BYU under investigate by US Government

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

You think members/leaders will be put in jail because of this?

You're conflating personal penalties with organizational penalties.
Imprisonment is what happened due to practicing plural marriage which was a felony.  But people were put in jail for practicing plural marriage - it was on a personal level.

The penalty on the Church organization is what I am referring to.  Take the Edmunds Tucker act and the Late Corp. of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States

• The act disincorporated both the LDS Church and the Perpetual Emigration Fund on the grounds that they fostered polygamy.

  Disincorporated the LDS Church and the Perpetual Emigrating Fund Company, with assets to be used for public schools in the Territory.
  Required civil marriage licenses (to aid in the prosecution of polygamy).
  Abrogated the common law spousal privilege for polygamists, thus requiring wives to testify against their husbands.
  Disenfranchised women (who had been enfranchised by the Territorial legislature in 1870).
  Abolished the office of Territorial superintendent of district schools, granting the supreme court of the Territory of Utah the right to appoint a commissioner of schools. Also called for the prohibition of the use of sectarian books and for the collection of statistics of the number of so-called gentiles and Mormons attending and teaching in the schools.

• The US Supreme Court upheld the act in the case Late Corp. of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States
  
  The ruling in Late Corporation would have directed federal escheat of substantially all the property of the legally disincorporated LDS Church, which was estimated at $3 million.
  Following the decision, the U.S. Attorney for The Utah Territory reported seizing only $381,812 in assets.
  Real property, including LDS temples, was never seized, although the ruling authorized it.
  Within five months, the LDS Church officially discontinued the practice of plural marriage with the 1890 Manifesto.
  On October 25, 1893, a congressional resolution authorized the release of assets seized from the LDS Church because, "said church has discontinued the practice of polygamy and no longer encourages or gives countenance to any manner of practices in violation of law, or contrary to good morals or public policy.

So I ask, what is the legal penalty on the grounds of discriminatory practices by an organization today?  Fines?  Revocation of license?  Revocation of 501c? @smac97 perhaps might know.
That's what I think will cause the change.

Edited January 20, 2022 by JLHPROF

[Fether]

I for one am really excited to see how everything plays out. I’ve been beating the drum that the LGBTQ issue is different than plural marriage and blacks and the priesthood.

[Scott Lloyd]

50 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

They'd have to have a decent candidate first.  Have you seen the frontrunners for the nomination?
I want the White House back too.  The faces of the party are a bunch of clowns.

If you have in mind the same ones I do, I could hardly disagree with you more earnestly. 

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I question that.  The prohibition against homosexual behavior applies to everyone, both gay and straight.

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.” - Anatole France

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Goodness, sure would have been nice if God had FORESEEN these issues and moved his Prophets prior to the advent of a crisis.

Pretty sure that's EXACTLY what happened.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What are your thoughts about it?

I question that.  The prohibition against homosexual behavior applies to everyone, both gay and straight.

Hillsdale College has an undergraduate student body of 1,486.  There are high schools bigger than that.  

Could BYU continue to function without federal financial aid?  I have no idea.  It sure would be nice if it could.

Thanks,

-Smac

Other than federal grants and loans to students, what federal aid does BYU receive? 

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you have in mind the same ones I do, I could hardly disagree with you more earnestly. 

LOLOL

[JLHPROF]

43 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you have in mind the same ones I do, I could hardly disagree with you more earnestly. 

I want an intelligent, classy, moral, conservative option.  Not a polarizing winger.

Edited January 20, 2022 by JLHPROF

[ttribe]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

Pretty sure that's EXACTLY what happened.

Ummmm, no, as you pointed out yourself, crisis was upon them and then the changes occurred.  I'm suggesting a god would have known well enough in advance to avoid the mere whisper of crisis in the first place.

Besides, as you well know, your fundamentalist friends have managed to dig up quite a bit of evidence indicating John Taylor and others believed there would never be a change in the stance on polygamy all the way through the crisis and even beyond, given the continued practice in secret even after OD-1.  It's enough to make one wonder if there really is a god speaking to anyone, anywhere, at anytime.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Thank you for being so reliable.  
You know that same exact argument was made by faithful members like yourself in their day, even by general authorities.

The Church was still new, and there was widespread misunderstanding of the doctrine. That’s not the case today. Line upon line, and all that. 

[carbon dioxide]

7 minutes ago, Fether said:

I for one am really excited to see how everything plays out. I’ve been beating the drum that the LGBTQ issue is different than plural marriage and blacks and the priesthood.

Nothing is going to change. Polygamy and the priesthood issue were practices in the church but not critical to to the following of any essential doctrine itself. Gay issue are much different.  

[Fether]

1 minute ago, carbon dioxide said:

Nothing is going to change. Polygamy and the priesthood issue were practices in the church but not critical to to the following of any essential doctrine itself. Gay issue are much different.  

That’s what I say and that’s what I hear everyone else say… but I’m reality I have no idea how saints viewed blacks and priesthood before the ban was lifted. 
 

Did they see the ban the same way we see the LGBTQ issue?

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, Fether said:

I for one am really excited to see how everything plays out. I’ve been beating the drum that the LGBTQ issue is different than plural marriage and blacks and the priesthood.

They are very different.  It's the threat to the continuation of the Church's legal existence that is shared by all three.

1 minute ago, carbon dioxide said:

Nothing is going to change. Polygamy and the priesthood issue were practices in the church but not critical to to the following of any essential doctrine itself. Gay issue are much different.  

Still looking at it from a religious perspective.  Legal threats are a very real thing.

[Fether]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

1, 2, and 5 will NEVER win a popular vote as polarizing as they are

Wait really?? I feel that it is only the polarizing leaders that have a chance at getting elected now.

[Fether]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

They are very different.

What was the church’s doctrinal and cultural outlook on blacks and the priesthood leading up to the ban being lifted?

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Ummmm, no, as you pointed out yourself, crisis was upon them and then the changes occurred.  I'm suggesting a god would have known well enough in advance to avoid the mere whisper of crisis in the first place.

Besides, as you well know, your fundamentalist friends have managed to dig up quite a bit of evidence indicating John Taylor and others believed there would never be a change in the stance on polygamy all the way through the crisis and even beyond, given the continued practice in secret even after OD-1.  It's enough to make one wonder if there really is a god speaking to anyone, anywhere, at anytime.

Not necessarily. Passing through crises can be very beneficial: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it bideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." Throughout Church history, we have many examples of crises being avoided, endured, and warnings both heeded and unheeded. Through them all, the keys are still active upon the earth, Zion is being prepared, and the second coming is coming -- whether you take that as a fact or a religious belief.

I don't think the Church "standing alone" per Elder Holland's speech constitutes a crisis, nor is divesting itself of its universities.

[ttribe]

Just now, CV75 said:

Not necessarily. Passing through crises can be very beneficial: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it bideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." Throughout Church history, we have many examples of crises being avoided, endured, and warnings both heeded and unheeded. Through them all, the keys are still active upon the earth, Zion is being prepared, and the second coming is coming -- whether you take that as a fact or a religious belief.

I don't think the Church "standing alone" per Elder Holland's speech constitutes a crisis, nor is divesting itself of its universities.

Color me...skeptical.

[T-Shirt]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

What about Scenario 3?

Male student (a) is disciplined for kissing/hugging/holding hands with male student (b).

Currently, straight students are treated differently from gay students, so it is not the same for everybody. Not with respect to premarital sex, but with gay dating. 

That's not accurate.  The policy is the same for everyone.  Everyone is allowed to date, hold hands with and kiss members of the opposite sex.  No one is allowed to engage in these activities with members of the same sex.

[ttribe]

Just now, T-Shirt said:

That's not accurate.  The policy is the same for everyone.  Everyone is allowed to date, hold hands with and kiss members of the opposite sex.  No one is allowed to engage in these activities with members of the same sex.

Except that some of those people have no biological or emotional drive to engage in those activities with someone of the opposite sex.

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Goodness, sure would have been nice if God had FORESEEN these issues and moved his Prophets prior to the advent of a crisis.

Why?  Why should God prefer to make the change before it's necessary rather than waiting until people's agency has been exercised and the consequence of choices come into play?  

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

What about Scenario 3?

Male student (a) is disciplined for kissing/hugging/holding hands with male student (b).

Contrasted against scenario 4 -- male student (a) is not disciplined for kissing/hugging/holding hands with female student (c).

IMO, this investigation is going to be more about how BYU treats homoromantic and heteroromantic behaviors than homo/heterosexual behaviors, and, in many ways, just seems a different expression of last week's firestorm Trib article about whether or not the Church needs to clarify its stances on homoromantic behaviors. My main concern is that it potentially puts a government agency in charge of determining what the Church's beliefs are regarding homoromantic behaviors. Perhaps the government agency decides that heteroromantic and homoromantic behaviors ought to be permitted/punished equally, because some of our Church resources and leaders have said that the law of chastity applies equally to same sex and opposite sex couples, which means that BYU's honor code needs to treat heteroromantic and homoromantic behaviors the same. Perhaps the government agency decides to agree with @rongo and Elder Johnston that homoromantic behaviors are different in the Church's moral system from heteroromantic behaviors, and BYU is therefore justified in permitting/punishing these behaviors differently.

At this point, I'm not sure how much I care which is the outcome, so much as it bothers me that it would be a government agency doing the deciding. I'm also not sure exactly why I am so bothered by it. Is it because I really don't want the state to be dictating to a Church what its beliefs are? Or is it because I am bothered that our prophets and apostles seem unable to get clear guidance from God and clearly communicate that guidance to BYU on what the Church's tenents are?

Edited January 20, 2022 by MrShorty

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Why?  Why should God prefer to make the change before it's necessary rather than waiting until people's agency has been exercised and the consequence of choices come into play?  

To allow his people to devote their time and energies to actually building the kingdom rather than dealing with government bureaucrats and law enforcement?  To actually lead the way in the world on important moral issues like racism? By your logic, there seems to be little to no need for prophecy.

Edited January 20, 2022 by ttribe

[T-Shirt]

10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Except that some of those people have no biological or emotional drive to engage in those activities with someone of the opposite sex.

Irrelevant, that's the agreement they make before going there.

Edited January 20, 2022 by T-Shirt

[CV75]

56 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I really think it is when there becomes a threat to the Church's continued existence, especially given its worldwide status today.

I don't think it will be outside cultural pressure.  I think do internal member pressure will continue to grow as a factor as more members like our new friend Kim Pearson become invested for family reasons.  But that won't change things either.

In the end it was the threat of the loss of temples and temple ordinances and the disincorporation of the Church that led to OD1.
Then Racism has become illegal in EVERY way in the U.S.   If the Church had held to the ban they could have faced revocation of their legal status and potentially loss of property or entity.  The Lord knew that so we got OD2 in fulfillment of prophecy.

If the Church is ever threatened with its existence that's what I think it will take to cause the change.  It won't be protests or news articles or government investigations.  It won't be tearful pleas from those impacted by current position.
At some point the "religious belief" vs "religious practice" argument comes into play.  Beliefs are protected, discriminatory practices may not be.  And if the Church is in danger of losing its status, there will come a change.

Maybe 3 times is the charm, but instead of an OD3, the Second Coming!

My question is: can the Church ever be threatened with its existence as long as the keys are among the Twelve and First Presidency, and as long as there is a country in the world that allows them to incorporate, no matter the doctrine? Those members living in far-flung areas and reduced resources still have the essential benefits of those keys.

Nothing wrong with a little brinksmanship (Alma 14, Revelation 11).

[The Nehor]

25 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I want an intelligent, classy, moral, conservative option.  Not a polarizing winger.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL