BYU under investigate by US Government

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

First, I think we have matured as a society to the point where we acknowledge disorders without also stigmatizing them.  And I think that's a very good thing.

Second, I don't think anyone is "downplaying of the biological disposition towards sexual orientation."  

Thanks,

-Smac

Well, like it or not, people whose biological preferences for love and affection are compared to diseases are likely to feel sigmatized.

And, every time you try to divert or dilute the discussion of biological drive impacting sexuality to focus on environment for polemic purposes, you are downplaying the biological disposition towards sexual orientation.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I dated my now wife for several months before we were engaged, and we were engaged for six months before getting married.  During this time I knew that fornication was an extremely serious sin.  I loved my wife, but I knew that I was constrained from expressing that love via sexual behavior until after we were married.

And I wasn't comparing romantic affection to alcoholism.  I was comparing alcohol consumption to sexual behavior.  

Thanks,

-Smac

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't think either is that clear-cut.  See, e.g., here:

In other words, how a person reacts to alcohol seems to be more than a matter of "choice."  Genetic and environmental influences appear to play significant roles.  

The same can be said for sexual orientation.  It seems to be more than "biology," namely environmental factors (see, e.g., here and here).  

I think the better question would be whether there are genetic factors in how people respond to alcohol.  The answer seems pretty clearly "yes."  See here:

In other words, the Honor Code's prohibition against alcohol could be construed as "unfair" to someone who has "environmental, heredity, and genetic factors" affecting his approach to alcohol, as opposed to someone else who lacks these factors.  And yet both of these individuals are treated the same under the Honor Code.  Both are prohibited from drinking alcohol, even though abiding by that prohibition may be signficantly more onerous for one student as compared to another.

Disparate impact, not disparate treatment.

Thanks,

-Smac

It seems to me that you are comparing homosexuality to both disease and vice then, and that is somehow...better?

[T-Shirt]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

hmm, other universities have it figured out. Maybe BYU is just stupid then

You really believe that every university, City, State, Country or other organization (except BYU) has figured out how to make laws that everyone feels are fair? 

[bluebell]

51 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think it's wrong to compare it to a disease or disorder and I don't accept that.  I am completely willing to accept it as an inherent disposition.  But does that mean it should be embraced in our actions?

There are many biological dispositions that we work to overcome and many that we embrace.  Optimism, a bad temper, anxiety, empathy, addictions, thrill seeking, gambling, high or low self esteem, the list is endless.

The idea that just because something is innate in our being that means it should be accepted doesn't hold water for me.  I'm working too hard to overcome many of my own mortal dispositions, biological, emotional, etc.

I agree with you.

But since we are talking about what is legal under discrimination laws and how that's going to affect BYU moving forward, I don't think the "there are many biological dispositions that we can't give into" is going to be a great argument in favor of how BYU currently handles SS relations and the Honor Code.

All that really matters is how the law is going to interpret the practice of BYU allowing one group of people to express their romantic feelings publically and not allowing a different group to do the same.

It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out.

[ttribe]

53 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think it's wrong to compare it to a disease or disorder and I don't accept that.  I am completely willing to accept it as an inherent disposition.  But does that mean it should be embraced in our actions?

There are many biological dispositions that we work to overcome and many that we embrace.  Optimism, a bad temper, anxiety, empathy, addictions, thrill seeking, gambling, high or low self esteem, the list is endless.

The idea that just because something is innate in our being that means it should be accepted doesn't hold water for me.  I'm working too hard to overcome many of my own mortal dispositions, biological, emotional, etc.

Your comparisons don't hold up.  It is pretty widely accepted that the desire for romantic connection and sexual intimacy are biological imperatives to good mental health. Abstaining from gambling (for example), is not.

[ttribe]

Just now, T-Shirt said:

You really believe that every university, City, State, Country or other organization (except BYU) has figured out how to make laws that everyone feels are fair? 

He said "other universities," not ALL other universities.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Your comparisons don't hold up.  It is pretty widely accepted that the desire for romantic connection and sexual intimacy are biological imperatives to good mental health. Abstaining from gambling (for example), is not.

And if someone's desire for romantic connection or sexual intimacy was considered inappropriate in another way?
We don't ever get to say it's wrong if it falls into that category because it might challenge mental happiness?

[sunstoned]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

There are limits on what continuing revelation can do.  God doesn't break his own rules.

The entire body of canonized scripture is full of broken, changed and ignored rules.  I have already posted on the modified law of chastity.  A couple from the NT that we seemed to have forgotten about are "a bishop should be husband of one wife" and "women should remain silent in the churches".  And then we have the biggie, the new and everlasting covenant was shot down by the united states government.  Maybe there is a different definition for everlasting that I am not aware of.  None of us have a crystal ball so we don't know. From what I can tell there is no limits and we shouldn't assume anything.

Edited January 21, 2022 by sunstoned

[Olmec Donald]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I agree with Wilford Woodruff that "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God." 

A lot can hinge on whether or not that statement is unconditionally true. 

I'm not questioning Wilford Woodruff's sincerity, but I am questioning the infallibity of his claim that he and his successors are effectively infallible on the big things.  

If faced with the prospect of summary judgment which relied on such testimony, I would petition for a trial on the merits.  

In another thread you posted this:

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

We do not unthinkingly accept just any statement [from our leaders].  We are supposed to analyze and evaluate and determine for ourselfs the inspiration of our leaders.  I think we should operate from a position of faith.  I also think we should give the Brethren the benefit of the doubt.

This makes a lot more sense to me.

Edited January 21, 2022 by Olmec Donald

[Danzo]

10 minutes ago, Duncan said:

hmm, other universities have it figured out. Maybe BYU is just stupid then

I really wouldn't hold up other universities as shining examples promoting healthy sexual relationships.

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And if someone's desire for romantic connection or sexual intimacy was considered inappropriate in another way?
We don't ever get to say it's wrong if it falls into that category because it might challenge mental happiness?

We are talking about BASIC need for romantic connection and sexual intimacy, not something beyond that; let's stay in that lane.
 

I didn't use the phrase "mental happiness," I said "mental health." I should think you would know there is a world of difference.

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

hmm, other universities have it figured out. Maybe BYU is just stupid then

BYU does have some stupid rules like guys not being able to have beards but other universities are not concerned about getting their students to live lives so they can pass the judgement bar of God.   BYU has a more long term outlook for the students that extend beyond death.  Other universities are just looking to get the students money and push the out the door.

[Duncan]

16 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

You really believe that every university, City, State, Country or other organization (except BYU) has figured out how to make laws that everyone feels are fair? 

homosexuals. It's probably news but people don't care, I don't care one whit if someone is gay, my sexuality isn't threatened

[Duncan]

10 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I really wouldn't hold up other universities as shining examples promoting healthy sexual relationships.

celibacy is hardly sustainable either

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

BYU does have some stupid rules like guys not being able to have beards but other universities are not concerned about getting their students to live lives so they can pass the judgement bar of God.   BYU has a more long term outlook for the students that extend beyond death.  Other universities are just looking to get the students money and push the out the door.

unless BYU offers covenants and ordinances then you would have a point but they don't

[T-Shirt]

20 minutes ago, ttribe said:

He said "other universities," not ALL other universities.

Which ones?

[sunstoned]

6 hours ago, MacGyver said:

I fully support continuing revelation, but I'm strongly opposed to the church changing the doctrine and standards God has established because of political and social pressure.

I don't believe there is any scenario in which God would give a revelation permitting the abominable practice of same-sex relations. 

I admire your standards, and few years ago I would have said the same thing. The church should not change doctrine because of political or social pressure.  But the reality is, that is what they have done and continue to do over and  over again.

It's small thing, but when I went to BYU you could not buy caffeinated soft drinks.  This was the case right up to the time Mitt Romney was photographed with a can of Diet Coke in his hand.  That was kind of a PR bummer, so the church issued a statement (see link below), and now its all good.  You can now buy all the coke you want at the Cougar Eat.

https://www.eastvalleytribune.com/nation_world/chug-a-diet-coke-mormon-church-clarifies-stance-on-caffeine/article_f5d7ae6c-f476-11e1-bde1-0019bb2963f4.html

That is just a small example, but the pattern holds for the bigger things: Institutional racism, polygamy, multiple changes in the temple ordinance, dumping the church Patriarch position, Children of gay parents denied a blessing and baptism, the name Mormon, etc.  Now you can pick any of these examples or one of the dozens of others and argue it, but the reality is that the pattern exists, which is any teaching or doctrine that becomes a PR liability will get shoved down the memory hole and those who espoused those teachings are thrown under the bus.    

Edited January 21, 2022 by sunstoned

[T-Shirt]

7 minutes ago, Duncan said:

homosexuals. It's probably news but people don't care, I don't care one whit if someone is gay, my sexuality isn't threatened

I don't know what relevance this has to do with my question.

[Danzo]

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

celibacy is hardly sustainable either

It's the law of chastity that needs to be sustained. I am not sure what you have against the law of chastity, but I think living the law of chastity is an important part of living the gospel.

[Danzo]

7 minutes ago, Duncan said:

unless BYU offers covenants and ordinances then you would have a point but they don't

In theory, it is helping people to prepare for and keep these covenants and ordinances.

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

In theory, it is helping people to prepare for and keep these covenants and ordinances.

ah, I never went to BYU and  more LDS students didn't either- We had Church attendance help us with that and institute or seminary or family

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, Danzo said:

It's the law of chastity that needs to be sustained. I am not sure what you have against the law of chastity, but I think living the law of chastity is an important part of living the gospel.

nothing, but it isn't the same to homosexuals and heterosexuals

[Duncan]

6 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

I don't know what relevance this has to do with my question.

in regards to how they treat homosexual students

[T-Shirt]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

in regards to how they treat homosexual students

My question was about creating laws that are equally fair to everyone.  I don't see the connection.

[sunstoned]

30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree with you.

But since we are talking about what is legal under discrimination laws and how that's going to affect BYU moving forward, I don't think the "there are many biological dispositions that we can't give into" is going to be a great argument in favor of how BYU currently handles SS relations and the Honor Code.

All that really matters is how the law is going to interpret the practice of BYU allowing one group of people to express their romantic feelings publically and not allowing a different group to do the same.

It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out.

You are right that is not a good argument to make.  I think BYU is in a tough position.  I think one issue is that the general perception is that BYU and the church are almost one in the same.  It seems that Church leadership thinks this way, at least Jeffrey Holland does with his musket fire and losing national prestage talk.  If this is the case, then the church has to come up with a solution, and rely on another BYU policy tweak.  That is not going to work. 

The almost same thing played out forty years ago.  Only then it was racial discrimination.   The solution then was to turn from exclusion to inclusion.  It took a revelation to do it, but we believe in that sort of thing, ongoing revelation.  I think now we need another revelation.

[Bob Crockett]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

CFR on the 15 minute endowment.  Not sure I've heard that before.
The historical record indicates it took all day.

who knows.   Brigham Young would spend a day endowing hundreds of saints, one at a time.