Ten percent of BYU liberal arts students admit to identifying as LGBT

[Christianlee]

https://redstate.com/alexparker/2022/12 ... tq-n676162

“ [LGBTQ] students made up no more than 15 percent of students in the weighted sample at BYU (10 percent), Utah State (11 percent), Bucknell (13 percent), University of Miami (14 percent), Notre Dame (14 percent), and Clemson (14 percent).”

I suppose we can be happy it is so low compared to other schools.

[tribrac]

I heard it suggested that the numbers are very skewed high because young people are so influenced by peer pressure and wanting to fit in that many will claim to be Bi sexual just so they can fit In.

I don't know if it is true, but if you take out the bi's and only look at LGQ, the numbers are much lower.

[FearlessFixxer]

I am skeptical that the church will ever budge on the LGBT issue, but if they figure out a way to do it, I can't wait for the fallout. How many will claim to have pulled over to the side of the road to weep tears of joy vs how many will leave the church over this issue? It is a question I would love to be able to answer in my lifetime.

Also, you should not tie even an ounce of your happiness to the number of LGBT people that exist at BYU. So dumb.

[tribrac]

Do you mean the church will not budge from it's current policy, or from the policy from 3 years ago, or the one they will announce next year?

[Christianlee]

I am skeptical that the church will ever budge on the LGBT issue, but if they figure out a way to do it, I can't wait for the fallout. How many will claim to have pulled over to the side of the road to weep tears of joy vs how many will leave the church over this issue? It is a question I would love to be able to answer in my lifetime.

Also, you should not tie even an ounce of your happiness to the number of LGBT people that exist at BYU. So dumb.

I disagree. If I am going to send my kids to a university I am happier knowing they are going to a school where sin is not tolerated because it will ultimately effect their happiness. Grooming seems to even be happening at BYU.

[The Red Pill]

This is the bitter fruit of a church that has lost it's way.

Is anyone really surprised...when:

1. Q15 supports gay marriage act...sends reps to signing.
2. Church allowed progressives to infiltrate BYU.
3. Completely changed position on gays.

The Church is a long road away from the prop 8 days.

[BuriedTartaria]

I am skeptical that the church will ever budge on the LGBT issue, but if they figure out a way to do it.

I feel like they're almost there with their support and their reasoning of supporting that defend marriage act. I've been surprised at how well they're seemingly pulling off this ability to have their cake and eat it too on this issue.

If/when they completely budge on it, people have got to understand that the truth of the Book of Mormon (even if it isn't true, though I really believe it is true) shouldn't be tied to the truthfulness of the LDS church. Peoples' testimonies are going to be crushed. People will be hurting.

[Christianlee]

I heard it suggested that the numbers are very skewed high because young people are so influenced by peer pressure and wanting to fit in that many will claim to be Bi sexual just so they can fit In.

I don't know if it is true, but if you take out the bi's and only look at LGQ, the numbers are much lower.

Change people to women on the bisexual issue. It is not surprising that women’s colleges have over 50% LGBQ. One dad I know was told by his “lesbian” daughter that she didn’t want to be lonely so she chose to be a lesbian. This is not that uncommon.

[BroJones]

Isn't the Church consistent on supporting homosexual attraction and even marriages, as long as their is no sexual ACTIVITY man-on-man or woman-on-woman?

That is possible, right? And they could still get a Temple Recommend?

[Lizzy60]

Isn't the Church consistent on supporting homosexual attraction and even marriages, as long as their is no sexual ACTIVITY man-on-man or woman-on-woman?

That is possible, right? And they could still get a Temple Recommend?

It’s being reported that this is happening. If so, then the Church needs to totally give up on the idea that marriage is a sacred covenant instituted by God. You can’t have gay married couples (even with no sexual activity) admitted to the temple, and say that marriage is sacred.

Evangelicals are probably laughing themselves silly over the twisting Mormons are doing.

[crabman]

Isn't the Church consistent on supporting homosexual attraction and even marriages, as long as their is no sexual ACTIVITY man-on-man or woman-on-woman?

That is possible, right? And they could still get a Temple Recommend?

If so, that's completely inconsistent with the language in the temple that says desires appetites and passions are to be kept within the bounds the Lord has set.

Homosexual attraction would imply some level of desire, and is clearly a desire outside the bounds the Lord has set.

Seems wrong and very inconsistent for the church to also say it's okay to have those desires but not act on them.

[FearlessFixxer]

I am skeptical that the church will ever budge on the LGBT issue, but if they figure out a way to do it.

I feel like they're almost there with their support and their reasoning of supporting that defend marriage act. I've been surprised at how well they're seemingly pulling off this ability to have their cake and eat it too on this issue.

If/when they completely budge on it, people have got to understand that the truth of the Book of Mormon (even if it isn't true, though I really believe it is true) shouldn't be tied to the truthfulness of the LDS church. Peoples' testimonies are going to be crushed. People will be hurting.

I agree with you, which is huge part of the reason I don't ever think they will change. 1. allowed same sex sealings in the temple completely changes the plan of salvation in a way no other doctrinal change has done to this point. 2. I believe there will always been significantly more active members against such a change then for it as most LGBT allies eventually leave the church and/or are almost never called to positions of power significant enough to push for the change.

[Lizzy60]

Isn't the Church consistent on supporting homosexual attraction and even marriages, as long as their is no sexual ACTIVITY man-on-man or woman-on-woman?

That is possible, right? And they could still get a Temple Recommend?

If so, that's completely inconsistent with the language in the temple that says desires appetites and passions are to be kept within the bounds the Lord has set.

Homosexual attraction would imply some level of desire, and is clearly a desire outside the bounds the Lord has set.

Seems wrong and very inconsistent for the church to also say it's okay to have those desires but not act on them.

This is why some of us were in opposition to the Mormon and Gay LDS website, because on that site, which is full of Q15 quotes and videos, it states that Same-Sex Attraction is NOT a sin, and that it is fine with the Church if an individual chooses to “come out” and identify publicly as LGBTQ.

[4Joshua8]

Isn't the Church consistent on supporting homosexual attraction and even marriages, as long as their is no sexual ACTIVITY man-on-man or woman-on-woman?

That is possible, right? And they could still get a Temple Recommend?

If so, that's completely inconsistent with the language in the temple that says desires appetites and passions are to be kept within the bounds the Lord has set.

Homosexual attraction would imply some level of desire, and is clearly a desire outside the bounds the Lord has set.

Seems wrong and very inconsistent for the church to also say it's okay to have those desires but not act on them.

This is why some of us were in opposition to the Mormon and Gay LDS website, because on that site, which is full of Q15 quotes and videos, it states that Same-Sex Attraction is NOT a sin, and that it is fine with the Church if an individual chooses to “come out” and identify publicly as LGBTQ.

I'd be all for reaching out to the queer community if in our outreach, we were telling them the truth: repent or be utterly destroyed.

Can you imagine a current general authority saying that? I can imagine one or two of them loosely implying it, but that's about it.

[spiritMan]

Isn't the Church consistent on supporting homosexual attraction and even marriages, as long as their is no sexual ACTIVITY man-on-man or woman-on-woman?

That is possible, right? And they could still get a Temple Recommend?

Seems wrong and very inconsistent for the church to also say it's okay to have those desires but not act on them.

Exactly!

Welcome to the modern Church.

You can have lust in your heart for the same-sex; tell the entire world that you sexually/romantically desire the same-sex and you are totally cool.

If you have lust in your heart for the opposite-sex; tell the entire world that you sexually/romantically desire the opposite-sex (besides your opposite-sex spouse) you need to repent.

The homosexuals are just clearly a much more righteous, better class of people.

[Luke]

Can any good thing come out of BYU?

[spiritMan]

Isn't the Church consistent on supporting homosexual attraction and even marriages, as long as their is no sexual ACTIVITY man-on-man or woman-on-woman?

That is possible, right? And they could still get a Temple Recommend?

If so, that's completely inconsistent with the language in the temple that says desires appetites and passions are to be kept within the bounds the Lord has set.

Homosexual attraction would imply some level of desire, and is clearly a desire outside the bounds the Lord has set.

Seems wrong and very inconsistent for the church to also say it's okay to have those desires but not act on them.

This is why some of us were in opposition to the Mormon and Gay LDS website, because on that site, which is full of Q15 quotes and videos, it states that Same-Sex Attraction is NOT a sin, and that it is fine with the Church if an individual chooses to “come out” and identify publicly as LGBTQ.

I'd be all for reaching out to the queer community if in our outreach, we were telling them the truth: repent or be utterly destroyed.

Can you imagine a current general authority saying that? I can imagine one or two of them loosely implying it, but that's about it.

Hah!!!!

In my local ward, they gave baby blessings to the child of an openly queer couple who are "married". It's totally legit according to the Handbook.

[NeveR]

Isn't the Church consistent on supporting homosexual attraction and even marriages, as long as their is no sexual ACTIVITY man-on-man or woman-on-woman?

That is possible, right? And they could still get a Temple Recommend?

Ok, so picture the scene -

You're a heterosexual married man and you meet a female you are strongly attracted to spiritually & physically. And she to you.

You both know that encouraging this attraction is dangerous and sinful - but you REALLY like each other.

So, after mature thought, you decide the best solution would be for this woman you like so much to move in to your family home & sleep in the guest bedroom.

Your SP tells you this is a great idea - provided you NEVER entertain any illicit thoughts of slipping into her bed while your wife is asleep or away from home.

You promise him this will absolutely NEVER happen - & the woman moves in to your home.

QUESTIONS -

1) How do you think this turns out?

2) If you and hypothetical woman were really concerned with avoiding sin - why the heck is she moving in with you?

3) Why would this scenario be any different with two gay men?

4) Do you now see the tiny flaw in your argument?

[HVDC]

Isn't the Church consistent on supporting homosexual attraction and even marriages, as long as their is no sexual ACTIVITY man-on-man or woman-on-woman?

That is possible, right? And they could still get a Temple Recommend?

Seems wrong and very inconsistent for the church to also say it's okay to have those desires but not act on them.

Exactly!

Welcome to the modern Church.

You can have lust in your heart for the same-sex; tell the entire world that you sexually/romantically desire the same-sex and you are totally cool.

If you have lust in your heart for the opposite-sex; tell the entire world that you sexually/romantically desire the opposite-sex (besides your opposite-sex spouse) you need to repent.

The homosexuals are just clearly a much more righteous, better class of people.

They are treating them as if they have a disability that must be accommodated instead of a behavioral problem that needs to be corrected.

Sir H

[Niemand]

In my local ward, they gave baby blessings to the child of an openly queer couple who are "married". It's totally legit according to the Handbook.

A baby should be allowed to blessed (or later baptised) regardless of who its parents are or what they do. It is an independent spirit. That is what the FP got wrong a few years back. We are responsible for our own actions.

[spiritMan]

In my local ward, they gave baby blessings to the child of an openly queer couple who are "married". It's totally legit according to the Handbook.

A baby should be allowed to blessed (or later baptised) regardless of who its parents are or what they do. It is an independent spirit. That is what the FP got wrong a few years back. We are responsible for our own actions.

Not for a baby blessing.

[spiritMan]

In my local ward, they gave baby blessings to the child of an openly queer couple who are "married". It's totally legit according to the Handbook.

A baby should be allowed to blessed (or later baptised) regardless of who its parents are or what they do. It is an independent spirit. That is what the FP got wrong a few years back. We are responsible for our own actions.

A baby blessing is not anything that is required. It puts the baby in the church's records.

To allow a baby to be blessed in Church were BOTH parents are not members where they are living an abomination is in itself and abomination, it gives legitimacy to that union.

On baptism, I agree with you, not on a baby blessing bc it is NOT a saving ordinance and is a PRIVILEGE for cradle members, but is again not necessary.

[spiritMan]

Isn't the Church consistent on supporting homosexual attraction and even marriages, as long as their is no sexual ACTIVITY man-on-man or woman-on-woman?

That is possible, right? And they could still get a Temple Recommend?

Seems wrong and very inconsistent for the church to also say it's okay to have those desires but not act on them.

Exactly!

Welcome to the modern Church.

You can have lust in your heart for the same-sex; tell the entire world that you sexually/romantically desire the same-sex and you are totally cool.

If you have lust in your heart for the opposite-sex; tell the entire world that you sexually/romantically desire the opposite-sex (besides your opposite-sex spouse) you need to repent.

The homosexuals are just clearly a much more righteous, better class of people.

They are treating them as if they have a disability that must be accommodated instead of a behavioral problem that needs to be corrected.

Sir H

Yes and that flows from a wrong fundamental understanding of the very nature of reality.

[Niemand]

Not for a baby blessing.

Says who? The rule of priestcraft.

The argument shouldn't be whether a baby with such a background should be blessed, but who is allowed to bless it.

See here:

We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

A baby blessing is not anything that is required. It puts the baby in the church's records.

What is it then? As I understand it, a blessing on a baby is to ensure its health and future happiness and the protection of angels.

To allow a baby to be blessed in Church were BOTH parents are not members where they are living an abomination is in itself and abomination, it gives legitimacy to that union.

If it is a homosexual relationship, then the baby will not be the result of it. (Unless an egg has been tampered with in a laboratory somewhere, which is unlikely at this stage.)

A baby blessing is for the baby not the parents.

[blitzinstripes]

I am skeptical that the church will ever budge on the LGBT issue, but if they figure out a way to do it.

I feel like they're almost there with their support and their reasoning of supporting that defend marriage act. I've been surprised at how well they're seemingly pulling off this ability to have their cake and eat it too on this issue.

If/when they completely budge on it, people have got to understand that the truth of the Book of Mormon (even if it isn't true, though I really believe it is true) shouldn't be tied to the truthfulness of the LDS church. Peoples' testimonies are going to be crushed. People will be hurting.

I agree with you, which is huge part of the reason I don't ever think they will change. 1. allowed same sex sealings in the temple completely changes the plan of salvation in a way no other doctrinal change has done to this point. 2. I believe there will always been significantly more active members against such a change then for it as most LGBT allies eventually leave the church and/or are almost never called to positions of power significant enough to push for the change.

Apparently, you've never heard of Sharon Eubank.