BYU under investigate by US Government

[CV75]

1 minute ago, cinepro said:

I suspect that's the problem. If the only distinction is that it's people of the same sex doing it, that's discrimination (according to the Justice Department).

I know analogies between race and sexual orientation are fraught, but it's like saying "discrimination laws aren't wrong because they apply to everyone equally. Even white people couldn't sit at segregated lunch counters if they had black skin. It's not our fault some people have white skin and others have black skin."

But I'm sure if this progresses, the Church will have the best legal defense possible, so we'll see.

I think it will thus boil down to protecting religious freedom. The difficulty, I think, is showing that the honor code is an expression of religious freedom and not in loco parentis.

I think the longer history is that courtship is part of the continuum that includes marriage, and if this can be shown to have religious roots or basis, the Church might have a strong argument. For example, Mary was only betrothed to Joseph. If marriage, and therefore courtship, is a gender-defined religious covenant, then dating can be seen, in religious terms, as gender-defined as well.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think there comes a point, whether by outside coercion, internal apostasy or in some other way, that the Church would be altered so drastically that it would lose its very identity and character as the restored Church of Jesus Christ. At that point, it wouldn’t matter if we were allowed to keep our temples, because the Church as we know it would have been corrupted to the point of destruction. In effect, the priesthood would have again been taken from the earth. And we know from prophecy that won’t happen. 

Agreed...up to a point.
I already feel the Church is out of order in the changes it's made to the temple ordinances for example.  I believe that at some point the Lord will restore things as they were given by revelation to the prophet Joseph.
Until then the only point of debate is how much we may digress from the actual truth of the ordinances.
But the gospel and priesthood will never be lost.

[JLHPROF]

Just now, CV75 said:

I think it will thus boil down to protecting religious freedom. The difficulty, I think, is showing that the honor code is an expression of religious freedom and not in loco parentis.

Freedom of religion applies to belief, not practices.
The Church and its entities can hold any belief they want.  Those beliefs don't permit them to break laws.  This was the issue with polygamy.  It could easily have become the issue over racism.
There is just a new group able to claim illegal discrimination.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Then why claim any revelation for any administrative matters at all?  Seriously.

Seriously. 

Seeking God's will before changing up His church is not really that different than the RS president seeking His will before redoing the ministering assignments in RS, is it?  We are a church that claims it's important to seek revelation for pretty much everything.  Remember we are the church that brought you:

"Yea, and cry unto God for all thy support; yea, let all thy doings be unto the Lord, and whithersoever thou goest let it be in the Lord; yea, let all thy thoughts be directed unto the Lord; yea, let the affections of thy heart be placed upon the Lord forever.

Counsel with the Lord in all thy doings, and he will direct thee for good; yea, when thou liest down at night lie down unto the Lord, that he may watch over you in your sleep; and when thou risest in the morning let thy heart be full of thanks unto God; and if ye do these things, ye shall be lifted up at the last day."

Not sure why administrative matters would be different.

Does every act of revelation constitute the entire mind and will of God on a matter?  I doubt it, at least probably hardly ever.  Most of the time I think it's probably a bit like "Hey God, I want to do this, what do you think?" and a response of "sure, give that a try and see how it goes."

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Danzo said:

Insurance companies have a long history of excluding certain medical conditions.  That is why my fourth son was born at home.  Our insurance didn't cover pregnancy at the time and home birth was cheaper.

We knew that when we got the insurance and planned our lives accordingly.

I agree. But I don’t think it should be viewed as somehow not relevant that someone has diabetes if there is an argument going on that an insurance company should or shouldn’t cover diabetes supplies for them. 
 

To be clear, I am not arguing BYU should allow homosexual dating behaviour because it allows heterosexual dating behaviour. I am addressing the comment (‘no one can date others of the same sex’) being made to dismiss the claim that those who desire to participate in homosexual dating behaviour are being restricted in ways differently than heterosexual by pointing out the same rules apply to everyone. When the rules themselves deprive one group of their source of romantic companionship while not depriving another, that is treating them differently as would be an insurance company that denies some forms of life saving treatment in one area, but provides other life saving treatments. 
 

They may not be wrong to do so as providing all life saving treatments could put a company out of business, but it is not equal treatment if one person gets a letter that says in essence ‘we will pay for your medicine so you can continue to live because that is in our agreement’ and but sends another letter saying in essence ‘we won’t pay for your medicine to save your life, find another way or die, it doesn’t interest us as we never agreed to do that, check your contract if you doubt us’.

Edited January 21, 2022 by Calm

[CV75]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't know all the particulars.  Last May I wrote a surface-level review of the Church's corporate structure:

See also this entry from Dun & Bradstreet:

Hmm.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you -- I ask because any transition would take at least a decade (more realistically 2), a possibility might be transform the BYU campuses into private Zion communities that continue many of the university activities such as research (and add to that development), cultural preservation, humanitarian work, etc.

[Bob Crockett]

17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Agreed...up to a point.
I already feel the Church is out of order in the changes it's made to the temple ordinances for example.  I believe that at some point the Lord will restore things as they were given by revelation to the prophet Joseph.
Until then the only point of debate is how much we may digress from the actual truth of the ordinances.
But the gospel and priesthood will never be lost.

To Brigham Young not JS.  And it wasn't a revelation. 

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Bob Crockett said:

To Brigham Young not JS.  And it wasn't a revelation. 

You are welcome to that opinion.  I admit Brigham established certain systematic elements.  But the content came from Joseph.

[ttribe]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Seriously. 

Seeking God's will before changing up His church is not really that different than the RS president seeking His will before redoing the ministering assignments in RS, is it?  We are a church that claims it's important to seek revelation for pretty much everything.  Remember we are the church that brought you:

"Yea, and cry unto God for all thy support; yea, let all thy doings be unto the Lord, and whithersoever thou goest let it be in the Lord; yea, let all thy thoughts be directed unto the Lord; yea, let the affections of thy heart be placed upon the Lord forever.

Counsel with the Lord in all thy doings, and he will direct thee for good; yea, when thou liest down at night lie down unto the Lord, that he may watch over you in your sleep; and when thou risest in the morning let thy heart be full of thanks unto God; and if ye do these things, ye shall be lifted up at the last day."

Not sure why administrative matters would be different.

Does every act of revelation constitute the entire mind and will of God on a matter?  I doubt it, at least probably hardly ever.  Most of the time I think it's probably a bit like "Hey God, I want to do this, what do you think?" and a response of "sure, give that a try and see how it goes."

Let's look at the big picture - leadership claims revelation for issuing a calling, for establishing a policy on meeting times, for use of tithing funds, for how certain prayers are said, for who attends certain meetings, for what ward people attend. Frankly, the church claims access to revelation to everything from the grand to the mundane.  And, yet, in all of that, not one whisper from God saying "Hey, that arbitrary discrimination thing you are doing related to so-called 'African Descent,' it's a bad idea. Fix it," until 14-YEARS after the U.S. Federal government declared discrimination based on race to be illegal? Really? That doesn't strike you as at least one reasonable source of even the slightest amount of doubt in the Church's claims to being led by revelation? Not even a little?

[CV75]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Freedom of religion applies to belief, not practices.
The Church and its entities can hold any belief they want.  Those beliefs don't permit them to break laws.  This was the issue with polygamy.  It could easily have become the issue over racism.
There is just a new group able to claim illegal discrimination.

That is the argument to be made, and the issue is freedom of religious expression, which is practice and laws do allow religious exemption. But I am not about to play out those legal arguments here!

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

You are welcome to that opinion.  I admit Brigham established certain systematic elements.  But the content came from Joseph.

Actually, a pretty good chunk of the content came from the Freemasons, but I digress.

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I said I didn't want to keep going down the priesthood and temple ban rabbit hole, but.... well maybe one more post.

I find it interesting that the Church's Race and the Priesthood essay spills a lot of ink explaining why the segregated priesthood policy was a natural consequence of the broader racial attitudes of 19th century America. I am currently in the middle of Reeve's Religion of a Different Color, and I see the same thing being said there. The LDS Church under Brigham Young (whether God approved or not is difficult to say) used society as the measuring stick for what God wanted. As I noted above, this then gets extra complicated in my mind because that same broader society was years ahead of the Church is correcting practices that grew out of those beliefs.

ETA: To try and bring this back to BYU being investigated for its treatment of homoromantic behaviors, this is a big part of why I question the Church's entire stance on LGBT issues. With respect to race, it seems that we had a hard time discerning which of society's attitudes towards race were good and which were evil, and we also had a hard time discerning which of the Church's beliefs were good and which were not in line with God's true will. If we had so much difficulty spanning years and generations on that issue, how can we be sure that we are not committing the same kinds of discernment mistakes now with respect to LGBT issues?

 

I think there are two different issues at play in the church.  

1) Most people, no matter the age, era, or topic, tend to assume that God is like them.  I think this is as true inside the church as it is outside of it.  We really struggle to get out of our biases, especially when they are supported by broader society.  We often use society as our second witness for what is true.  

So we saw people using their own beliefs on race, propped up by society's beliefs on race, to help them (subconsciously) determine how God must feel about race.  So we get the ban and all the crap that leaders taught about black people over the decades.

But we know that eventually society changed. 

2) It's just that when it finally did, society didn't matter to us that much anymore.  We were so ensconced in our traditional doctrinal views (and had such a bad reputation with society in general anyway) that our biases were no longer determined by the outside world.  We had been separated from them for long enough that they didn't have a lot of sway anymore.  Not like they did in the beginning when everyone who joined the church was coming out society.  We had made our own society, separate from general society, and that was the society that was creating our biases now.

And one of our huge biases in this church is traditional doctrine.  Changing doctrine is sketchy.  We don't like to mess with those teachings or practices that have come to use from the first prophets like JS or BY.  They are so foundational to the church that we see them as almost untouchable on some matters.  It makes us all kinds of nervous to consider changing something they put into motion.

So in the beginning we had outside society propping up our racist views and then later, when we didn't care what society thought anymore, we had our church society doing the same.  Plus, a hearty helping of "If JS or BY taught it it must be true and irrefutable" on the side.

So that's a long story on how I think we got the race ban in the first place and then kept it for so long.

But I agree with you on lgtbq issues.  I think the priesthood ban taught us that we must question our biases and preconceived ideas of what God's doctrine has to look like.  It's an important lesson, and the weaknesses of mortality were a perfect vehicle to deliver it to us.

[Calm]

Excellent analysis, bluebell; I have to say it right now after reading it. Quite satisfying in its clarity and coverage. Can’t wait til I have a free rep point to recognize that. 

Edited January 21, 2022 by Calm

[Danzo]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

I agree. But I don’t think it should be viewed as somehow not relevant that someone has diabetes if there is an argument going on that an insurance company should or shouldn’t cover diabetes supplies for them. 
 

To be clear, I am not arguing BYU should allow homosexual dating behaviour because it allows heterosexual dating behaviour. I am addressing the comment being made to dismiss the claim that those who desire to participate in homosexual dating behaviour are being restricted in ways different than heterosexual by pointing out the same rules apply to everyone. When the rules themselves deprive one group of their source of romantic companionship while not depriving another, that is treating them differently as would be an insurance company that denies some forms of life saving treatment in one area, but provides other life saving treatments. 
 

They may not be wrong to do so as providing all life saving treatments could put a company out of business, but it is not equal treatment if one person gets a letter that says in essence ‘we will pay for your medicine so you can continue to live because that is in our agreement’ and but sends another letter saying in essence ‘we won’t pay for your medicine to save your life, find another way or die, it doesn’t interest us as we never agreed to do that, check your contract if you doubt us’.

However if one knows that a condition isn't covered, the best thing is look for another plan that covers that particular thing.

The same with people who want to be homosexual.  There are plenty of educational choices out there where that isn't a problem. 

[blueglass]

Regardless of whether byu loses federal funds for student scholarships or research it's my belief the church will support with its own funds.  What would be most damaging would be losing accreditation.   From Elder Hollands comments it looks like they are ok with that potential reality even if it means offering less degree options.

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Freedom of religion applies to belief, not practices.
The Church and its entities can hold any belief they want.  Those beliefs don't permit them to break laws.  This was the issue with polygamy.  It could easily have become the issue over racism.
There is just a new group able to claim illegal discrimination.

No. Freedom of religion of just beliefs without practices is not a real freedom of religion.  For example suppose the government says you can believe in prayer, you can just not pray.  You can believe in baptism, you just can't practice baptism.  You can believe in a sabbath day, you just can't practice that.  You must work on the Sabbath day.  Or you can believe in a law of Chastity, but you can't enforce that.  You have to allow people to violate your moral laws and still be members of your religion or attend your religious schools.  You have to let students of those schools mock your religious views openly.   Is that really what the First Amendment is about?  The First Amendment says

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Not only can we believe what we want, we can practice it.  One can believe whatever they want in North Korea as long as they don't state it.  As long as that belief is just a thought, how can even Kim Jong Un know?  

The First Amendment was not made to protect broadly accepted religious beliefs and practices.  It is there to protect practices that society and the government might find unpopular or even offensive.  As long as the practices do not infringe on another persons rights, the religious practices should be protected.   Polygamy as a religious practice is one that really the First Amendment is designed to protect.  That is why we have it. 

If a religious belief and practice are at odds with a law, one can challenge the law in court.  Only under very rare circumstances could the law prevail.  The polygamy circumstance in the late 1890s was not based on the Constitution and I strongly believe if was to arise again, the courts would rule differently.  If sex sex marriage was allowed by the modern court, how could they not legalize polygamy. The same arguments can be applied to both.  Love is love.  Don't like a plural marriage, don't have a plural marriage.  If three or more adults want to be in a plural marriage relationship, the government has no right to interfere.  After all, if a man like Hugh Hefner wants to keep 3 or 10 girlfriends, why is that legal but they can't decide to get married?  That does not make any sense.

 

Edited January 21, 2022 by carbon dioxide

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I said I didn't want to keep going down the priesthood and temple ban rabbit hole, but.... well maybe one more post.

I find it interesting that the Church's Race and the Priesthood essay spills a lot of ink explaining why the segregated priesthood policy was a natural consequence of the broader racial attitudes of 19th century America. I am currently in the middle of Reeve's Religion of a Different Color, and I see the same thing being said there. The LDS Church under Brigham Young (whether God approved or not is difficult to say) used society as the measuring stick for what God wanted.

I think the early leaders of the Church were more willing to conflate their individual perspectives and opinions with revealed doctrines as opposed to today's leaders.

Reeve's work on this topic has been very helpful, including this: Race, the Priesthood, and Temples: A History of the Priesthood Ban (and How It Ended)

8 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

As I noted above, this then gets extra complicated in my mind because that same broader society was years ahead of the Church is correcting practices that grew out of those beliefs.

I dunno.  Our "broader society" had all sorts of conflicting feelings about racial categories that took, and are taking, a long time to sort out.

8 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

ETA: To try and bring this back to BYU being investigated for its treatment of homoromantic behaviors, this is a big part of why I question the Church's entire stance on LGBT issues.  With respect to race, it seems that we had a hard time discerning which of society's attitudes towards race were good and which were evil, and we also had a hard time discerning which of the Church's beliefs were good and which were not in line with God's true will. If we had so much difficulty spanning years and generations on that issue, how can we be sure that we are not committing the same kinds of discernment mistakes now with respect to LGBT issues?

By this you are referring to the Church's teachings about marriage and the Law of Chastity, correct?

There are some who hold out hope for a revelation that will bring homosexual behavior and relationships into the parameters of the Law of Chastity.  I think this hypothetical is extraordinarily unlikely.  However, AoF 1:9 states: "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."  I think God fundamentally altering the Law of Chastity to allow for same-sex behavior and same-sex marriage will never happen.  It's about as pristine an example of "wishful thinking" that we are ever likely to see.  However, in a de minimis sense, I am open to the possibility.  I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

I'm reminded of something I wrote last year on this general topic:

Quote

I think we are in the midst of a period of turbulence and controversy within the Church not seen since the 1890s and the Manifesto.  I think we're in a refining phase, in a few different ways.

The Church is being "refined" in that it has been improving and clarifying its treatment of issues pertaining to sexual ethics, gender identity, etc., while simultaneously maintaining the doctrines of the Church, particularly pertaining to marriage, family and the Law of Chastity.

Individual members are being "refined" in that we are being forced to examine and re-examine what we believe, and why we believe it, and whether and why we should continue to exercise faith in Jesus Christ and in the Restoration.  Going along to get along, social/familial expectations, etc. are becoming less and less sufficient reasons to stay.  

Both the Church and individual members are being "refined" that we are increasingly being pressured, and in some ways even punished, for our religious beliefs.  Look at all the threats about BYU's accreditation.  It's not like the Church or BYU have substantively changed.  Accreditation has become weaponized.  

Both the Church and individual members are being "refined" because we are being commanded to believe some things that are, in increasing measures, unpopular.  The easy thing would be for the Church to capitulate.  To bend the knee.  To knuckle under.  Instead, the Church is working hard to be kind and accommodating, while also following divine mandates.  Meanwhile, individual members are, to an extent, are feeling that they face and either/or dilemma.  Either A) you ratify, celebrate and endorse homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage, or B) you are a bigot, a homophobe, a horrible person.  That is what we are being told over and over again.  It's a false dilemma, a Sophie's Choice, but one that is being foisted on us every day.

The individual members are being "refined" because we are being commanded to believe some things that are not only broadly unpopular, but can be unpalatable to us as individuals, and yet we are asked - even commanded - to accept these things anyway.  Our day is not the first time that the disciples of Jesus have been asked to live out-of-step with their neighbors, including those who are members of the faith.  I recognize that many things the Church of Jesus Christ teaches are difficult for its members and others to accept.  I hope each of us finds the happiness we are seeking.  That said, as much as we tend to emphasize the "love-one-another" aspect of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it's not as though everyone who has ever heard Christ's teachings did not ever have any problems with them.  Sometimes the Lord asks us to do difficult things, to accept difficult things.  Consider the Savior's "Bread of Life" sermon in John 6. 

And here:

Quote

I think the priesthood ban lacked revelatory provenance.  

I think the Church's teachings about marriage and the Law of Chastity have huge amounts of revelatory provenance.

You can, of course, dismiss it all as "just the opinion of fallible men."  Boy, what a miracle solvent that is.  Any doctrine or teaching you personally dislike or don't want to accept?  Just characterize it as "the opinion of fallible men" and voila!  It's gone.

And here:

Quote

Look, if there was a way to reconcile homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage with the Restored Gospel, I really think the Brethren would do it.  And I would be fine with it.  I dislike all the hatred and venom spewed at me and mine because we believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and because sexual behavior is, in the eyes of God, only authorized between a husband and wife.

Instead, the Lord has revealed things that are, these days, increasingly unpopular.  The Law of Chastity prohibits not only homosexual behavior, but also fornication and adultery (and pornography, and so on).  It's a pretty stringent standard of sexual ethics, particularly in a world that is becoming increasingly sexualized.  And yet I really believe these things come from God.  Not because, as you and yours so frequently and falsely and nastily insist, because we hate gay people, far from it.  We don't hate people who commit fornication either.  We just believe that God has prohibited forms of sexual behavior, and people like you can't stand that we believe that.

It would be easier to capitulate.  It would be easier to do as you do and just selectively disregard the tenets of our faith that are unpopular in the moment.  But I don't think we will.  As in John 6, we are called upon to accept and follow teachings that are unpopular, but right.

Again, I don't like all the vitriol being spewed about.  I don't like you coming to this board and endlessly disparaging me and mine and what we believe.  But I'll put up with it.  That's part of the gig of being a disciple of Jesus Christ.  It ain't a popularity contest.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Let's look at the big picture - leadership claims revelation for issuing a calling, for establishing a policy on meeting times, for use of tithing funds, for how certain prayers are said, for who attends certain meetings, for what ward people attend. Frankly, the church claims access to revelation to everything from the grand to the mundane.  And, yet, in all of that, not one whisper from God saying "Hey, that arbitrary discrimination thing you are doing related to so-called 'African Descent,' it's a bad idea. Fix it," until 14-YEARS after the U.S. Federal government declared discrimination based on race to be illegal? Really? That doesn't strike you as at least one reasonable source of even the slightest amount of doubt in the Church's claims to being led by revelation? Not even a little?

If I didn't have all the experiences that I've had with God and the church, sure, that would be reasonable.  After all those experiences, not. even. a. little.

Because from my perspective, being led by revelation just means "Hey, I'm trying to keep in touch with God and He's keeping in touch with me but sometimes it's still a disaster because man, I struggle." 

If I go to God with the idea that His revelation HAS to be kept within specific parameters, then I'm not going to be open to anything that doesn't fall in that range.  I might still get revelation but it's going to be limited by the limits that I have placed on it.  And it's probably going to mean that I'm going to need to get more revelation on the subject as it becomes clear that my preconceived ideas are not working out.

But I'm from the "everything is a learning situation and this whole thing is just about allowing us to learn to recognize the good from the evil and become more like Christ" school of thought.  As long as it's moving us in that direction, that I think that God can (and does) work with it.  

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

Excellent analysis, bluebell; I have to say it right now after reading it. Quite satisfying in its clarity and coverage. Can’t wait til I have a free rep point to recognize that. 

I'm so glad!  I used the word society so much in one sentence that I thought for sure people would have no idea what I was trying to say. 

[provoman]

haven't read everything...

 

A big issue I see is whether BYU Honor Code can be viewed as a religious tenent. However, does the Government even asking "Is X a reliogious tenent." and unlawful encroachment of the Government into a religion. All in all, I think the Federal Govnermnet picked a hamburger hill for itself. 

[blueglass]

3 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

If sex sex marriage was allowed by the modern court, how could they not legalize polygamy. The same arguments can be applied to both.  Love is love. 

When challenged in Canada on religious freedom grounds it didn't go well.

“The law seeks to advance the institution of monogamous marriage, a fundamental value in Western society from the earliest of times,” Justice Bauman wrote. “It seeks to protect against the many harms which are reasonably apprehended to arise out of the practice of polygamy.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/24/world/americas/british-columbia-court-upholds-canadas-polygamy-ban.html

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

When challenged in Canada on religious freedom grounds it didn't go well.

“The law seeks to advance the institution of monogamous marriage, a fundamental value in Western society from the earliest of times,” Justice Bauman wrote. “It seeks to protect against the many harms which are reasonably apprehended to arise out of the practice of polygamy.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/24/world/americas/british-columbia-court-upholds-canadas-polygamy-ban.html

Every nation has their own laws.  I don't believe the US constitution applies in Canada.  Of course the supporters of gay marriage asked what harms would arise out of gay marriage. The people opposing it said there would be harm.  So I don't see how that rational would work in the US against polygamy since the courts did not side with anti gay marriage arguments about harms from gay marriage.   Not sure what protections Canada has regarding religious practices but belief without the corresponding right to practice those beliefs is no religious freedom at all.   

Edited January 21, 2022 by carbon dioxide

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I said I didn't want to keep going down the priesthood and temple ban rabbit hole, but.... well maybe one more post.

I find it interesting that the Church's Race and the Priesthood essay spills a lot of ink explaining why the segregated priesthood policy was a natural consequence of the broader racial attitudes of 19th century America. I am currently in the middle of Reeve's Religion of a Different Color, and I see the same thing being said there. The LDS Church under Brigham Young (whether God approved or not is difficult to say) used society as the measuring stick for what God wanted. As I noted above, this then gets extra complicated in my mind because that same broader society was years ahead of the Church is correcting practices that grew out of those beliefs.

ETA: To try and bring this back to BYU being investigated for its treatment of homoromantic behaviors, this is a big part of why I question the Church's entire stance on LGBT issues. With respect to race, it seems that we had a hard time discerning which of society's attitudes towards race were good and which were evil, and we also had a hard time discerning which of the Church's beliefs were good and which were not in line with God's true will. If we had so much difficulty spanning years and generations on that issue, how can we be sure that we are not committing the same kinds of discernment mistakes now with respect to LGBT issues?

 

I think one difference is that Black racism in America is only a few hundred years on, and (by definition) localized to the nation, while the male-female structure of marriage is thousands of years old and accepted as the model across the globe. In each case, revolutionary thinkers can and have changed the tide in their time. In God's eyes, this is perhaps expected for a telestial world: we get it right sometimes, and other times, not. In any case/circumstance, His priority is setting up the kingdom on the earth from 1830 to the Second Coming.

So, the key difference, I think, may be subtle, but the powers that be used religion to spread American Black racism to achieve material gain, while religion used marriage to spread familial alliances to achieve communal (social) stability, which includes their economy. In my mind, God would favor social stability (Zion) over material gain (Babylon), and we are seeing this play out as those with the keys of the kingdom seek His will , as in removing the ban and preserving marriage.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

I suspect that's the problem. If the only distinction is that it's people of the same sex doing it, that's discrimination (according to the Justice Department).

What are your thoughts about the exemption to Title IX?  Seems like regardless of whether it is viewed as "discrimination" (I don't view prohibitions on homosexual behavior as discriminatory, since everyone is prohibited from them), the statutory exemption seems pretty significant.

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

I know analogies between race and sexual orientation are fraught, but it's like saying "discrimination laws aren't wrong because they apply to everyone equally. Even white people couldn't sit at segregated lunch counters if they had black skin. It's not our fault some people have white skin and others have black skin."

I wonder if it would help to consider the difference between disparate treatment and disparate impact.

"Same standard, disparate impact" is the sort of thing that happens all over the place.  

Consider an Applicant X who wants to attend BYU and who has a drinking habit versus Applicant Y who has no interest at all in imbibing.  The Honor Code will have a disparate impact on the former, right?  But how is X being "discriminated" against if A) the same standard applies to X and Y, B) X and Y both knew in advance the prohibition against drinking, and C) X has plenty of other school options available to him, virtually all of which lack a prohibition against drinking?

See, e.g., here:

Quote

Invidious Discrimination Law and Legal Definition

Invidious Discrimination is treating a class of persons unequally in a manner that is malicious, hostile, or damaging. If there is rational justification for the different treatment, then the discrimination is not invidious. The criteria delineating the groups, such as gender, race, or class, determine the kind of discrimination.

Invidious discrimination generally refers to treating one group of people less well than another on such grounds as their race (racism), gender (sexism), religion (religious discrimination), caste, ethnic background, nationality, disability, sexual orientation, sexual preference or behavior, results of IQ testing, age (ageism) or political views. Discrimination on the basis of such grounds as subcultural preference (Punks, Hippies, Mods, vs. Rockers) is also common. The effects of invidious discrimination span the spectrum from mild, such as slow or unhelpful retail service, through racial and ethnic slurs, denial of employment or housing, to hate crimes and genocide.

Does BYU have a "rational justification" for the Honor Code and the Law of Chastity?  Yes.  

Does BYU treat gays and lesbians "unequally in a manner that is malicious, hostile, or damaging?"  No.

Does BYU hold gays and lesbians to a different behavioral standard than heterosexual students?  No.

"Disparate impact" is usually unintentional.  See here:

Quote

What Is the Difference Between Disparate Treatment and Disparate Impact?

The law recognizes two types of illegal discrimination. Disparate treatment refers to intentional discrimination, where people in a protected class are deliberately treated differently. This is the most common type of discrimination. An example would be an employer giving a certain test to all of the women who apply for a job but to none of the men.

Disparate impact refers to discrimination that is unintentional. The procedures are the same for everyone, but people in a protected class are negatively affected. For example, say that job applicants for a certain job are tested on their reaction times, and only people with a high score are hired. This test will discriminate against older workers, who are less likely to have fast reaction times. Whether this test is illegal will depend on whether fast reaction times are necessary for the job. Disparate impact discrimination is not always illegal. If an employer has a legitimate, necessary, and job-related reason for applying its procedures, then it is allowed to do so.

For example, say a fire department required job applicants to carry a heavy load up several flights of stairs. Say a higher percentage of male applicants pass the test, compared to the number of female applicants who pass. In that case, the test would have a disparate impact on women, who are a protected class. But if the fire department can show that carrying heavy loads up stairs is a necessary part of the job, then the test would be legal even if it favored men over women.

But say an accounting firm gave job applicants the same test, requiring them to carry heavy weights upstairs. In this case, the resulting disparate impact discrimination would be illegal. There is no legitimate job-related reason why accountants would need to carry heavy weights. A female job applicant who failed the accounting firm’s test would have a good case for a sex-discrimination lawsuit if she could show the test was the reason she didn’t get the job.

Look at the Word of Wisdom.  Does it have any "disparate treatment"?  Nope.  Nobody at BYU can drink alcohol, smoke tobacco, etc.  Does it have any "disparate impact"?  You bet.  I think there are plenty of people who would like to drink if they were allowed, whereas others have no interest in drinking at all.

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

But I'm sure if this progresses, the Church will have the best legal defense possible, so we'll see.

Yep.

Thanks,

-Smac

[blueglass]

12 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Every nation has their own laws.  I don't believe the US constitution applies in Canada.  Of course the supporters of gay marriage asked what harms would arise out of gay marriage. The people opposing it said there would be harm.  So I don't see how that rational would work in the US against polygamy since the courts did not side with anti gay marriage arguments about harms from gay marriage. 

Interesting counterpoints by sociologist Melanie heath here:

Testing the Limits of Religious Freedom: The Case of Polygamy’s Criminalization in Canada

https://www.melanie-heath.com/polygamies

https://snaps.mcmaster.ca/project/what-makes-canadas-anti-polygamy-laws-constitutional