one except the extremely strict religious refrain from fornication.  Just because it is a huge struggle for almost people to wait to get married to have sex does not change God's laws on the topic.  Additionally, a large portion of the married folks commit adultery.  Just because they do it does not mean that God should change his laws. 

3rd, those who call themselves "gay" need to stop doing so.   They have essentially labeled themselves something based upon their attractions.  Throughout history most people who experienced SSA issues still married and lived heterosexual lives.   

May it be difficult and awkward at times? Sure.  But such is marriage.   It isn't always easy.   It is often downright awful.  But it allows us to grow in ways not otherwise possible.   Marriage is a sacrament with God that entails lifelong self-sacrifice.  

Selfishness is indulging in the our attractions more than anything else.  Each person can either carry their own yoke or take upon themselves Christ's yoke.  SSA isn't a sin, just like being attracted to the opposite sex.   It is indulging in it, dwelling on it, thinking about it, lusting after it that makes it sinful, just like heterosexuals doing the same.  We all have separate trials in life. 

So, it is very possible for the SSA person to be active in church and strive through the grace of Christ's love to conform to the commandments.  It really isn't possible for someone who identifier as "gay" (even if they have never engaged in anything but idealization after attraction) to be active long term in the church.  

So they need to stop calling themselves "queer" to start.   Call themselves instead a "child of God".

It seems pretty clear you haven’t watched David Archuletta’s video.

Link to comment
57 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

I quoted from both the New and Old Testaments. God no longer requires that men who engage homosexual relations be put to death, but the eternal punishment that awaits those who are guilty of this abomination and do not repent is the same. 

The scriptures don't say that. You are projecting. 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...