Thoughts on the purported "secularization" of BYU

[MiserereNobis]

On 2/25/2025 at 12:49 PM, teddyaware said:

Perhaps it’s a wee bit bold of me, but I take particular delight in knowing for certain that one glorious day the false ideas of the deceived woke crowd are going to unavoidably disintegrate into nothingness when they collide with the indestructible law of God. Of especial delight is the happy prospect that most of those who are currently deceived will one day have their eyes opened and gladly confess that they were wrong.

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose….

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. (The Family a Proclamation to the World)

 

There are so many posts where you say how much you will delight in seeing people who are wrong realize they are wrong. 
 

On the school playground, did you like chanting, “I won bubble gum, you lost apple sauce!”

 Somehow I don’t think schadenfreude is part of Christianity. 

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

how much you will delight in seeing people who are wrong realize they are wrong. 

I can see this if the misunderstanding was that they were doomed and realizing instead God’s grace includes them, but what amounts to the reverse experience…thinking one is okay with God or not thinking there is going to be an issue and then getting the gnashing of teeth, etc, it is a bit odd to think one is going to be gloating imo

Edited February 28, 2025 by Calm

[CV75]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

The "right answer" is likely to be found when all four resources are used.

"Just."  What a horrible, candle-snuffing word.

In most instances, yes.

If "your spiritual witness" is telling you to commit adultery, or steal from your neighbor, or to kill with malice, etc., then there's a pretty solid chance "you're doing it {personal revelation} wrong."  Do you feel otherwise?

Thanks,

-Smac

Looking at the four legs:

Scripture: God created only male and female in Eden, spiritually before physically.

Prophets: Gender is an eternal essential characteristic and is part of the structure of covenants and ordinances of exaltation. We observe gender as biological sex at mortal birth, sometimes ambiguously or indeterminately, which are exceptions.

Personal Revelation: An individuals’ personal interpretation of God’s instruction and comfort, which could align with, be an exception to, or be an apparent exception to Scripture and Prophets. Scripture and Prophets do make apparent exceptions which are actually in alignment with God’s will.

Reason: An individuals’ personal interpretation of the world around them, which could align with, be an exception to, or be an apparent exception to Scripture, Prophets and Personal Revelation.

Given the presence of apparent exceptions, doesn’t this allow the possibility that a person could correctly ascertain that their mortal biological sex opposes their eternal gender, or the possibility that the Lord is ultimately merciful in not giving them a clear answer? In either case, the Lord can grant them, “according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; That Christ may dwell in [their] hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.” (Ephesians 3:16-19).

[smac97]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Looking at the four legs:

Scripture: God created only male and female in Eden, spiritually before physically.

Yes.  Some further scriptures outside of Genesis as well.

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Prophets: Gender is an eternal essential characteristic and is part of the structure of covenants and ordinances of exaltation. We observe gender as biological sex at mortal birth, sometimes ambiguously or indeterminately, which are exceptions.

Yes.

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Personal Revelation: An individuals’ personal interpretation of God’s instruction and comfort, which could align with, be an exception to, or be an apparent exception to Scripture and Prophets. Scripture and Prophets do make apparent exceptions which are actually in alignment with God’s will.

Ostensibly, yes.

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Reason: An individuals’ personal interpretation of the world around them, which could align with, be an exception to, or be an apparent exception to Scripture, Prophets and Personal Revelation.

Yes.

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Given the presence of apparent exceptions,

In my view, the likelihood of such a potential/apparent exception plainly contradicting scriptural/prophetic counsel on a fundamental moral/doctrinal issue, and yet still being ontologically correct, is . . . pretty low.  De minimis low.  

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

doesn’t this allow the possibility that a person could correctly ascertain that their mortal biological sex opposes their eternal gender,

Outside of unresolvable epistemically uncertain situations arising from a DSD?

For myself, I would say "No."  I would say the same thing about a question regarding whether I, via personal revelation, could "correctly ascertain" that my "spirit" is actually that of a dragon or a wolf, or that I should enter into polygamy, or that I can step out on my wife, and so on. 

Let us consider this scenario:

• A Latter-day Saint, Alex (who is unambiguously male, no DSD or anything), uses all four "legs of the stool" ((1) scripture, (2) prophetic counsel, (3) reason and (4) personal revelation) and finds that (4), and possibly (3), essentially contradict (1) and (2) as to whether his biological sex (male) comports with his inner-held sense of "gender" (he feels he is a "woman trapped in a man's body," and/or that his spirit is actually female). 
• Let us further say that Alex seeks guidance and counsel from priesthood leaders, who refer him to prophetic counsel on this issue (The Proclamation, Pres. Oaks' 2019 remarks, etc.), and encourages him to seek guidance through fasting, prayer, temple attendance, etc.
• Let us further say that Alex gives some consideration to the possible influence of sociological factors and emotional/mental health issues in his deliberative and decision-making processes (regarding the sex of his spirit).

Let us reduce the potential outcomes to two potential conclusions:

Conclusion A: Alex, having sincerely and earnestly examined the issue in the foregoing ways, decides that the cumulative result of the "four legs" is complementary, not contradictory, and on that basis either concludes that his biological sex in the here and now corresponds with his biological sex in the eternities, and that his inner-held feelings to the contrary are in error, the result of temporal conditions and influences, etc., and that such things will be resolved in the Lord's due course.

Conclusion B: Alex, having sincerely and earnestly examined the issue in the foregoing ways, decides that the cumulative result of the "four legs" is that they are irreconcilably contradictory.  That is, his own sense of reason and personal revelation confirm his inner-held feelings (he feels he is a "woman trapped in a man's body," and/or that his spirit is actually female), even though such confirmation contradicts The Proclamation, etc.  Consequently, Alex sets aside, or exempts himself from, the principles set forth in The Proclamation and other scriptural and prophetic sources, and chooses to believe that his spirit is female.

Is Conclusion B possible?  Sure, this conclusion can be reached.  Laurie Lee Hall (f/k/a Larry Lee Hall) is a good example.

Is Conclusion B ontologically correct?  Will Alex's decision be borne out in the hereafter?  We'll see what happens on the other side, I suppose.

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

or the possibility that the Lord is ultimately merciful in not giving them a clear answer? 

Aside from a theoretical (and statistically tiny number of) unresolvable-epistemic-uncertainty-due-to-DSD scenarios, I think The Proclamation and other prophetic guidance are about as clear an answer as we can hope to get.

The issue, then, is not that we don't have guidance, but that some are not willing to accept and submit to it.

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

In either case, the Lord can grant them, “according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; That Christ may dwell in [their] hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.” (Ephesians 3:16-19).

In the end, we each must do what we think is right.  For myself, I would have a hard time acting in plain contravention of scriptural and prophetic counsel under the auspices of "my personal revelation told me so."  Theoretically, I suppose this could happen, but I would think long and hard about the possibility that I was acting based on influences other than the will of the Lord.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 28, 2025 by smac97

[smac97]

20 hours ago, Senator said:

Quote

Quote

If your spiritual witness doesn’t do so you’re doing it wrong. 

In most instances, yes.

If "your spiritual witness" is telling you to commit adultery, or steal from your neighbor, or to kill with malice, etc., then there's a pretty solid chance "you're doing it {personal revelation} wrong."  Do you feel otherwise?

In the instances that you are not doing it wrong, then what?

In the end, we each must do what we think is right.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Senator]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In the end, we each must do what we think is right.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you, that I agree with.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  Some further scriptures outside of Genesis as well.

Yes.

Ostensibly, yes.

Yes.

In my view, the likelihood of such a potential/apparent exception plainly contradicting scriptural/prophetic counsel on a fundamental moral/doctrinal issue, and yet still being ontologically correct, is . . . pretty low.  De minimis low.  

Outside of unresolvable epistemically uncertain situations arising from a DSD?

For myself, I would say "No."  I would say the same thing about a question regarding whether I, via personal revelation, could "correctly ascertain" that my "spirit" is actually that of a dragon or a wolf, or that I should enter into polygamy, or that I can step out on my wife, and so on. 

Let us consider this scenario:

• A Latter-day Saint, Alex (who is unambiguously male, no DSD or anything), uses all four "legs of the stool" ((1) scripture, (2) prophetic counsel, (3) reason and (4) personal revelation) and finds that (4), and possibly (3), essentially contradict (1) and (2) as to whether his biological sex (male) comports with his inner-held sense of "gender" (he feels he is a "woman trapped in a man's body," and/or that his spirit is actually female). 
• Let us further say that Alex seeks guidance and counsel from priesthood leaders, who refer him to prophetic counsel on this issue (The Proclamation, Pres. Oaks' 2019 remarks, etc.), and encourages him to seek guidance through fasting, prayer, temple attendance, etc.
• Let us further say that Alex gives some consideration to the possible influence of sociological factors and emotional/mental health issues in his deliberative and decision-making processes (regarding the sex of his spirit).

Let us reduce the potential outcomes to two potential conclusions:

Conclusion A: Alex, having sincerely and earnestly examined the issue in the foregoing ways, decides that the cumulative result of the "four legs" is complementary, not contradictory, and on that basis either concludes that his biological sex in the here and now corresponds with his biological sex in the eternities, and that his inner-held feelings to the contrary are in error, the result of temporal conditions and influences, etc., and that such things will be resolved in the Lord's due course.

Conclusion B: Alex, having sincerely and earnestly examined the issue in the foregoing ways, decides that the cumulative result of the "four legs" is that they are irreconcilably contradictory.  That is, his own sense of reason and personal revelation confirm his inner-held feelings (he feels he is a "woman trapped in a man's body," and/or that his spirit is actually female), even though such confirmation contradicts The Proclamation, etc.  Consequently, Alex sets aside, or exempts himself from, the principles set forth in The Proclamation and other scriptural and prophetic sources, and chooses to believe that his spirit is female.

Is Conclusion B possible?  Sure, this conclusion can be reached.  Laurie Lee Hall (f/k/a Larry Lee Hall) is a good example.

Is Conclusion B ontologically correct?  Will Alex's decision be borne out in the hereafter?  We'll see what happens on the other side, I suppose.

Aside from a theoretical (and statistically tiny number of) unresolvable-epistemic-uncertainty-due-to-DSD scenarios, I think The Proclamation and other prophetic guidance are about as clear an answer as we can hope to get.

The issue, then, is not that we don't have guidance, but that some are not willing to accept and submit to it.

In the end, we each must do what we think is right.  For myself, I would have a hard time acting in plain contravention of scriptural and prophetic counsel under the auspices of "my personal revelation told me so."  Theoretically, I suppose this could happen, but I would think long and hard about the possibility that I was acting based on influences other than the will of the Lord.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, we each must do what we think is right, as does someone with an opposing view. How does one do what is right in influencing others to promote their view of the will of the Lord? Is acknowledging the theoretical possibility of the seemingly incomprehensible a line a no-go?

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, we each must do what we think is right, as does someone with an opposing view. 

Agreed.

40 minutes ago, CV75 said:

How does one do what is right in influencing others to promote their view of the will of the Lord?

I'm not sure who the "their" is in "their view of the will of the Lord."  Is it the one doing the influencing, or the person being influenced?

If the former, I am reminded of counsel I received years ago during a training session with Elder Bednar (I was one of several dozen bishops and stake presidents in a training session).  His message to the assembled leaders was, in essence, that bishops are "doing it wrong" when they specifically tell individual congregants what to do on a particular issue, and that they (the bishops) need to focus more on encouraging and helping individual members to use scripture, prayer, reasoning, counsel, etc. to ascertain what the Lord wants them to do, and then they (the bishops) should encourage the members to do that.

Keep in mind that this was apostolic counsel to bishops and stake presidents, leaders who have keys and stewardship and such, and who presumably are in a position to give counsel to others.  And yet even these men were admonished against exercising undue or improper influence in the decision-making processes of other.

All the more reason, then, for lacking-in-stewardship bystanders, including the well-intentioned ones, to be even more circumspect in, as you put it, "influencing others to promote their {the bystanders'} view of the will of the Lord."  I think the safer approach is to cite scriptural and prophetic counsel, and to clearly differentiate that stuff from my "view of the will of the Lord" in any particular circumstance.

40 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Is acknowledging the theoretical possibility of the seemingly incomprehensible a line a no-go?

In the end, we each must do what we think is right.

I have a very hard time crafting a set of circumstances in which I would feel comfortable encouraging someone to ignore or reject The Proclamation and other modern prophetic counsel regarding "gender identity" issues.  I would, instead, encourage someone to use scripture, prayer, reasoning, counsel, etc. to ascertain what the Lord wants them to do, and then they should encourage the members to do that.  If I had some particularized stewardship (that is, if one of my children were struggling with gender identity issues), I would consider offering more in-depth counsel.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 28, 2025 by smac97

[CV75]

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Agreed.

I'm not sure who the "their" is in "their view of the will of the Lord."  Is it the one doing the influencing, or the person being influenced?

If the former, I am reminded of counsel I received years ago during a training session with Elder Bednar (I was one of several dozen bishops and stake presidents in a training session).  His message to the assembled leaders was, in essence, that bishops are "doing it wrong" when they specifically tell individual congregants what to do on a particular issue, and that they (the bishops) need to focus more on encouraging and helping individual members to use scripture, prayer, reasoning, counsel, etc. to ascertain what the Lord wants them to do, and then they (the bishops) should encourage the members to do that.

Keep in mind that this was apostolic counsel to bishops and stake presidents, leaders who have keys and stewardship and such, and who presumably are in a position to give counsel to others.  And yet even these men were admonished against exercising undue or improper influence in the decision-making processes of other.

All the more reason, then, for lacking-in-stewardship bystanders, including the well-intentioned ones, to be even more circumspect in, as you put it, "influencing others to promote their {the bystanders'} view of the will of the Lord."  I think the safer approach is to cite scriptural and prophetic counsel, and to clearly differentiate that stuff from my "view of the will of the Lord" in any particular circumstance.

In the end, we each must do what we think is right.

I have a very hard time crafting a set of circumstances in which I would feel comfortable encouraging someone to ignore or reject The Proclamation and other modern prophetic counsel regarding "gender identity" issues.  I would, instead, encourage someone to use scripture, prayer, reasoning, counsel, etc. to ascertain what the Lord wants them to do, and then they should encourage the members to do that.  If I had some particularized stewardship (that is, if one of my children were struggling with gender identity issues), I would consider offering more in-depth counsel.

Thanks,

-Smac

It is the former, and Elder Bednar’s counsel as you present it seems like something he would offer, and I believe applies to the layperson as well. I’m sure the assumption of charity and avoiding contention is already in there. This is why when someone tells me, “The Lord told me such-and-such,” and it conflicts with what He told me, or doesn't align with my concerns and biases, I usually respond with, “I can’t and won’t tell you what the Lord did or didn’t tell you*, but I sure love you and know the Lord is reaching out to you.” By that time, they are usually no longer open to scriptural, prophetic and inspired counsel on the topic, so I focus on treating them in a Christlike manner.

I can relate to the difficulty of taking doctrine and counsel out of the conversation for a time, but treating them well is not to encourage them to ignore or reject it, either. I am confident the Lord is working with them and not giving up. I guess how I treat them depends on how important the relationship is (shown by how we preserve the friendship) and my relationship with the Lord (shown by how I act and feel). In the meantime, *is acknowledging the theoretical possibility of the seemingly incomprehensible a no-go?

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It is the former, and Elder Bednar’s counsel as you present it seems like something he would offer, and I believe applies to the layperson as well. I’m sure the assumption of charity and avoiding contention is already in there. This is why when someone tells me, “The Lord told me such-and-such,” and it conflicts with what He told me, or doesn't align with my concerns and biases, I usually respond with, “I can’t and won’t tell you what the Lord did or didn’t tell you*, but I sure love you and know the Lord is reaching out to you.” By that time, they are usually no longer open to scriptural, prophetic and inspired counsel on the topic, so I focus on treating them in a Christlike manner.

Good counsel.

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I can relate to the difficulty of taking doctrine and counsel out of the conversation for a time, but treating them well is not to encourage them to ignore or reject it, either. I am confident the Lord is working with them and not giving up. I guess how I treat them depends on how important the relationship is (shown by how we preserve the friendship) and my relationship with the Lord (shown by how I act and feel). In the meantime, *is acknowledging the theoretical possibility of the seemingly incomprehensible a no-go?

No.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Good counsel.

No.

Thanks,

-Smac

Same here. But let's celebrate some the "no-gos" in other areas, such as: Heavenly Father and Christ are real, the priesthood and Church were restored through Joseph Smith and his successors are legitimate, the Book of Mormon is the word of God, the Family Proclamation contains no errors.

[smac97]

55 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Same here. But let's celebrate some the "no-gos" in other areas, such as: Heavenly Father and Christ are real, the priesthood and Church were restored through Joseph Smith and his successors are legitimate, the Book of Mormon is the word of God, the Family Proclamation contains no errors.

Within the Latter-day Saint paradigm, sure.  Disregarding compliance with that paradigm, there are no "no-gos."  People are free to say, think/believe whatever they want.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

... In my view, the likelihood of such a potential/apparent exception plainly contradicting scriptural/prophetic counsel on a fundamental moral/doctrinal issue, and yet still being ontologically correct, is . . . pretty low.  De minimis low.  

Outside of unresolvable epistemically uncertain situations arising from a DSD?

For myself, I would say "No."  I would say the same thing about a question regarding whether I, via personal revelation, could "correctly ascertain" that my "spirit" is actually that of a dragon or a wolf, or that I should enter into polygamy, or that I can step out on my wife, and so on. 

Let us consider this scenario:

• A Latter-day Saint, Alex (who is unambiguously male, no DSD or anything), uses all four "legs of the stool" ((1) scripture, (2) prophetic counsel, (3) reason and (4) personal revelation) and finds that (4), and possibly (3), essentially contradict (1) and (2) as to whether his biological sex (male) comports with his inner-held sense of "gender" (he feels he is a "woman trapped in a man's body," and/or that his spirit is actually female). 
• Let us further say that Alex seeks guidance and counsel from priesthood leaders, who refer him to prophetic counsel on this issue (The Proclamation, Pres. Oaks' 2019 remarks, etc.), and encourages him to seek guidance through fasting, prayer, temple attendance, etc.
• Let us further say that Alex gives some consideration to the possible influence of sociological factors and emotional/mental health issues in his deliberative and decision-making processes (regarding the sex of his spirit).

Let us reduce the potential outcomes to two potential conclusions:

Conclusion A: Alex, having sincerely and earnestly examined the issue in the foregoing ways, decides that the cumulative result of the "four legs" is complementary, not contradictory, and on that basis either concludes that his biological sex in the here and now corresponds with his biological sex in the eternities, and that his inner-held feelings to the contrary are in error, the result of temporal conditions and influences, etc., and that such things will be resolved in the Lord's due course.

Conclusion B: Alex, having sincerely and earnestly examined the issue in the foregoing ways, decides that the cumulative result of the "four legs" is that they are irreconcilably contradictory.  That is, his own sense of reason and personal revelation confirm his inner-held feelings (he feels he is a "woman trapped in a man's body," and/or that his spirit is actually female), even though such confirmation contradicts The Proclamation, etc.  Consequently, Alex sets aside, or exempts himself from, the principles set forth in The Proclamation and other scriptural and prophetic sources, and chooses to believe that his spirit is female.

Is Conclusion B possible?  Sure, this conclusion can be reached.  Laurie Lee Hall (f/k/a Larry Lee Hall) is a good example. ...

 

Small correction: In his former life, he was known as David Bruce Hall.  (Which, I'll grant you, is not nearly as alliterative as Laurie Lee or Larry Lee ... )

Edited March 1, 2025 by Kenngo1969

[Ragerunner]

On 1/24/2025 at 5:29 PM, CV75 said:

Do you think you could get this into the Tribune as an op-ed/guest essay/letter to the editor?

Maybe a paperback.

[CV75]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

Within the Latter-day Saint paradigm, sure.  Disregarding compliance with that paradigm, there are no "no-gos."  People are free to say, think/believe whatever they want.

Thanks,

-Smac

Complying with the LDS paradigm also sees that people are free to say, think and believe whatever they want (e.g., Article of Faith #11 and D&C 134).

[Teancum]

On 2/25/2025 at 2:07 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It's hard when your ideology runs into the real world isn't it.

Oddly as I have been reading through this thread and I saw @longview's comment to you I though the same thing. I highly doubt many if the LDS believers here would be near as agitated about this topic if they did not have their religious dogma overriding most everything else in their lives.