BYU under investigate by US Government

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, kimpearson said:

Read these scriptures in their context.  Are they revelations from God? no.  Were they written by prophets claiming to receive revelation? Nope.  They are guidance from church leaders at the time nothing more.  The bible is full of such guidance from church leaders that is their opinion.  They never claimed it was revelation from God.   Did Christ speak these words?  Nope.  Did any prophet in the Book of Mormon receive revelation on the subject?  Did Adam, Noah, Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah or Elijah receive revelation on the subject? Nope.  Did Joseph Smith or any modern prophet receive revelation?  Nope.  Does our doctrine claim there is a lot of error in the Bible? Yep and you both just pointed some of it out.  Show me the conference talk that quotes any of these scriptures.  You might find one or two many years ago but nothing recently.

I still maintain there is no revelation on this subject and no one can state they know God thinks its wrong.  The best you can do is based on other scriptures and making your own very broad and loose interpretations conclude you believe it to be wrong.

God - "the correct color is green".

You - "God didn't say purple was incorrect".

[sunstoned]

1 hour ago, kimpearson said:

Read these scriptures in their context.  Are they revelations from God? no.  Were they written by prophets claiming to receive revelation? Nope.  They are guidance from church leaders at the time nothing more.  The bible is full of such guidance from church leaders that is their opinion.  They never claimed it was revelation from God.   Did Christ speak these words?  Nope.  Did any prophet in the Book of Mormon receive revelation on the subject?  Did Adam, Noah, Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah or Elijah receive revelation on the subject? Nope.  Did Joseph Smith or any modern prophet receive revelation?  Nope.  Does our doctrine claim there is a lot of error in the Bible? Yep and you both just pointed some of it out.  Show me the conference talk that quotes any of these scriptures.  You might find one or two many years ago but nothing recently.

I still maintain there is no revelation on this subject and no one can state they know God thinks its wrong.  The best you can do is based on other scriptures and making your own very broad and loose interpretations conclude you believe it to be wrong.

I agree.  Christ spent no (as in zero) time talking about this.  Not in the NT, not in the D&C. and not in the BoM.

[Stormin' Mormon]

12 minutes ago, Duncan said:

so love means nothing in action, got it

No, love is an individual, person-to-person thing.

Communities are diverse collections of individuals with conflicting goals, passions, wants, needs.

Loving and supporting individuals at the retail level does not imply or require supporting a community at the wholesale level.

[Duncan]

I find it strange that God keeps sending gay children to LDS families, why would he do that if he forbids homosexuality? Wouldn't they be better off in non LDS families?

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

No, love is an individual, person-to-person thing.

Communities are diverse collections of individuals with conflicting goals, passions, wants, needs.

Loving and supporting individuals at the retail level does not imply or require supporting a community at the wholesale level.

I am sure your gay friends appreciate your support and love in action. You would always speak kindly about homosexuals, I think they would like that, because you your love is so  "person-to-person".  You never answered my question about the Proclamation on Homosexuality, because I missed it somehow in General Conference

[Stormin' Mormon]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I find it strange that God keeps sending gay children to LDS families, why would he do that if he forbids homosexuality? Wouldn't they be better off in non LDS families?

Wow. You officially jumped the shark with this comment. What a hateful, spiteful, terrible thing to say. 

Good luck back peddling from this faux pas.

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Wow. You officially jumped the shark with this comment. What a hateful, spiteful, terrible thing to say. 

Good luck back peddling from this faux pas.

I am learning from you! You're a great teacher! your two faces should get fixed by a doctor you know

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Pretty much the reply I expected, thanks.

But I wanted to highlight the quote above because it is a wild misrepresentation of the positions espoused by every Latter-day Saint I know. 

When we discussed this topic in Sunday school last month, there was such an outpouring of love and empathy for our LGBT brothers and sister, both in and out of the church. And at the same time, a full embrace of the Proclamation which places those behaviors outside of God's plan for His children.

I can believe that certain behaviors will keep one from achieving their full potential as a child of God and at the same time love the people who engage in those behaviors. I do it all the time, every day, constantly. 

Love the believer hate the bigoted belief as the saying goes…

[california boy]

23 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

There are many things that I disagree with the FP/Q12 on.  I think many of their actions taken under the guise of continuing revelation are works of men and will eventually have to be corrected by the Lord.
I don't necessarily agree with MacGyver that it would be a final straw situation.  I don't know what it would take to put the Church into full apostasy, but I do believe the gospel was restored again never to be taken from the earth.
But yes, any claimed "revelation" that SSM or relations are acceptable I would instantly put as a false revelation.  It contradicts what God has previously revealed to man about marriage, family, chastity, gender etc.
And God is eternal, unchanging.  If we have to start asking "which revelation is the lie" then it makes far more sense to assume one wasn't revelation to begin with.

Isn't the Church already in apostasy by allowing divorce, which has been pointed out, goes directly against Christs words?  Or does that not bother you so much because well, it is a revelation for the straight members to deal with difficult situations?

[Stormin' Mormon]

27 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I am learning from you! You're a great teacher! your two faces should get fixed by a doctor you know

Thus far, you have accused me of:

Not loving my gay friends and family 

Doing merely lip service in my professed love of my gay friends and family

Wishing my gay child had been born to a different family

I'd rather be two-faced than have the one uncharitable and spiteful face you have shown in this thread.

I'm  out. Have fun. The thread is all yours.

[california boy]

20 hours ago, rongo said:

I agree. I was trying to put myself in their shoes. 

I don't think I would date and get married if I wasn't able to or allowed to hold hand, hug, and kiss. Or if we weren't able to ever get married, or if we would have had to live celibately after marriage. It would have changed the whole dynamic. 

I'm the world champion "slow mover" (my wife was my first kiss). I dated, and am good with people (and was with girls), but I was so scared of being rejected (what do you do if she pulls away? I still don't know how you handle something that awkward) or presuming or imposing that . . . I was a slow mover as far as the displays of affection stuff. Yes, the companionship and friendship is very important, but would I have dated if I didn't have the end to the means? Dating under such conditions would seem like self-torture to me --- which is why I think encouraging gay dating in the Church is a non-starter. Unfortunately, for gay people to overcome and be exalted, they are going to have to carry that particular cross. But, caving on this issue doesn't help or save them,. It complicates or makes it harder. 

If you could never have sex with your wife, would you still want be with her?  I know personally, I would rather be with someone for the rest of my life that I loved, even if I could never have sex with them.  

[CV75]

14 hours ago, ttribe said:

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.

By persons of color, do you mean exclusively Black? Yes, that might come across a trick question, so I'll make it easy for you: if you are grouping African Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, Pacific Islander Americans, multiracial Americans, and some Latino Americans into "persons of color," whites probably have the same reaction, and yet national turmoil over racism against Black Americans has increased since the 1960's while the Church's policy changed once and for all. It is the perpetuation of a negative racial environment in our society that creates such a reaction toward the facts about ordination of all worthy males. So powerful is this influence you seem to have adopted it.

If you are talking exclusively about Blacks, your familiarity should help you understand that they are part of the long history of racial segregation of churches: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_of_churches_in_the_United_States (again) and this would contribute heavily to a bias toward segregation, which still very much alive in the American South. And TN and KY aren't even that far south!

I'm not sure why you'd rather talk about this than the thread topic, but unless you can tie it in like I can, I don't want to derail (though the thread may have run its course).

The way I tie it in of course, is given the rejection of scriptural and doctrinal precedent for the Church's stance of marriage, we have this kind of history where social issues continue to be problematic while the Church's solutions move forward. So the Church is a reliable institution for knowing what is best to do vis-à-vis societal progress, and whether and/or  when. The invitation is for members with concerns about same-sex marriage and courtship is to stay worthy and participate in councils as opportunities arise, and the Lord will provide opportunities to those He can rely upon. Nothing is better than the companionship of the Holy Ghost and security in the Lord.

Now I recall you don't believe in the Church, so much of this may not apply to you except to perhaps offer some insight as to how to better deal with those in your personal life who do.

 

[2BizE]

On 1/20/2022 at 3:21 PM, smac97 said:

From the article:

I'll be curious to see how this plays out.  

Scenario 1: Female Student (A) has extramarital sex with Male Student (B) = Violation of Honor Code.

Scenario 2: Female Student (A) has extramarital sex with Female Student (C) = Violation of Honor Code.

If extramarital sex is prohibited for everybody, regardless of sex or sexual orientation, then how is that a Title IX violation?

Scenario 3: Female Student (A) marries and has sex with Male Student (B) = No Violation of Honor Code.

Scenario 4: Female Student (A) marries and has sex with Female Student (C) = Violation of Honor Code.

I wonder if the differing outcomes between Scenarios 3 and 4 are actionable.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think the circumstances are different.

Scenario 1: Female student sits on bench on BYU campus  with male student and kisses him = no honor code violation.

Scenario 2: Female student sits on bench with female student on BYU campus and kisses her= honor code violation

Also, Uses these two scenarios but with holding hands while walking to classes.

[MacGyver]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

except homosexuality, which isn't "repeatedly" mentioned

Sure it is. I provided multiple instances were it is mentioned and there are quite a few more instances were homosexuality is mentioned. 

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

Sounds to like you are manipulating scripture to fit your own worldview

Not at all. But this is what "manipulating scripture to fit your worldview" looks like:

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

He fulfilled the law in OT, said nothing about homosexuality in the NT, it was Paul and most likely added later by other writers one interpretation about homosexuality, but Jesus said nothing. Not there and not in the Gospels, Book of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenants. 

Jesus is the one who gave the law in the OT. And he did not say that the law of chastity was being made less strict, when the law of Moses was fulfilled. To say that he was now permitting homosexual behavior after previously calling it an abomination is a perversion of the scriptures. 

Claiming that Paul was going rogue by preaching against homosexual behavior or that someone else added that later, is likewise a perversion of the scriptures. 

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

You can't say it's in there either though

You're right, I can't say that it is mentioned in the sealed portion of the plates. But it actually is mentioned in our current Book of Mormon. I had forgotten about this passage earlier:

8 For Jerusalem is ruined, and Judah is fallen, because their tongues and their doings have been against the Lord, to provoke the eyes of his glory.
9 The show of their countenance doth witness against them, and doth declare their sin to be even as Sodom, and they cannot hide it. Wo unto their souls, for they have rewarded evil unto themselves!
10 Say unto the righteous that it is well with them; for they shall eat the fruit of their doings.
11 Wo unto the wicked, for they shall perish; for the reward of their hands shall be upon them! (2 Nephi 13)

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

You can't point one scripture that has Jesus saying he denounces homosexuality, because it doesn't exist

I have provided several scriptures were Jesus denounces homosexual behavior. 2 Nephi 13:9 is one of these examples. 

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

as much as you want it to to justify your ridiculous assertions.

Here's what a ridiculous assertion looks like:

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

do you know that the [sin] of Sodom and Gomorrah may have been lack of charity to poor people? Ezekiel 16:49-50

They were also guilty of neglecting the poor, but the sin they are most infamous for is homosexual behavior.

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)

What is a sodomite and what is sodomy? It's not someone who neglects the poor or the act of neglecting the poor. 

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

Do you study scriptures at all much?

Yes, I study the scriptures a lot and know them pretty well. 

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

or think [the scriptures] can be interpreted only one way?

Some scriptures are open to interpretation, but others, like the ones forbidding and condemning homosexual behavior, are as plain as day. 

[MacGyver]

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

and you are going to make sure they are only talking about homosexuality! Not about what they were really talking about. By the way Lev. 18 excludes lesbianism

Not really sure what you are saying here. The scriptures denounce homosexual behavior repeatedly, including lesbianism. 

Several of these instances are direct quotes from God, the rest are from his prophets, who spoke under the influence of the Holy Ghost, which means they are also the word of God. 

[Daniel2]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

God - "the correct color is green".

You - "God didn't say purple was incorrect".

Actually, it’s more like:

God-I approve of the color green.

Others—yes, God approves of the color green, but that doesn’t mean He can’t approve of other colors.

You—no, God said he ONLY approves of the color green, and he’ll never approve of anything else.

Others—that isn’t what God said—you’re adding the word “only,” and He didn’t say He couldn’t or wouldn’t ever approve of any other colors.

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Actually, it’s more like:

God-I approve of the color green.

Others—yes, God approves of the color green, but that doesn’t mean He can’t approve of other colors.

You—no, God said he ONLY approves of the color green, and he’ll never approve of anything else.

Others—that isn’t what God said—you’re adding the word “only,” and He didn’t say He couldn’t or wouldn’t ever approve of any other colors.

Wishful thinking, but carry on.

My point was nothing to do with what God "approves" of.  It has to do with the eternal pattern.

Actually, you and another poster gave me an idea for a new thread.

Edited January 22, 2022 by JLHPROF

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Wow. You officially jumped the shark with this comment. What a hateful, spiteful, terrible thing to say. 

Good luck back peddling from this faux pas.

I thought it was a good point.  This incredibly evil you keep throwing up, yet God just keeps sending gay people to the earth so they can be tortured their whole lives and be alone.  Evidently God wasn't really serious about the whole "It is not good for man to be alone" thing.   Got to love the jokes God plays on mankind.

[Duncan]

58 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

Sure it is. I provided multiple instances were it is mentioned and there are quite a few more instances were homosexuality is mentioned. 

you provided scriptures which some people think talk about homosexuality, others don't

 

58 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

Jesus is the one who gave the law in the OT. And he did not say that the law of chastity was being made less strict, when the law of Moses was fulfilled. To say that he was now permitting homosexual behavior after previously calling it an abomination is a perversion of the scriptures. 

Claiming that Paul was going rogue by preaching against homosexual behavior or that someone else added that later, is likewise a perversion of the scriptures. 

it is also a perversion of the scriptures to read into it what you want it to say. Are you gay yourself? you know a lot about scriptures that you think condemn it

 

58 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

They were also guilty of neglecting the poor, but the sin they are most infamous for is homosexual behavior.

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)

What is a sodomite and what is sodomy? It's not someone who neglects the poor or the act of neglecting the poor. 

you haven't proven that the sin of sodom and gomorrha is homosexuality. If you actually read Jude 1 you'll notice the phrase "strange flesh" which could be talking about mixing with other peoples, not the people of God. The phrase "Defile the flesh" says nothing about homosexuality, you can defile the flesh any number of ways not anything to do with sexuality. Please identify the word homosexuality in 2 Nephi 9, you'll notice though it isn't there and you haven't proven whatsoever it is talking about it. Ezekiel says it was something other than homosexuality but you manipulate scriptures to support your wacked out views

 

58 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

Yes, I study the scriptures a lot and know them pretty well. 

You haven't proven anything other than you don't know how to interpret scriptures or think outside your own homophobic worldview.

Edited January 22, 2022 by Duncan

[Duncan]

48 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

Not really sure what you are saying here. The scriptures denounce homosexual behavior repeatedly, including lesbianism. 

Several of these instances are direct quotes from God, the rest are from his prophets, who spoke under the influence of the Holy Ghost, which means they are also the word of God. 

lesbianism isn't mentioned in Lev. 18 so that is what I was saying.

You mentioned you would leave the church if homosexuality comes in so I am not interested in what you think the prophets say or what the holy ghost because it's clear to me you don't care what they say you only care what you want them to say. Are you a juvenile? because you have a absurd literalist view of the scriptures, not that you care I know but just asking if you are under 18. When you get older you'll find out how different scriptures are interpreted differently and how the scriptures came to be 

[Stormin' Mormon]

54 minutes ago, california boy said:

I thought it was a good point.  This incredibly evil you keep throwing up, yet God just keeps sending gay people to the earth so they can be tortured their whole lives and be alone.  Evidently God wasn't really serious about the whole "It is not good for man to be alone" thing.   Got to love the jokes God plays on mankind.

1. Implying that my daughter would be better to be raised by someone other than me was beyond the pale. Absolutely unacceptable.

2. Everyone suffers in this life.  There is nothing unique or singular in the suffering of a gay person striving to live the gospel.  If God does not spare His children from other types of suffering, then why is it unusual that he doesn't spare His children from this particular difficulty?

3. Why do you get to quote the Old Testament in support of your views, but those who disagree with you cannot?

edited to add: I have never called it an incredible evil.  I think homosexual tendencies are just part and parcel of living in a fallen world.  No worse and no better than any other biological impulse that leads us on a path outside of God's plan for His children.

Edited January 22, 2022 by Stormin' Mormon

[california boy]

2 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

1. Implying that my daughter would be better to be raised by someone other than me was beyond the pale. Absolutely unacceptable.

what are you talking about?

2 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

2. Everyone suffers in this life.  There is nothing unique or singular in the suffering of a gay person striving to live the gospel.  If God does not spare His children from other types of suffering, then why is it unusual that he doesn't spare His children from this particular difficulty?

Yeah God does love to torture mankind.  

2 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

3. Why do you get to quote the Old Testament in support of your views, but those who disagree with you cannot?

You can quote the Old Testament all you want.  You can inturpet the Old Testament any way you want.  What difference does it make to me?  I don't think God condemns gay people the same way you do any more than I think God condemns divorced straight people.  

2 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

edited to add: I have never called it an incredible evil.  I think homosexual tendencies are just part and parcel of living in a fallen world.  No worse and no better than any other biological impulse that leads us on a path outside of God's plan for His children.

You seem to be making it a huge issue for you to worry about.  Honestly, I thought the Gospel of Jesus Christ was more about worrying about one's owns sins and not the sins of others.  

[Stormin' Mormon]

9 minutes ago, california boy said:

what are you talking about?

 

Duncan said:

Quote

I find it strange that God keeps sending gay children to LDS families, why would he do that if he forbids homosexuality? Wouldn't they be better off in non LDS families?

So, my LGBTQ daughter would be better off with some other family, being raised by someone other than me?  I'm not worthy of raising this amazing girl? 

[ttribe]

9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I served my mission in the Eastern United States. I taught a number of African-Americans who joined the Church. The congregation in our headquarters city would have been about 80 per cent African-American members. In two years, I had one person raise concerns with me regarding past priesthood restrictions, and it was a man on the street in my first area, who got the details completely wrong.

I should add that I never tried 'to convince' anyone of anything as a missionary, however. We left the convincing up to God.

The last African-American family whom I taught was in a ward with a man whom we had dubbed the 'ward mission leader from hell'. Our mission president had repeatedly tried to get the stake president to release him, to no avail. He had many faults, but one of the major ones was his ugly racism (and his European-born wife was even worse). In our first lesson with this family, we warned them about the WML. They took it in stride and assured us they had almost certainly faced worse.

Their conversion was sweet, and they became a great strength to the ward.

I'm glad to hear this convert family was able to take "it in stride," but my experience is that they would be the exception, not the rule. The context of my response(s) to CV75 is that he speculated that the Church did the right thing by waiting so long to extend equality to all members of the church with regard to race. His "evidence" for that speculation was that the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 hadn't resulted in the same kind of harmonious societal living that the Church was experiencing with regard to race, and he cited growth in Africa to support that claim. Do you agree with him, that Church did the better thing by waiting until 1978?

Edited January 22, 2022 by ttribe

[ttribe]

13 hours ago, MacGyver said:

Are you familiar with what God did to Sodom and Gomorrah?

If the church embraces same-sex relations and stops calling them an abomination, then we will be ripe for destruction. If that ever happens, I will not go along with it. 

You are resting your entire reasoning on a myth from thousands of years ago, your interpretation of which may not even be correct?