rongo Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 17 hours ago, smac97 said: What are your thoughts about it? I support the status quo (gay romantic dating behavior prohibited at BYU). But, I also understand that in 2022 refusing to yield on it may cause loss of accreditation or federal consequences --- especially under the Biden administration. 17 hours ago, smac97 said: I question that. The prohibition against homosexual behavior applies to everyone, both gay and straight. That's absurd --- "Straight BYU students aren't allowed to engage in gay romantic behavior any more than gay BYU students are." That has to be the worst "separate but equal" argument one could make. It is precisely that gay students are not allowed to engage in the same dating behavior that straight students are that is the Schwerpunkt here. Arguing with a straight face that straight students aren't allowed to engage in gay behavior, so it's the same for everyone is ludicrous. And I'm not even arguing that BYU or the Church should change on this. 17 hours ago, smac97 said: Could BYU continue to function without federal financial aid? I have no idea. It sure would be nice if it could. I can think of 120 billion or so reasons why BYU could. The Church absolutely could completely forego federal aid and grants, and be just fine financially, but in the end, I suspect that federal grants and aid and accreditation will be the tail that wags the dog with this. 2
SkyRock Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 20 minutes ago, bluebell said: 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. It is a huge problem. Marriage isn't easy all the time and easy divorce is an abomination. It used to be that temple marriages rarely ended in divorce and now it is common place and marriage and with subsequent sealings. 1
JLHPROF Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 25 minutes ago, bluebell said: But we believe that He changed that rule and people who are divorced and remarry are even allowed to do so in the temple. Yet we have nothing to back up this change other than that we started doing so. 1
ttribe Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 2 hours ago, MacGyver said: If the church allowed same-sex marriage and stopped calling same-sex relations a sin, it would be in open apostasy. 2 hours ago, JLHPROF said: There are limits on what continuing revelation can do. God doesn't break his own rules. 2 hours ago, MacGyver said: 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. I'm trying to understand why you perceive this to be the bridge too far. Presumably, you've both repeatedly raised your hand to sustain the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve to be "Prophets, Seers, and Revelators." Presumably, you've also covenanted to give everything to the Church in the Temple. You both say you believe in continuing revelation, but neither say why this is the thing that would put the Church into "open apostasy" or would be God "break[ing] his own rules" or why same-sex relations are "abominable." Why this issue? 4
JLHPROF Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 1 hour 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. You won't receive any responses because nobody has a good one. And you certainly won't receive the response you want, because the truth is that the standards aren't different for different people. Redefining things to make people feel better is an exercise in futility. 2
bluebell Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Yet we have nothing to back up this change other than that we started doing so. We only have the same reason that Moses had. The hardness of people's hearts. 2
JLHPROF Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 2 minutes ago, ttribe said: I'm trying to understand why you perceive this to be the bridge too far. Presumably, you've both repeatedly raised your hand to sustain the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve to be "Prophets, Seers, and Revelators." Presumably, you've also covenanted to give everything to the Church in the Temple. You both say you believe in continuing revelation, but neither say why this is the thing that would put the Church into "open apostasy" or would be God "break[ing] his own rules" or why same-sex relations are "abominable." Why this issue? There are many things that I disagree with the FP/Q12 on. I think many of their actions taken under the guise of continuing revelation are works of men and will eventually have to be corrected by the Lord. I don't necessarily agree with MacGyver that it would be a final straw situation. I don't know what it would take to put the Church into full apostasy, but I do believe the gospel was restored again never to be taken from the earth. But yes, any claimed "revelation" that SSM or relations are acceptable I would instantly put as a false revelation. It contradicts what God has previously revealed to man about marriage, family, chastity, gender etc. And God is eternal, unchanging. If we have to start asking "which revelation is the lie" then it makes far more sense to assume one wasn't revelation to begin with. 2
JLHPROF Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 Just now, bluebell said: We only have the same reason that Moses had. The hardness of people's hearts. True. The problem is we seem to feel that whenever God allows changes like these due to the hardness of our hearts that we are still fully justified. Instead as the Lord says, we actually lose blessings every time God is required to make changes due to our weaknesses.
ttribe Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: There are many things that I disagree with the FP/Q12 on. I think many of their actions taken under the guise of continuing revelation are works of men and will eventually have to be corrected by the Lord. I don't necessarily agree with MacGyver that it would be a final straw situation. I don't know what it would take to put the Church into full apostasy, but I do believe the gospel was restored again never to be taken from the earth. But yes, any claimed "revelation" that SSM or relations are acceptable I would instantly put as a false revelation. It contradicts what God has previously revealed to man about marriage, family, chastity, gender etc. And God is eternal, unchanging. If we have to start asking "which revelation is the lie" then it makes far more sense to assume one wasn't revelation to begin with. What, specifically, is it contradicting? 2
bluebell Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 (edited) 7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: True. The problem is we seem to feel that whenever God allows changes like these due to the hardness of our hearts that we are still fully justified. Instead as the Lord says, we actually lose blessings every time God is required to make changes due to our weaknesses. Sometimes I think that God doesn't make changes because of the hardness of our hearts and that we are losing out on blessings because He knows we won't receive the further light and knowledge He wants to give us. I reject the idea that it's only through unauthorized changes that we move further away from God. Refusing to accept or consider authorized changes produces the same effect. Just like the poor, our biases are always with us. We like to pretend that they don't get in the way of our relationship with God but of course they do. There is not one person among us who isn't receiving less blessings than God wants to give because of the hardness of our hearts and our weaknesses. Thank goodness for the Atonement. Edited January 21, 2022 by bluebell 4
JLHPROF Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 Just now, ttribe said: What, specifically, is it contradicting? Every scripture describing marriage as the union of male and female. That's the definition of marriage. To attempt to expand the definition beyond these bounds contradicts that. I don't see God contradicting himself the definition of marriage or the commandment he gave in connection that requires male and female union. For example: Ephesians 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the dearth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. I see no room for God to update this definition.
JLHPROF Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 2 minutes ago, bluebell said: I reject the idea that it's only through unauthorized changes that we move further away from God. Refusing to accept or consider authorized changes produces the same effect. I agree. I also believe that accepting "authorized" changes given because of our weaknesses produce the same effect. 1
ttribe Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 1 minute ago, JLHPROF said: Every scripture describing marriage as the union of male and female. That's the definition of marriage. To attempt to expand the definition beyond these bounds contradicts that. I don't see God contradicting himself the definition of marriage or the commandment he gave in connection that requires male and female union. For example: Ephesians 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the dearth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. I see no room for God to update this definition. But, it's just as easily argued that these revelations were passing through men who were also products of their time and that, culturally, homosexuality was taboo and not properly understood. 1
smac97 Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, rongo said: Quote The prohibition against homosexual behavior applies to everyone, both gay and straight. That's absurd --- "Straight BYU students aren't allowed to engage in gay romantic behavior any more than gay BYU students are." I understand the knee-jerk reaction, but I think the point remains valid. 1 hour ago, rongo said: That has to be the worst "separate but equal" argument one could make. It's not analogous to "separate but equal." There is no separate set of facilities (restrooms, drinking fountains, etc.) analogous to the Honor Code proscriptions on sexual behavior. Nobody is allowed to engage in homosexual behavior. 1 hour ago, rongo said: It is precisely that gay students are not allowed to engage in the same dating behavior that straight students are that is the Schwerpunkt here. Except that they are "allowed to engage in the same dating behavior that straight students are." Meanwhile, nobody is allowed to "engage" in same-sex "behavior." Nobody. Consider the Honor Code's prohibition against alcohol. There are no doubt some people at BYU who would like to imbibe and some who have no interest in it. In the end, though, this distinction does not matter because nobody is allowed to drink alcohol. So it is with the prohibition against homosexual behavior. There are some people at BYU who would like to engage in such behavior and some who have no interest in it. In the end, though, this distinction does not matter because nobody is allowed to engage in it. 1 hour ago, rongo said: Arguing with a straight face that straight students aren't allowed to engage in gay behavior, so it's the same for everyone is ludicrous. No reasoning here. 1 hour ago, rongo said: And I'm not even arguing that BYU or the Church should change on this. Nor am I. I am instead rebutting the notion that gays are being singled out for disparate treatment. I don't think they are. I think they are instead dealing with disparate impact. If BYU said "Heterosexual students can drink beer, but homosexual students cannot," then you would have a solid case for disparate treatment. As it is, however, BYU says that nobody, regardless of sexual orientation or marital status, can drink beer. So while this blanket prohibition has disparate impact (based on individuals who may want to drink v. individuals who do not), it's not a "separate but equal" kind of thing because everyone faces the same constraint. If you want an example of disparate treatment re: the Honor Code, I can give you one: heterosexual married couples. They are treated differently than all other couples. They are allowed to engage in sexual behavior (with each other), while other couples (unmarried heterosexual couples and any same-sex couples) are not. Thanks, -Smac Edited January 21, 2022 by smac97 1
bluebell Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Every scripture describing marriage as the union of male and female. That's the definition of marriage. To attempt to expand the definition beyond these bounds contradicts that. I don't see God contradicting himself the definition of marriage or the commandment he gave in connection that requires male and female union. For example: Ephesians 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the dearth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. I see no room for God to update this definition. I don't think we can really argue that SSM cannot ever be allowed using these verses in the bible. There is too much, like concubinage and polygamy, that we have to pretend not to notice that God allowed, to make it work. 1
smac97 Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 10 hours 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 think I understand the underlying sentiment here, that the Church is to be guided by revelation, as opposed to what is socially popular/trendy. However, I think there are plenty of ways in which the Church can accommodate societal trends/needs (in the "micro" sense) while still following and seeking revelation (in the "macro" sense). I think I'm in the Church, come what may. I believe any member of the Church can be led astray, including leaders (witness the many who apostasized in the early days of the Church). I also reject the notion of inerrancy (though I note that it is quite possible for a church leader to make a mistake, or even many mistakes, and yet not be "astray"). However, I subscribe to the position that the Church and its leaders, collectively, will not be led astray. I believe in the prophecy found in Daniel 2 and in how it has been interpreted. I agree with Wilford Woodruff that "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God." I think that's right. I believe in The Book of Mormon, in its testimony of Jesus Christ, and of the implications that are associated with the prophetic mantle involved in its production, preservation, and transmission to us. I believe the sentiment expressed here (attributed to Joseph Smith): "‘I will give you a key that will never rust, —if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray." Thanks, -Smac 1
ttribe Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 1 minute ago, bluebell said: I don't think we can really argue that SSM cannot ever be allowed using these verses in the bible. There is too much, like concubinage and polygamy, that we have to pretend not to notice that God allowed, to make it work. As I recall, JLHPROF is very much pro-polygamy.
bluebell Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I agree. I also believe that accepting "authorized" changes given because of our weaknesses produce the same effect. I agree. And my point is that when God has to not change something that He wants changed because of our weaknesses, it also produces the same effect. I'm sure there are revelations that God wants to give us that He hasn't yet, because He knows we would reject them or they would otherwise be a stumbling block to us. It's just interesting that we most often base whether or not something is of God on whether or not we agree with it. 1
Popular Post bluebell Posted January 21, 2022 Popular Post Posted January 21, 2022 12 minutes ago, smac97 said: Except that they are "allowed to engage in the same dating behavior that straight students are." Not exactly. Straight students are allowed to engage in dating behavior with people they are romantically attracted to. Gay students are not allowed to engage in that same behavior. 5
bluebell Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 (edited) 8 minutes ago, ttribe said: As I recall, JLHPROF is very much pro-polygamy. Yep, even though polygamy is not included in the bible definition of marriage that he quoted, he believes that it can still be of God. He is interpreting those verses to include things that he agrees with, even though they aren't actually in there. (like we all do) My point is that there is more room in his definitions of marriage, or at the very least in his definition of what constitutes keeping the LoC, than he is willing to acknowledge. Edited January 21, 2022 by bluebell 1
JLHPROF Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 1 minute ago, bluebell said: I don't think we can really argue that SSM cannot ever be allowed using these verses in the bible. There is too much, like concubinage and polygamy, that we have to pretend not to notice that God allowed, to make it work. I think we can argue that the union of male and female is how God defined marriage. Things like concubinage and polygamy may be variations on that but the principle is the same. 11 minutes ago, ttribe said: But, it's just as easily argued that these revelations were passing through men who were also products of their time and that, culturally, homosexuality was taboo and not properly understood. I think that argument is valid to a point. Of course revelations are influenced by the time and place. But I don't see any valid argument for the existence of something that goes outside all established definition or purpose in scripture.
JLHPROF Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 11 minutes ago, ttribe said: As I recall, JLHPROF is very much pro-polygamy. Ouch...that makes it sound like I'm an agitator for practicing polygamy today, out looking for another wife. I am pro in the sense that I believe it was authorized, that there is valid doctrine and ordinance behind the practice, and that the polygamous family structure will exist in the eternities. I believe it was part of the restoration of all things and is an eternal principle. I am not pro in the sense that I think the Church should be like the fundamentalist groups in any way or that we all need to practice polygamy right now. God withdrew the practice, and any connected blessings with it for now and I think it will probably return. I don't think it was a hard 1890 withdrawal but I do believe it was ended for now. 3 minutes ago, bluebell said: Yep, even though polygamy is not included in the bible definition of marriage that he quoted, he believes that it can still be of God. He is interpreting those verses to include things that he agrees with, even though they aren't actually in there. (like we all do) My point is that there is more room in his definitions of marriage, or at the very least in his definition of what constitutes keeping the LoC, than he is willing to acknowledge. I believe marriage is the joining of male and female for the primary purpose of multiplying and replenishing the earth and providing physical bodies for God's spirit children. That can include monogamy, polygamy, concubinage, eternal and civil marriage, etc. It cannot however include same sex relationships. Biology and divine design precludes it.
smac97 Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 11 minutes ago, bluebell said: Quote Except that they are "allowed to engage in the same dating behavior that straight students are." Not exactly. Straight students are allowed to engage in dating behavior with people they are romantically attracted to. Gay students are not allowed to engage in that same behavior. I understand that approach. But it's like saying teetotalers are treated differently at BYU from people who like to drink. Except . . . they aren't. Regardless of personal preference or inclination or desire, the treatment under the Honor Code is the same. Nobody can drink alcohol. Thanks, -Smac 1
Bob Crockett Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 (edited) 17 hours ago, JLHPROF said: You are welcome to that opinion. I admit Brigham established certain systematic elements. But the content came from Joseph. Not really. My opinion is based on fact. JS told BY that he didn't quite have his 15 minute endowment right and told BY to improve upon it. BY did that in the SG temple, adding masonry. This according to BY. Edited January 21, 2022 by Bob Crockett
JLHPROF Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 Just now, Bob Crockett said: JS told BY that he didn't quite have his 15 minute endowment right and told BY to improve upon it. CFR on the 15 minute endowment. Not sure I've heard that before. The historical record indicates it took all day.
Recommended Posts