Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

More Cultural and Moral Decay


Recommended Posts

When I went to BYU back in the late 80s, I went to a Freshman dance the first night which was advertised as being with a fancy "new" CD jukebox.  When I got there, all but 7 CDs had been removed.

I talked with some BYU staff person and I was told a parent had come the day prior and seen the CDs and thrown a fit about the selection of music.  One CD in particular that was removed was INXS because of the song "Devil Inside".

BYU does have a need to be very cautious and careful to placate parents.

Link to comment
15 hours ago, Calm said:

More likely your inbox is full or you have marked your preference as no messages. Even limited can send and receive messages. 
 

Publishing under BYU’s logo….that was a very poorly written comment, I was looking for a shorthand way of saying it was included inside a paper that is published by BYU and all that implies of the process.  I assumed the paper itself has BYU’s  logo on it (the student paper must have the logo right?).  The logo wouldn’t be on every page though or is it?

 It sounds like the pamphlet itself was made by the group (or whatever copy place they took the original to in order to save their printers from heart failure) and inserted into the paper.  But a piece of paper inserted into others tends to be grouped with them.  And the cover for all of them identifies it with BYU to at least some extent.  There was a comment about BYU approving the insert here and certainly I thought on those lines as well, having it in the newspaper means it went through a vetting process (my guess is the person who approved it has been put through the wringer, possibly even let go as this is one major mistake or an intentional ignoring of BYU standards Imo).

Thanks for the message tips.  Still not sure if I fixed it, but I did empty some messages

I used to work on the BYU newspaper when I attended.  Honestly I think it is a pretty big leap to suggest that anything advertised in The Daily Universe is approved by BYU.  That would imply that every jewelry store, every auto mechanic, every hair salon that advertised in the BYU paper was endorsed by BYU.  I can assure you, that is not true.  They are just advertisers.

Does that change your opinion at all about this?

Edited by california boy
Link to comment


A family friend and her husband (both returned missionaries) attended the event with their 3-year-old. Here’s what she had to say:

“A very memorable and (minus idiot protesters) positive experience!! ❤🧡💛💚💙💜

“We wish we had come earlier so that we could've enjoyed more of the event and met more of these wonderful humans, but we will definitely come earlier next year!! LOVE our LGBTQ+ friends and family!! ❤🧡💛💚💙💜

Link to comment
On 9/1/2022 at 3:49 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

You always sound so angry.

FOX News fan? ;) 

You seem to be setting Paul up as the ultimate authority here. That's a bold choice. I definitely wouldn't call him a "knuckle dragger" like you did, but he was certainly a product of his time and environment. He also believed that the end of days was imminent. Or immediate (for those in Rio Linda) so his teachings should be viewed in that prism. Of course that didn't turn out to be correct but I'm sure he's 100% on everything else.

I guess you missed the part where I said that the Apostle Paul personally encountered Christ on several occasions, and was taken into the highest heaven where he was taught doctrines so advanced and sacred that he was not permitted to disclose them to any man. This indicates that Paul possessed an in-depth understanding of gospel doctrine on equal par with the Brother of Jared, Nephi and John the Revelator, who were all given the fulness of God’s mysteries. Therefore, I believe one who is wise will heed the warnings of a prophet of such great stature, wisdom and profound understanding when he warns the saints to “be not deceived” and realize that men who behave in an effeminate fashion cannot inherit the kingdom of God. You may be comfortable discounting Paul’s solemn warning to no be deceived in this matter, but I’m not.

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

I guess you missed the part where I said that the Apostle Paul personally encountered Christ on several occasions, and was taken into the highest heaven where he was taught doctrines so advanced and sacred that he was not permitted to disclose them to any man. This indicates that Paul possessed an in-depth understanding of gospel doctrine on equal par with the Brother of Jared, Nephi and John the Revelator, who were all given the fulness of God’s mysteries. Therefore, I believe one who is wise will heed the warnings of a prophet of such great stature, wisdom and profound understanding when he warns the saints to “be not deceived” and realize that men who behave in an effeminate fashion cannot inherit the kingdom of God. You may be comfortable discounting Paul’s solemn warning to no be deceived in this matter, but I’m not.

I guess you missed the part where Paul saw taught those things BEFORE he saw Christ in heaven and I guess you missed the part where we sustain President Nelson as the prophet, not Paul the Apostle-unless you are more delusional than suspected and think you live 2000 years ago. You are comfortable distorting scripture but I am not and you may be comfortable not sustaining a living prophet but I am not

Edited by Duncan
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

I guess you missed the part where I said that the Apostle Paul personally encountered Christ on several occasions, and was taken into the highest heaven where he was taught doctrines so advanced and sacred that he was not permitted to disclose them to any man. This indicates that Paul possessed an in-depth understanding of gospel doctrine on equal par with the Brother of Jared, Nephi and John the Revelator, who were all given the fulness of God’s mysteries. Therefore, I believe one who is wise will heed the warnings of a prophet of such great stature, wisdom and profound understanding when he warns the saints to “be not deceived” and realize that men who behave in an effeminate fashion cannot inherit the kingdom of God. You may be comfortable discounting Paul’s solemn warning to no be deceived in this matter, but I’m not.

So with his advanced understanding of God, I am assuming you are also in favor of his teachings about women not praying or speaking in church, not wearing make up, not wearing gold jewelry and all his other misogynist teachings?   

How do you reconcile this with current practices within the Church?  Do you also call them to repentance?

Link to comment
On 9/1/2022 at 4:22 PM, JLHPROF said:

Well it certainly explains why Paul was single when he wrote it.

I know what you wrote there was probably intended to be a joke, but it's likely that Paul wasn't single when he wrote it.  At least two early Christian sources (Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Alexandria) state that Paul was a married man.  If this is correct, Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 7 (which was written in response to an unknown letter from the Corinthians, presumably asking about the "present necessity" of missionary service) where he says "I would that all men were even as I myself" (verse 7), is referring to having "self control" while out on missionary journeys, and not that they should be single and remain single.  Because for Paul and his wife: "The only reason why he did not take her about with him was that it would have been an inconvenience for his ministry." (Clement of Alexandria, also 1 Cor 9:5).  Paul therefore advocated (in 1 Cor 7) either putting off marriage until after the missionary service was over (for the single man), or for the married man to "not deprive one another except with consent for a time" (1 Cor 7:5, NKJV), recommending leaving the spouse behind during the time of missionary service.  

Edited by InCognitus
Link to comment
10 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I know what you wrote there was probably intended to be a joke, but it's likely that Paul wasn't single when he wrote it.  At least two early Christian sources (Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Alexandria) state that Paul was a married man.  If this is correct, Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 7 (which was written in response to an unknown letter from the Corinthians, presumably asking about the "present necessity" of missionary service) where he says "I would that all men were even as I myself" (verse 7), is referring to having "self control" while out on missionary journeys, and not that they should be single and remain single.  Because for Paul and his wife: "The only reason why he did not take her about with him was that it would have been an inconvenience for his ministry." (Clement of Alexandria, also 1 Cor 9:5).  Paul therefore advocated (in 1 Cor 7) either putting off marriage until after the missionary service was over (for the single man), or for the married man to "not deprive one another except with consent for a time" (1 Cor 7:5, NKJV), recommending leaving the spouse behind during the time of missionary service.  

I thought the general consensus was he was a widower at that point.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I thought the general consensus was he was a widower at that point.

That's also a possibility, but part of the evidence that Paul was a married man includes him addressing his "true companion" [NKJV] in Philippians 4:3 (his wife), and the epistle to the Philippians was written after 1 Corinthians.  That verse is likely what Clement of Alexandria had in mind when he said:  "Even Paul did not hesitate in one letter to address his consort."  The possibility that Paul had a wife at the time of the writing of 1 Corinthians also seems evident in 1 Corinthians 9:5:  "Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?"  He would not have "power" to bring a wife with him if he didn't have a wife.

Link to comment
15 hours ago, california boy said:

So with his advanced understanding of God, I am assuming you are also in favor of his teachings about women not praying or speaking in church, not wearing make up, not wearing gold jewelry and all his other misogynist teachings?   

How do you reconcile this with current practices within the Church?  Do you also call them to repentance?

In the passage you cite, Paul was specifically addressing women attempting to usurp priesthood leadership rolls in the Church, and acting as if they have authority from God to lead the Church that they do not possess.

Link to comment
16 hours ago, pogi said:

Actually, men were the first to wear makeup so…

What is “effeminate” changes with time, is largely subjective and is based on popular culture/norms.  I have a hard time believing that we are going to be kept out of “the kingdom” by how well we follow popular culture/norms. 

Despite Paul’s “in-depth understanding of gospel doctrine” he also said lots of harmful things that people have interpreted falsely as the will of God and have persecuted groups (women) who have dared to act contrary to Paul’s words.  

In every day and age of world history, there were ways within each culture for men to act as if they are women. If there was a time, place and culture in which mean wearing makeup was not necessarily considered to be evidence effeminacy, then a man wearing makeup in that culture wasn’t de facto evidence that he was effeminate. Whereas in our day and age there’s no doubt whatsoever that drag queens are acting as if they are women and even trying to groom little children into thinking the practice isn’t harmful.

If you believe some of Paul’s teachings are harmful, it’s only because you don’t comprehend what Paul was actually trying to say.

Edited by teddyaware
Link to comment
2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

If you believe some of Paul’s teachings are harmful, it’s only because you don’t comprehend what Paul was actually trying to say.

By all means, please expound on what Paul was "actually trying to say", and how it is not harmful:

Quote

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (1 Cor. 14:34-35)

Quote

A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.[1Tim. 2:9–15]

You don't seem willing to accept that Paul may have spoken/written as a man on occasion, influenced by the dominant culture of the time.  Do you accept the fallibility of prophets or do you believe every word they speak and write is God's word/will?  Even the Book of Mormon admits that there may be mistakes of men found within the scriptures. 

Edit: I just saw your explanation below:

Quote

In the passage you cite, Paul was specifically addressing women attempting to usurp priesthood leadership rolls in the Church, and acting as if they have authority from God to lead the Church that they do not possess.

The passages are explicit that a women should not be allowed "to teach" and must "remain quiet".   If they have any questions they should hold their tongue and only "ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."  Period.  Disgraceful for a women to even speak in the church?  That is not about usurping priesthood authority.   Asking questions is not about usurping authority either.  

"But women will be preserved through the bearing of children..."  That is their only redemptive quality???  How are these words not harmful?  Clearly your explanation is not addressing much of what Paul actually said. 

 
Edited by pogi
Link to comment
1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

In every day and age of world history, there were ways within each culture for men to act as if they are women. If there was a time, place and culture in which mean wearing makeup was not necessarily considered to be evidence effeminacy, then a man wearing makeup in that culture wasn’t de facto evidence that he was effeminate. Whereas in our day and age there’s no doubt whatsoever that drag queens are acting as if they are women and even trying to groom little children into thinking the practice isn’t harmful.

If you believe some of Paul’s teachings are harmful, it’s only because you don’t comprehend what Paul was actually trying to say.

how did you become such an expert, in your own mind, on these things? why are you so interested in the history and psychology of drag queens? Are you one yourself and are researching for the role? Big show coming up? Ru Paul in town?

 

Link to comment

The angels stood quietly while protesters yelled “pedophile” and “groomer” and pushed signs quoting the Book of Mormon toward their faces.

“You’re going against God,” one man spat. Another told them to “stop protecting the homos” at Brigham Young University.

The dozen people dressed in white didn’t flinch. Hand in hand, they formed a shield between the 100 people rallying in front of them and the LGBTQ students, alumni and friends from BYU who gathered off campus to find and show support for each other Saturday night.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/2022/09/04/group-angels-blocked-protesters/
 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

The angels stood quietly while protesters yelled “pedophile” and “groomer” and pushed signs quoting the Book of Mormon toward their faces.

“You’re going against God,” one man spat. Another told them to “stop protecting the homos” at Brigham Young University.

The dozen people dressed in white didn’t flinch. Hand in hand, they formed a shield between the 100 people rallying in front of them and the LGBTQ students, alumni and friends from BYU who gathered off campus to find and show support for each other Saturday night.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/2022/09/04/group-angels-blocked-protesters/
 

Lord, let me be an angel for the LGBTQ+ 
 

Edit: Not sure where the rest of my post went but I wanted to say let me be an Angel for the LGBTQ+ and all those who have been made to feel “less than” by some members of our church. 

Edited by Peacefully
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Duncan said:

how did you become such an expert, in your own mind, on these things? why are you so interested in the history and psychology of drag queens? Are you one yourself and are researching for the role? Big show coming up? Ru Paul in town?

 

Being a shameless zealot makes one an expert in...well...everything.

Link to comment
On 9/4/2022 at 12:37 PM, jkwilliams said:


A family friend and her husband (both returned missionaries) attended the event with their 3-year-old. Here’s what she had to say:

“A very memorable and (minus idiot protesters) positive experience!! ❤🧡💛💚💙💜

“We wish we had come earlier so that we could've enjoyed more of the event and met more of these wonderful humans, but we will definitely come earlier next year!! LOVE our LGBTQ+ friends and family!! ❤🧡💛💚💙💜

Mormon 6 17 aO ye fair ones, how could ye have departed from the ways of the Lord! O ye fair ones, how could ye have rejected that Jesus, who stood with open arms to receive you! 18 Behold, if ye had not done this, ye would not have fallen. But behold, ye are fallen, and I amourn your loss.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Durangout said:

Mormon 6 17 aO ye fair ones, how could ye have departed from the ways of the Lord! O ye fair ones, how could ye have rejected that Jesus, who stood with open arms to receive you! 18 Behold, if ye had not done this, ye would not have fallen. But behold, ye are fallen, and I amourn your loss.

where did you get this ability to mind read that these folks "rejected that Jesus"? Do you know any of them?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...