BYU under investigate by US Government

[blueglass]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

I get what you mean about a ban for mixed race dating, but what do you mean by “black families”?  

Up until 1978 the church banned blacks from receiving eternal marriage.  Without eternal marriage there could be no black eternal families or children born under the covenant of marriage.  

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

You're not being argumentative.  (Ever 😉).

I just don't see how anyone can change the meaning of marriage beyond male and female AND claim that doesn't contradict the scripture.

It's simply not within the definition of the word.

Religiously, I think you are right. 

Secularly, I don't think the bible's definition has a claim on what is valid and what isn't.  If the church is willing to accept secular marriages (which are governed and defined by the state and not scripture), then I think someone could make the argument that there is room (room doesn't create legitimacy of course, it just allows for the possibility of legitimacy) for the church (with God's approval) to allow a secular SSM to fall within the bounds of the law of chastity.

[blueglass]

56 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 That's unchaste.

When the board of trustees removed sections of the honor code pertaining to the prohibition of same sex behavior byu said the motivation was to align with the wording in the new handbook sec 38.6.15

"God’s commandments forbid all unchaste behavior, either heterosexual or same-sex."

https://universe.byu.edu/2020/02/19/honor-code-changes-remove-explicit-ban-on-homosexual-behavior/

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Religiously, I think you are right. 

Secularly, I don't think the bible's definition has a claim on what is valid and what isn't.  If the church is willing to accept secular marriages (which are governed and defined by the state and not scripture), then I think someone could make the argument that there is room (room doesn't create legitimacy of course, it just allows for the possibility of legitimacy) for the church (with God's approval) to allow a secular SSM to fall within the bounds of the law of chastity.

Under the current iteration of the law where legal and lawful are emphasized I agree with you.  Under previous forms less so.

But from a purely scriptural basis marriage is a word that can only refer to the union of male and female.  That makes any homosexual sexual relationship either fornication or adultery.  And any claim of same sex marriage a erroneous use of the word.  Religiously speaking.  And that's what I was addressing in Kim's post.

Purely scripturally there is no basis for a same sex relationship being called marriage or same sex sexual relationships being anything other than sin.  Outside of scripture - well, that's like saying outside of God's purview.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

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

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

Actually, lest we forget, the U.S. Govt has in the past actually sought to control certain aspects of LDS practice -- namely polygamy -- and they were successful.

However, the LDS Church has become so mainstream since then that there is no likelihood that such interference would be successful today.  The First Amendment is a very strong protection against any govt overreach.  The Federal Govt can play around the edges, but the Congress and Supreme Court are very unlikely to allow any nonsense.  The LDS Church and BYU are quite safe.  Woke entities simply have no power.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Under the current iteration of the law where legal and lawful are emphasized I agree with you.  Under previous forms less so.

But from a purely scriptural basis marriage is a word that can only refer to the union of male and female.  That makes any homosexual sexual relationship either fornication or adultery.  And any claim of same sex marriage a erroneous use of the word.  Religiously speaking.  And that's what I was addressing in Kim's post.

Purely scripturally there is no basis for a same sex relationship being called marriage or same sex sexual relationships being anything other than sin.  Outside of scripture - well, that's like saying outside of God's purview.

All of which is irrelevant in a secular polity such as the United States -- a very pluralistic society.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

You guys need to hang out with a younger crowd. Everyone of my still in friends and family (aside from my parents) would love to see further light and knowledge (and changes) on this issue. I think you are aging yourselves. 

Given your expressed attitudes on a number of things, I’m not sure I buy it that your circle typifies devout members to any great degree. 

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Up until 1978 the church banned blacks from receiving eternal marriage.  Without eternal marriage there could be no black eternal families or children born under the covenant of marriage.  

Okay…given that limitation, I do not see how it involves the government at all, since it is only not allowing the religious aspect of a marriage.  What was banned was a sealing that involved temple covenants with certain aspects of marriage (applying to eternity, but also some that apply to the here and now).  In no way did the Priesthood ban invalidate any marriages or family relationships in the Church’s eyes for mortality.  It is not like bishops were refusing to marry black couples in the chapel. (At least not church wide, I can see racism leading to a few cases of refusal). BYU had black students and I assume some were married.  Even mixed race marriages were recorded and treated as legal marriages if legally accepted by the government as far as I am aware, even if highly discouraged.  I can’t remember if there was any chastity language tied to mixed race marriages even after they were legal.  I never remember hearing any in my youth even when hearing disapproving comments from my grandparents or others.  I would not be surprised though if there is stuff documented.  I would be very surprised to hear chastity ties to mixed race marriages in this time period even if the ban had continued.  All I ever heard Preban when being instructed about choosing dating partners on the rare occasion it came up was “don’t you want your husband/sons to have the Priesthood”)

Sealing vs marriage….I have never heard a member speak of a non temple marriage as not a marriage relationship except in two cases…the first was when civilly divorced, but sealing was intact. A few members I have known had held the position that any second marriage for a woman under those conditions was adultery.   Pointing towards the Church disciplining anyone having sex with a civilly divorced, but still sealed spouse didn’t change their minds, but I doubt this is a very common position in the Church.  
 

The second occurrence is with gay legal marriages, some members don’t see man’s laws as being able to supersede God’s law, so even if viewed as legal by the government, these members believe there is no actual marriage, it is a fiction, playing make believe in essence. I highly disagree with them (render unto Caesar and all that).  Have no clue about percentage. 

Given the very limited impact on marriage privileges the lack of a sealing had on a mixed race marriage at the time the ban was lifted in the world’s eyes, I don’t see how the government could justify stepping in.

I can see the government stepping in if same sex married partners were denied student married housing, assuming they were allowed to attend in the first place.  Access to the temple, baptism, or the sacrament…don’t see the government doing anything about that. 
 

——

The ban on mixed dating for BYU, anyone know when the official change was made?  Assuming there was an actual ban and it was not just frowned upon like it was church wide. At least I don’t remember ever hearing about a mixed race couple being disciplined…ostracized, yes.  Made comments about, sadly yes, even way after the ban. 
 

I don’t know the law well enough, but I think there would be Title IX issues if they would get honor coded for mixed race dating because of the Priesthood ban or any other reason because definitely a here and now thing.

Edited January 21, 2022 by Calm

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Godless SCOTUS

I am interested in why you deem SCOTUS Godless? They vote individually. Is it not possible for the Holy Spirit to lead them in their decision making? I know many many public school superintendents and board members who pray for God's guidance before many important decisions.

[Fether]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Most orthodox-believing members wanted the ban lifted — by revelation and prophecy in the Lord’s own due time. I don’t see the same sentiment today among that category of believers with regard to repealing the law of chastity. 

Do you have any source for this?

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, Fether said:

Do you have any source for this?

Just a very clear memory and lived experience as (in 1978) a 24-year-old, lifelong active Church member, returned missionary, journalism student at BYU and keen observer of current events, especially pertaining to the Church. 

Added later: Dallin H. Oaks was the president of BYU at the time, my university president. I have heard him recollect the emotions he felt at the time he heard the news. His perspective precisely reflects the attitudes of adult members of the Church with whom I was acquainted at that time. 

Edited January 21, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[sunstoned]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

You guys need to hang out with a younger crowd. Everyone of my still in friends and family (aside from my parents) would love to see further light and knowledge (and changes) on this issue. I think you are aging yourselves. 

This is my experience also.  I teach post-secondary students, and support of the LGBTQ+ community is almost universal.

[MrShorty]

@Navidad I'm not sure how to react to your reaction to "Godless" SCOTUS because it was part tongue in cheek and part the way that some people (usually when reacting negatively to a decision) that SCOTUS is corrupt and Godless. If there's a serious part, it's that, even though I believe it possible for the Spirit to inspire individual members of the court and maybe these people even recognize such inspiration (because some are practicing members of their faith), I just do not see any of their official opinions and statements around court decision claim divine intervention bringing them to their opinion. Opinions from the bench, as I think one would expect, come from legal precedent and constitutional studies and such mixed in sometimes with personal morality.

Maybe it was just hyperbole to draw the distinction between the authority and source of truth claimed by SCOTUS and the LDS claims that the literal head of this Church is Christ Himself leading the Church by direct revelation to two quorums comprising 15 men with long experience receiving spiritual communications and learning to recognize God's will over man's will and then communicating that will clearly and accurately to the Church. Even if Godless is an overstatement, it still seems like a problem to me that the Church would desegregate priesthood 24 years after SCOTUS desegregated schools.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, blueglass said:

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.

Ensign Peak, anyone?

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

This is my experience also.  I teach post-secondary students, and support of the LGBTQ+ community is almost universal.

These days, you’d probably find comparable support among such students for pre-marital heterosexual relations as well. I’m not persuaded the same would hold true for devout Latter-day Saints of that age. 
 

Added later: I’m not precisely clear what you mean by “support of the LGBTQ+ community.” If by that you mean the view that members of that community should be treated kindly and have their civil rights respected under the law, the Church leadership itself holds that view. It should come as no surprise that rank-and-file members would as well.  

Edited January 21, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Ensign Peak, anyone?

Or Latter-day Saint Philanthropies? 

[sunstoned]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Okay…given that limitation, I do not see how it involves the government at all, since it is only not allowing the religious aspect of a marriage.  What was banned was a sealing that involved temple covenants with certain aspects of marriage (applying to eternity, but also some that apply to the here and now).  In no way did the Priesthood ban invalidate any marriages or family relationships in the Church’s eyes for mortality.  It is not like bishops were refusing to marry black couples in the chapel. (At least not church wide, I can see racism leading to a few cases of refusal). BYU had black students and I assume some were married.  Even mixed race marriages were recorded and treated as legal marriages if legally accepted by the government as far as I am aware, even if highly discouraged.  I can’t remember if there was any chastity language tied to mixed race marriages even after they were legal.  I never remember hearing any in my youth even when hearing disapproving comments from my grandparents or others.  I would not be surprised though if there is stuff documented.  I would be very surprised to hear chastity ties to mixed race marriages in this time period even if the ban had continued.  All I ever heard Preban when being instructed about choosing dating partners on the rare occasion it came up was “don’t you want your husband/sons to have the Priesthood”)

Sealing vs marriage….I have never heard a member speak of a non temple marriage as not a marriage relationship except in two cases…the first was when civilly divorced, but sealing was intact. A few members I have known had held the position that any second marriage for a woman under those conditions was adultery.   Pointing towards the Church disciplining anyone having sex with a civilly divorced, but still sealed spouse didn’t change their minds, but I doubt this is a very common position in the Church.  
 

The second occurrence is with gay legal marriages, some members don’t see man’s laws as being able to supersede God’s law, so even if viewed as legal by the government, these members believe there is no actual marriage, it is a fiction, playing make believe in essence. I highly disagree with them (render unto Caesar and all that).  Have no clue about percentage. 

Given the very limited impact on marriage privileges the lack of a sealing had on a mixed race marriage at the time the ban was lifted in the world’s eyes, I don’t see how the government could justify stepping in.

I can see the government stepping in if same sex married partners were denied student married housing, assuming they were allowed to attend in the first place.  Access to the temple, baptism, or the sacrament…don’t see the government doing anything about that. 
 

——

The ban on mixed dating for BYU, anyone know when the official change was made?  Assuming there was an actual ban and it was not just frowned upon like it was church wide. At least I don’t remember ever hearing about a mixed race couple being disciplined…ostracized, yes.  Made comments about, sadly yes, even way after the ban. 
 

I don’t know the law well enough, but I think there would be Title IX issues if they would get honor coded for mixed race dating because of the Priesthood ban or any other reason because definitely a here and now thing.

I had never heard of a BYU restriction on interracial dating.  I did a quick google and couldn't see anything on it.  Maybe someone with better search skills should try.

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually, lest we forget, the U.S. Govt has in the past actually sought to control certain aspects of LDS practice -- namely polygamy -- and they were successful.

However, the LDS Church has become so mainstream since then that there is no likelihood that such interference would be successful today.  The First Amendment is a very strong protection against any govt overreach.  The Federal Govt can play around the edges, but the Congress and Supreme Court are very unlikely to allow any nonsense.  The LDS Church and BYU are quite safe.  Woke entities simply have no power.

I agree.  We are not living in the 19th century anymore where legal and court decisions were still being developed.  A lot of non-LDS know that any government reach into LDS practices will affect them as well.  It will increase more anger and contempt against the government as if there is not enough already.  

[carbon dioxide]

How can BYU stop gay dating anyway.  Two guys go to a movie or Texas Roadhouse.  Are they gays dating?  Are they a couple of RM meeting up rehash memories?  Are they just two roommates going out because they have nothing better to do or no girls to go out with?  Unless they are doing something extremely obvious on campus, who will know?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

don't view prohibitions on homosexual behavior as discriminatory, since everyone is prohibited from them)

What do those who identify as homosexual call homosexual dating behaviour?  

Dating. 
 

What do those who identify as heterosexual call heterosexual dating behaviour?

Dating. 

[sunstoned]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

These days, you’d probably find comparable support among such students for pre-marital heterosexual relations as well. I’m not persuaded the same would hold true for devout Latter-day Saints of that age. 

Your point is duly noted.  However, my opinion which is informed from personal observation, is that a significant number of student aged members do support the LGBTQ+ community, many of which are their friends and acquaintances.  

[carbon dioxide]

4 hours ago, kimpearson said:

Please provide support for this statement.

What part?  Billions of other worlds before the creation of this world and ones after.  See Moses 1. 

Law of Chastity being universal?  Why would it not be.  Why would one think God has given a law to this world that the only sexual relations that are allowable is between a husband and wife and on other worlds that is ok for God's children to do anything they want.  The laws of God are universal to all worlds. 

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Or Latter-day Saint Philanthropies? 

I would prefer to keep funding for CES projects separate from LDSP if only because there isn’t usually a requirement to be members attached to most of LDSP’s projects as far as I know. 
 

Plus I was thinking there was a substantial endowment ready through the Ensign Peak funds. I don’t know if there is a similar nest egg potential in LDSP or if the money there goes out relatively steadily as it comes in. 

Edited January 21, 2022 by Calm

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

Your point is duly noted.  However, my opinion which is informed from personal observation, is that a significant number of student aged members do support the LGBTQ+ community, many of which are their friends and acquaintances.  

Support in what way?   I support gay people to live their lives as they see fit without government interference.  I support prostitutes, porn actors, drug users and host of other people the right to live their lifestyles as they see fit.  Generally I think all LDS would and should support that if they believe in the doctrine of agency.  Agency requires that people be allowed to make choices that we find unacceptable.  People have the agency to violate the laws of God.   That is why I support legalized prostitution, drug use, porn, polygamy, and the list goes on and on.  People should live the life they want without any interference from our loving government.  As long as they are treading on the agency of others, we have a right to choose righteousness or wickedness.  

 So when you say support, that can mean a lot of different things.  I  bet in most of those instances people are asked if they support gay issues, the question is vague and open ended.  One does not really get the guardrails or boundaries of what they support and do not support.

Edited January 21, 2022 by carbon dioxide

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Your point is duly noted.  However, my opinion which is informed from personal observation, is that a significant number of student aged members do support the LGBTQ+ community, many of which are their friends and acquaintances.  

OK. 

But I did put this addendum on my post, which I don’t know whether you saw, as l added it later:

”I’m not precisely clear what you mean by ‘support of the LGBTQ+ community.’ If by that you mean the view that members of that community should be treated kindly and have their civil rights respected under the law, the Church leadership itself holds that view. It should come as no surprise that rank-and-file members would as well.” 

So by “support,” do you mean that Church members of that age group harbor the baseless expectation that the Church will one day change course and begin viewing homosexual behavior as doctrinally and morally acceptable? That’s really what’s in question here. 

Edited January 21, 2022 by Scott Lloyd