BYU under investigate by US Government

[sunstoned]

3 hours ago, kimpearson said:

Let's review the "law of Chasity" as revealed in canonized scripture:

14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

24 Thou shalt not commit adultery; and he that committeth adultery, and repenteth not, shall be cast out.

27 ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

18 Neither shalt thou commit adultery.

18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,

9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, 

22 Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal.

6 Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Thou shalt not steal; neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it.

10 ¶ And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

22 ¶ If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

32 But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.

 

Thank you for posting this.  Verses 10 and 22 (my bold) state that part of the "law of Chastity" is that adulterers are to be put to death.  Obviously this is not practiced today (thank God).  It seems that this law, like so much of what is in the scriptures has been changed and is not followed.  When people point to the scriptures for hard definitions on things like marriage, I want to remind them of all the teachings and practices that we simply ignore or discount as just antiquated iron age tribal customs.

[sunstoned]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

OK. 

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

I actually think we are saying the same thing.   The point I was trying to make is that there is increased recognition and acceptance with regards to LGBTQ issues.  The backlash the church received on their prop 8 fight and the POX seems to support this.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

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. 

OK, but who knows what the future might hold if hostile power brokers try to drive BYU out of business by going after its accreditation or denying federal grants, scholarships and loans to its students? 
 

Also, can’t donors to Latter-day Saint Philanthropies earmark their donations  for certain purposes? That is to say, perhaps non-member donors could choose not to have their donations support BYU if it came to that. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I actually think we are saying the same thing.   The point I was trying to make is that there is increased recognition and acceptance with regards to LGBTQ issues.  The backlash the church received on their prop 8 fight and the POX seems to support this.

Noted. 

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

I actually think we are saying the same thing.   The point I was trying to make is that there is increased recognition and acceptance with regards to LGBTQ issues.  The backlash the church received on their prop 8 fight and the POX seems to support this.

Yes but remember, Prop 8 was not passed by the Church.  It was passed by the voters.  The same voters who rejected gay marriage in an earlier vote where the church did not involve itself at least as nearly as much as Prop 8.   Prop 8 was a California thing.  However gay marriage was voted down in dozens of other states where the church had little involvement.  So yes the church got some backlash from people in California but nothing from those living in say southern states.  The people in southern states hate the Church because they see us as a cult who was right on gay issues.

Edited January 21, 2022 by carbon dioxide

[sunstoned]

3 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Yes but remember, Prop 8 was not passed by the Church.  It was passed by the voters.  The same voters who rejected gay marriage in an earlier vote where the church did not involve itself.  Prop 8 was a California thing.  However gay marriage was voted down in dozens of other states where the church had little involvement.  So yes the church got some backlash from people in California but nothing from those living in say southern states.  The people in southern states hate the Church because they see us as a cult who was right on gay issues.

You have some good points.  But, I was referring to members.  The church received push back from its members.  You can argue how much, but it was there and it was not insignificant.

[MacGyver]

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Paywall free link - 

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/lgbtq-dating-ban-byu-probed-federal-investigation-82380821

I know the traditionalist here swear up and down the Church will hold firm to this morality standard.
I am no longer sure that is true.  I think the government pressure placed on the Church is going to make the polygamy persecutions of the 1880s and the potential racial repercussions of the 1960s look like child's play.

There will be change, whether in my life time or not.  Get ready for Official Declaration 3.
At this point the only question is whether ordination of women will get here first.

(Cue Scott and others claiming that this will never happen.  Just like members stated about the other 2 declarations before they happened.)

I hope we never allow same-sex marriage or stop calling same-sex marriage a sin. I also hope we never ordain women to the priesthood. But I fear that you may be right. I sincerely hope you aren't, though. 

If either of these things happen, I don't think I will ever set foot in an LDS building again. 

[ttribe]

6 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

I hope we never allow same-sex marriage or stop calling same-sex marriage a sin. I also hope we never ordain women to the priesthood. But I fear that you may be right. I sincerely hope you aren't, though. 

If either of these things happen, I don't think I will ever set foot in an LDS building again. 

Why?

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, MacGyver said:

I hope we never allow same-sex marriage or stop calling same-sex marriage a sin. I also hope we never ordain women to the priesthood. But I fear that you may be right. I sincerely hope you aren't, though. 

If either of these things happen, I don't think I will ever set foot in an LDS building again. 

I don't see how the Church could be forced to say that same sex marriage is not a sin.  All religions have a right to define their doctrines and practices. 

If God says that women can be ordained, I am ok with it.  The priesthood is owned by God and he decides who gets it and the conditions it is given.  If God wants to ordain dogs and cats to the priesthood, that is his choice.   However I would never support any organization attempting to pressure the Church to ordain women.   That approach mocks the priesthood.  I suggest that women are entitled to the priesthood whether God wants it or not.  It is is based on a my will, not thy will be done approach. 

I would say that if the church was to start accepting same sex marriages, it would open a can of worms it could never close.  It would even bring into question whether sin itself exists.  At the very least I would probably assert that if gays can keep their "sins", I get to keep mine. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

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?

Exactly.  Unless someone deliberately seeks to be singled out, just a couple of friends having a bite to eat or taking in a film.  That is not in any sense a gay behavior.

[Robert F. Smith]

39 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

...................  If God wants to ordain dogs and cats to the priesthood, that is his choice.  ....................

[sunstoned]

1 hour ago, MacGyver said:

I hope we never allow same-sex marriage or stop calling same-sex marriage a sin. I also hope we never ordain women to the priesthood. But I fear that you may be right. I sincerely hope you aren't, though. 

If either of these things happen, I don't think I will ever set foot in an LDS building again. 

So I guess the whole continuing revelation thing doesn't resonate with you.

[Peacefully]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Secular marriage isn't scriptural either though, but the church still allows someone who was married by the justice of the peace, for example, to have sex with their spouse without breaking the law of chastity.

 

 

Also, the church allows for divorce even if no adultery has taken place, yet scripture says the following: Matthew 19: 7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Was there a revelation about this? Seems like a lot of heterosexuals are getting a pass. 

[JLHPROF]

8 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

The priesthood is owned by God and he decides who gets it and the conditions it is given.  If God wants to ordain dogs and cats to the priesthood, that is his choice.

No.  This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what priesthood is.

[MacGyver]

8 hours ago, ttribe said:

Why?

If the church allowed same-sex marriage and stopped calling same-sex relations a sin, it would be in open apostasy. 

[MacGyver]

8 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I would say that if the church was to start accepting same sex marriages, it would open a can of worms it could never close.  It would even bring into question whether sin itself exists.  At the very least I would probably assert that if gays can keep their "sins", I get to keep mine. 

Agreed. And if this happens, I'm out. 

[MacGyver]

7 hours ago, Peacefully said:

Also, the church allows for divorce even if no adultery has taken place, yet scripture says the following: Matthew 19: 7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Was there a revelation about this? Seems like a lot of heterosexuals are getting a pass. 

This is a valid concern. And the ever increasing rate of divorce and remarriage in the church is troubling. 

[JLHPROF]

7 hours ago, sunstoned said:

So I guess the whole continuing revelation thing doesn't resonate with you.

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

[MacGyver]

7 hours ago, sunstoned said:

So I guess the whole continuing revelation thing doesn't resonate with you.

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

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

[Navidad]

It really wouldn't be that difficult (legally) for BYU to become a university that is historically LDS, but independent from the denomination/group/church. There are scores of those around the country. Liberty University is Baptist, but not owned by any particular Baptist group or church. It is "independent Baptist." I could see BYU really growing in that scenario. Historically the President and many board members have always been personally affiliated with different Baptist groups, but not the organization per se. Baylor is not owned by the Southern Baptist Convention, it is formally affiliated with the Baptist General Convention of Texas - a completely separate group. Of course I understand that there may be "the faithful" who would be horrified at such a separation.

Edited January 21, 2022 by Navidad

[rongo]

President Worthen's response:

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/t9-rel-exempt/brigham-young-university-request-11192021.pdf

Provisional, tentative response from DOE, Civil Rights Division:

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/t9-rel-exempt/brigham-young-university-response-01032022.pdf

Although it appears that BYU's historical exemptions, granted since 1976, will be upheld and honored, the gay dating issue is a new one that isn't specifically mentioned. That's the joker in the deck with this. 

[kimpearson]

I will ask all of you once again.  How do you expect queer people to live their lives?  David Archuleta just gave a very thorough predicament queer members find themselves in.  Go view it and tell me what you would tell David on how best to live his life.  By many of your posts, you seem perfectly content to tell queer members they have no right to the happiness, joy, peace and growth that comes from romantic relationships that you all enjoy.  It appears you believe in a God who has created laws that do nothing but make life a living hell for most queer members.  Please explain why God would do that.  I believe many of you feel that if queer folks just followed Church guidance they would be happy at and peace.  I would love to hear your personal stories of the queer individuals you know that are happy and prospering in the gospel.  I hear no compassion or even a minimal attempt to consider the life faced by a queer member of the Church.  By the way, it is impossible to love someone yet tell them to live a life of sadness, despair, self loathing and by the way you will be better off after you are dead.

So tell me what is the life a queer person should live.

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, Peacefully said:

Also, the church allows for divorce even if no adultery has taken place, yet scripture says the following: Matthew 19: 7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Was there a revelation about this? Seems like a lot of heterosexuals are getting a pass. 

I'm out of rep points but yes!  I made that point on a different thread but had forgotten it.  Clearly we do not handle the law of chastity the same was as it is presented in scriptures.  We allow for the weaknesses of men and women, even to the point that we are specifically allowing actions that the NT explicitly states are against the LoC.

Men and women who get divorced can even be re-married in the temple.  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

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

Jesus taught that all divorced people who remarry, and weren't divorced because of adultery, are breaking the LoC.  But we believe that He changed that rule and people who are divorced and remarry are even allowed to do so in the temple.

[SkyRock]

24 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

I will ask all of you once again.  How do you expect queer people to live their lives?  David Archuleta just gave a very thorough predicament queer members find themselves in.  Go view it and tell me what you would tell David on how best to live his life.  By many of your posts, you seem perfectly content to tell queer members they have no right to the happiness, joy, peace and growth that comes from romantic relationships that you all enjoy.  It appears you believe in a God who has created laws that do nothing but make life a living hell for most queer members.  Please explain why God would do that.  I believe many of you feel that if queer folks just followed Church guidance they would be happy at and peace.  I would love to hear your personal stories of the queer individuals you know that are happy and prospering in the gospel.  I hear no compassion or even a minimal attempt to consider the life faced by a queer member of the Church.  By the way, it is impossible to love someone yet tell them to live a life of sadness, despair, self loathing and by the way you will be better off after you are dead.

So tell me what is the life a queer person should live.

1st, all people need to stop defining themselves by their sexual attractions.   

2nd, Most every person experiences sexual attraction to others.  And to conform ourselves to God's laws, we are required to limit our sexual activity to a heterosexual marriage.  We are required to overcome whatever impulses and desires to do as God requires.   In today's world almost no one except the extremely strict religious refrain from fornication.  Just because it is a huge struggle for almost people to wait to get married to have sex does not change God's laws on the topic.  Additionally, a large portion of the married folks commit adultery.  Just because they do it does not mean that God should change his laws. 

3rd, those who call themselves "gay" need to stop doing so.   They have essentially labeled themselves something based upon their attractions.  Throughout history most people who experienced SSA issues still married and lived heterosexual lives.   

May it be difficult and awkward at times? Sure.  But such is marriage.   It isn't always easy.   It is often downright awful.  But it allows us to grow in ways not otherwise possible.   Marriage is a sacrament with God that entails lifelong self-sacrifice.  

Selfishness is indulging in the our attractions more than anything else.  Each person can either carry their own yoke or take upon themselves Christ's yoke.  SSA isn't a sin, just like being attracted to the opposite sex.   It is indulging in it, dwelling on it, thinking about it, lusting after it that makes it sinful, just like heterosexuals doing the same.  We all have separate trials in life. 

So, it is very possible for the SSA person to be active in church and strive through the grace of Christ's love to conform to the commandments.  It really isn't possible for someone who identifier as "gay" (even if they have never engaged in anything but idealization after attraction) to be active long term in the church.  

So they need to stop calling themselves "queer" to start.   Call themselves instead a "child of God".