LDS Freedom Forum

Its not too hard really. Lets look at history:

In the late 1800's the Church's isolation in the Utah territory came to an end as the United States government decided that it was going to take a personal interest in a group of people that were openly breaking the law (polygamy). Eventually, the Church leaders decided to abandon polygamy as a doctrine in favor of gaining statehood for Utah and all the benefits that come with the federal government purse strings (although many would still practice it in secret for decades).

Fast forward to today: you may not like it but the FACT is that within the past few decades homosexuals have become a federally protected class. This means that you break the law if you refuse to hire someone because they are a homosexual, for example. Federal law trumps state law. BYU, although a private institution, still is subject to Federal laws. A student that is a homosexual cannot be refused a grant or any other privilege on the basis of their sexuality.

So this is why BYU and the Church is becoming vague about their reference to homosexual behavior at BYU. They are trying to stick to their doctrine while also obeying Federal law.

You may not like it, but this is what is happening and its the same thing as what happened to polygamy over a hundred years ago....

So close BYU.....I’m ok with that. We either stand for Gods commandments, or become a wicked people.

PressingForward wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 9:36 am So close BYU.....I’m ok with that. We either stand for Gods commandments, or become a wicked people.

Yes, the church school system should be dissolved. Leadership in Salt Lake is no longer capable of controlling what is taught, all the way down to local seminary teachers.

For example, some people have reported that they removed their teenager from seminary because the teacher taught toxic homophobic ideas, like the Proclamation and that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Others have removed their children because they were being taught that God makes people gay, and that they should able to act (gay dating and marriage) according to the way He made them.

A family member of mine taught Institute for many years, and taught many classes about calling and election and other things not in the official manuals. He retired in the early 80's. Around 1985 a new directive was put out that there would be no deviation from the correlated manuals from that point forward. He has shown me a copy of the letter sent. He told me that most of his classes would no longer be allowed under the new rules. So yes, they felt the need to control what was being taught. I'm not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing, it's just a fact.

Now that homosexuality has become politicized, and a protected class of people, there's no way that any CES teacher can be held to teaching whatever is the Church's current stance. So it's a crapshoot on what your child will hear in seminary, institute, or any of the Church schools.

PressingForward wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 9:36 am So close BYU.....I’m ok with that. We either stand for Gods commandments, or become a wicked people.

The Kingdom of God or nothing.

Either we teach true principles or we are not worthy to be called His servants.

I probably shouldn't even be getting into this topic because of my inexperience in it. I don't understand why or how some people grow up with homosexual inclinations. But I believe that God is capable of somehow changing a person from having homosexual inclinations to having normal heterosexual inclinations. I just calls 'em as I sees 'em, with no apologies.

As for BYU and its satellite universities, when I realized that BYU forced Professor Steven Jones into retirement because of his contribution to the exposure of truths behind the destruction of WTC 1 and WTC 2, I set out to find out why the Church would tolerate interference by government as it seems to be doing. I finally decided that for now its most important mission is to create good will and build up its membership regardless of certain persuasions of some members and prospective members that clash with gospel doctrines and teachings.

No one is a bigger BYU supporter/apologist than I am. I've been texting and emailing people I know about this all morning. I am literally fighting back tears at some points.

Here is the MAJOR issue BYU has gotten themselves into: we all agree that there is a natural progression to our physical affections. When we're teenagers we cuddle, canoodle, make out, etc. Then when we're married we are able to give full expression to our feelings. BYU is putting gay affection into the same category but cutting it off halfway. IOW, it's totally ok to make out, etc, just like heteros, but UNLIKE heteros, you can't give full expression to it when you're married. They're giving the first half full sanction and the other part none. It's ridiculously inconsistent and indefensible. It's either ALL ok or it's not. BYU made a huge mistake in retreating from their line in the sand, and I'm absolutely mortified.

According to BYU, if you're not breaking the law of chastity, you're good. So by that ridiculously generous standard, a married couple living at Wymount could introduce another person into their relationship, AS LONG AS THEY DON'T BREAK THE LAW OF CHASTITY. Makes sense, right? Hell no it doesn't. Both are examples of Godly-sanctioned relationships being perverted.

gangbusters wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 10:40 am No one is a bigger BYU supporter/apologist than I am. I've been texting and emailing people I know about this all morning. I am literally fighting back tears at some points.

Here is the MAJOR issue BYU has gotten themselves into: we all agree that there is a natural progression to our physical affections. When we're teenagers we cuddle, canoodle, make out, etc. Then when we're married we are able to give full expression to our feelings. BYU is putting gay affection into the same category but cutting it off halfway. IOW, it's totally ok to make out, etc, just like heteros, but UNLIKE heteros, you can't give full expression to it when you're married. They're giving the first half full sanction and the other part none. It's ridiculously inconsistent and indefensible. It's either ALL ok or it's not. BYU made a huge mistake in retreating from their line in the sand, and I'm absolutely mortified.

According to BYU, if you're not breaking the law of chastity, you're good. So by that ridiculously generous standard, a married couple living at Wymount could introduce another person into their relationship, AS LONG AS THEY DON'T BREAK THE LAW OF CHASTITY. Makes sense, right? Hell no it doesn't. Both are examples of Godly-sanctioned relationships being perverted.

What did people think would happen once the Church stated that one could openly be homosexual but not act on it!

You are flipping out now . . .did you NOT see that this was mandated to happen years ago when the Church changed it's doctrine on homosexuality? The Church several years ago (about 2016ish) stated that it was okay to be homosexual in your mind and heart, but not in your actions. Now they state it's okay to be homosexual in your mind, heart and actions . . .as long as that action doesn't include sex. Soon enough it will be it's okay to have homosexual sex as long as you are "married", but you can't be "sealed" in the Temple. And soon even that domino will fall.

Lizzy60, myself and others have been warning for a looooooonnnnnggggg time this was coming. But no one listened.

johnBob wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 10:48 am

gangbusters wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 10:40 am No one is a bigger BYU supporter/apologist than I am. I've been texting and emailing people I know about this all morning. I am literally fighting back tears at some points.

Here is the MAJOR issue BYU has gotten themselves into: we all agree that there is a natural progression to our physical affections. When we're teenagers we cuddle, canoodle, make out, etc. Then when we're married we are able to give full expression to our feelings. BYU is putting gay affection into the same category but cutting it off halfway. IOW, it's totally ok to make out, etc, just like heteros, but UNLIKE heteros, you can't give full expression to it when you're married. They're giving the first half full sanction and the other part none. It's ridiculously inconsistent and indefensible. It's either ALL ok or it's not. BYU made a huge mistake in retreating from their line in the sand, and I'm absolutely mortified.

According to BYU, if you're not breaking the law of chastity, you're good. So by that ridiculously generous standard, a married couple living at Wymount could introduce another person into their relationship, AS LONG AS THEY DON'T BREAK THE LAW OF CHASTITY. Makes sense, right? Hell no it doesn't. Both are examples of Godly-sanctioned relationships being perverted.

What did people think would happen once the Church stated that one could openly be homosexual but not act on it!

You are flipping out now . . .did you NOT see that this was mandated to happen years ago when the Church changed it's doctrine on homosexuality? The Church several years ago (about 2016ish) stated that it was okay to be homosexual in your mind and heart, but not in your actions. Now they state it's okay to be homosexual in your mind, heart and actions . . .as long as that action doesn't include sex. Soon enough it will be it's okay to have homosexual sex as long as you are "married", but you can't be "sealed" in the Temple. And soon even that domino will fall.

Lizzy60, myself and others have been warning for a looooooonnnnnggggg time this was coming. But no one listened.

I'm not ready to make that leap yet, but I never thought BYU would do this.

gangbusters wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 10:54 am

johnBob wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 10:48 am

gangbusters wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 10:40 am No one is a bigger BYU supporter/apologist than I am. I've been texting and emailing people I know about this all morning. I am literally fighting back tears at some points.

Here is the MAJOR issue BYU has gotten themselves into: we all agree that there is a natural progression to our physical affections. When we're teenagers we cuddle, canoodle, make out, etc. Then when we're married we are able to give full expression to our feelings. BYU is putting gay affection into the same category but cutting it off halfway. IOW, it's totally ok to make out, etc, just like heteros, but UNLIKE heteros, you can't give full expression to it when you're married. They're giving the first half full sanction and the other part none. It's ridiculously inconsistent and indefensible. It's either ALL ok or it's not. BYU made a huge mistake in retreating from their line in the sand, and I'm absolutely mortified.

According to BYU, if you're not breaking the law of chastity, you're good. So by that ridiculously generous standard, a married couple living at Wymount could introduce another person into their relationship, AS LONG AS THEY DON'T BREAK THE LAW OF CHASTITY. Makes sense, right? Hell no it doesn't. Both are examples of Godly-sanctioned relationships being perverted.

What did people think would happen once the Church stated that one could openly be homosexual but not act on it!

You are flipping out now . . .did you NOT see that this was mandated to happen years ago when the Church changed it's doctrine on homosexuality? The Church several years ago (about 2016ish) stated that it was okay to be homosexual in your mind and heart, but not in your actions. Now they state it's okay to be homosexual in your mind, heart and actions . . .as long as that action doesn't include sex. Soon enough it will be it's okay to have homosexual sex as long as you are "married", but you can't be "sealed" in the Temple. And soon even that domino will fall.

Lizzy60, myself and others have been warning for a looooooonnnnnggggg time this was coming. But no one listened.

I'm not ready to make that leap yet, but I never thought BYU would do this.

Ce la vie; you reap what you sow.

BYU's new Honor Code falls right in line with the new Church policy. Inside the Church TODAY, based upon the new handbook, homosexuals can date, kiss, hold hands, basically do ANYTHING that non-married heterosexual couples can do without fear of "law of Chastity" violations.

But you can remain in your own denial . . . your choice.

johnBob wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 10:57 am

gangbusters wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 10:54 am

johnBob wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 10:48 am

gangbusters wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 10:40 am No one is a bigger BYU supporter/apologist than I am. I've been texting and emailing people I know about this all morning. I am literally fighting back tears at some points.

Here is the MAJOR issue BYU has gotten themselves into: we all agree that there is a natural progression to our physical affections. When we're teenagers we cuddle, canoodle, make out, etc. Then when we're married we are able to give full expression to our feelings. BYU is putting gay affection into the same category but cutting it off halfway. IOW, it's totally ok to make out, etc, just like heteros, but UNLIKE heteros, you can't give full expression to it when you're married. They're giving the first half full sanction and the other part none. It's ridiculously inconsistent and indefensible. It's either ALL ok or it's not. BYU made a huge mistake in retreating from their line in the sand, and I'm absolutely mortified.

According to BYU, if you're not breaking the law of chastity, you're good. So by that ridiculously generous standard, a married couple living at Wymount could introduce another person into their relationship, AS LONG AS THEY DON'T BREAK THE LAW OF CHASTITY. Makes sense, right? Hell no it doesn't. Both are examples of Godly-sanctioned relationships being perverted.

What did people think would happen once the Church stated that one could openly be homosexual but not act on it!

You are flipping out now . . .did you NOT see that this was mandated to happen years ago when the Church changed it's doctrine on homosexuality? The Church several years ago (about 2016ish) stated that it was okay to be homosexual in your mind and heart, but not in your actions. Now they state it's okay to be homosexual in your mind, heart and actions . . .as long as that action doesn't include sex. Soon enough it will be it's okay to have homosexual sex as long as you are "married", but you can't be "sealed" in the Temple. And soon even that domino will fall.

Lizzy60, myself and others have been warning for a looooooonnnnnggggg time this was coming. But no one listened.

I'm not ready to make that leap yet, but I never thought BYU would do this.

Ce la vie; you reap what you sow.

BYU's new Honor Code falls right in line with the new Church policy. Inside the Church TODAY, based upon the new handbook, homosexuals can date, kiss, hold hands, basically do ANYTHING that non-married heterosexual couples can do without fear of "law of Chastity" violations.

But you can remain in your own denial . . . your choice.

I'm not denying anything. I react to what I see and to what happens. If what you say will happens happens then I'll also react accordingly. I'm not sure what good it will do to assume something will happen before it does. But as you say, it's our own choice.

God very clearly declared in the D&C that if we would live His laws, He would fight our battles.
Seems like there were 3 hebrews that defied the king of Babylon, they were thrown into the fiery furnace, and believe me, they fully thought they were going to their death, they were willing to die for the faith. WE ARE NOT, hence, that is why God will not fight our battles.
So, just quit all your crying the blues, every single thing that the feds throw at us, WE WILL COMPROMISE, PERIOD. We have so far, since the feds completely broke us in the late 1800,s. Should not surprise anybody, and we will continue to compromise on every single confrontation until the predicted Deliverer comes and defies the corrupt powers that be.
All this is predicted in the scriptures from a few thousand years ago, and also predicted by some in the last century.
Compromises and concessions is what we are famous for, and we will continue to compromise until He comes who's right it is to reign. Then there will be a cleansing, a setting in order, a restoration of what Joseph and Brigham tried to get us to live in the first place.

gangbusters wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 11:12 am

johnBob wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 10:57 am

gangbusters wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 10:54 am

johnBob wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 10:48 am
What did people think would happen once the Church stated that one could openly be homosexual but not act on it!

You are flipping out now . . .did you NOT see that this was mandated to happen years ago when the Church changed it's doctrine on homosexuality? The Church several years ago (about 2016ish) stated that it was okay to be homosexual in your mind and heart, but not in your actions. Now they state it's okay to be homosexual in your mind, heart and actions . . .as long as that action doesn't include sex. Soon enough it will be it's okay to have homosexual sex as long as you are "married", but you can't be "sealed" in the Temple. And soon even that domino will fall.

Lizzy60, myself and others have been warning for a looooooonnnnnggggg time this was coming. But no one listened.

I'm not ready to make that leap yet, but I never thought BYU would do this.

Ce la vie; you reap what you sow.

BYU's new Honor Code falls right in line with the new Church policy. Inside the Church TODAY, based upon the new handbook, homosexuals can date, kiss, hold hands, basically do ANYTHING that non-married heterosexual couples can do without fear of "law of Chastity" violations.

But you can remain in your own denial . . . your choice.

I'm not denying anything. I react to what I see and to what happens. If what you say will happens happens then I'll also react accordingly. I'm not sure what good it will do to assume something will happen before it does. But as you say, it's our own choice.

You are welcome to do so.

My point being, don't break down in tears over something that had you been paying attention you could have predicted years ago.

simpleton wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 11:15 am God very clearly declared in the D&C that if we would live His laws, He would fight our battles.
Seems like there were 3 hebrews that defied the king of Babylon, they were thrown into the fiery furnace, and believe me, they fully thought they were going to their death, they were willing to die for the faith. WE ARE NOT, hence, that is why God will not fight our battles.
So, just quit all your crying the blues, every single thing that the feds throw at us, WE WILL COMPROMISE, PERIOD. We have so far, since the feds completely broke us in the late 1800,s. Should not surprise anybody, and we will continue to compromise on every single confrontation until the predicted Deliverer comes and defies the corrupt powers that be.
All this is predicted in the scriptures from a few thousand years ago, and also predicted by some in the last century.
Compromises and concessions is what we are famous for, and we will continue to compromise until He comes who's right it is to reign. Then there will be a cleansing, a setting in order, a restoration of what Joseph and Brigham tried to get us to live in the first place.

Exactly right.

thestock wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 9:18 am Its not too hard really. Lets look at history:

In the late 1800's the Church's isolation in the Utah territory came to an end as the United States government decided that it was going to take a personal interest in a group of people that were openly breaking the law (polygamy). Eventually, the Church leaders decided to abandon polygamy as a doctrine in favor of gaining statehood for Utah and all the benefits that come with the federal government purse strings (although many would still practice it in secret for decades).

Fast forward to today: you may not like it but the FACT is that within the past few decades homosexuals have become a federally protected class. This means that you break the law if you refuse to hire someone because they are a homosexual, for example. Federal law trumps state law. BYU, although a private institution, still is subject to Federal laws. A student that is a homosexual cannot be refused a grant or any other privilege on the basis of their sexuality.

So this is why BYU and the Church is becoming vague about their reference to homosexual behavior at BYU. They are trying to stick to their doctrine while also obeying Federal law.

You may not like it, but this is what is happening and its the same thing as what happened to polygamy over a hundred years ago....

They might be a federally protected class but they are not a spiritually protected class. You may not like it but the FACT is that there will be no same sex couples in the celestial kingdom.

simpleton wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 11:15 am God very clearly declared in the D&C that if we would live His laws, He would fight our battles.

This is the big point.

If we have to become like to the world to be tolerated by the world...then why bothering separate?

thestock wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 9:18 am Its not too hard really. Lets look at history:

In the late 1800's the Church's isolation in the Utah territory came to an end as the United States government decided that it was going to take a personal interest in a group of people that were openly breaking the law (polygamy). Eventually, the Church leaders decided to abandon polygamy as a doctrine in favor of gaining statehood for Utah and all the benefits that come with the federal government purse strings (although many would still practice it in secret for decades).

Fast forward to today: you may not like it but the FACT is that within the past few decades homosexuals have become a federally protected class. This means that you break the law if you refuse to hire someone because they are a homosexual, for example. Federal law trumps state law. BYU, although a private institution, still is subject to Federal laws. A student that is a homosexual cannot be refused a grant or any other privilege on the basis of their sexuality.

So this is why BYU and the Church is becoming vague about their reference to homosexual behavior at BYU. They are trying to stick to their doctrine while also obeying Federal law.

You may not like it, but this is what is happening and its the same thing as what happened to polygamy over a hundred years ago....

Yes, but with a marked difference this time.

With polygyny, when the church went back to monogamy only, it wasn't a violation of Eternal law. There is nothing inherently wrong with having one wife, even if polygyny is acceptable to God when authorized and practiced according to righteous principles.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, isn't that way. There's nothing to fall back on. Therefore, trying to balance the law with the doctrine is the only way, unless we rely on God to fight our battle for us, which I don't object to, even if it means hard times.

markharr wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 11:21 am

thestock wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 9:18 am Its not too hard really. Lets look at history:

In the late 1800's the Church's isolation in the Utah territory came to an end as the United States government decided that it was going to take a personal interest in a group of people that were openly breaking the law (polygamy). Eventually, the Church leaders decided to abandon polygamy as a doctrine in favor of gaining statehood for Utah and all the benefits that come with the federal government purse strings (although many would still practice it in secret for decades).

Fast forward to today: you may not like it but the FACT is that within the past few decades homosexuals have become a federally protected class. This means that you break the law if you refuse to hire someone because they are a homosexual, for example. Federal law trumps state law. BYU, although a private institution, still is subject to Federal laws. A student that is a homosexual cannot be refused a grant or any other privilege on the basis of their sexuality.

So this is why BYU and the Church is becoming vague about their reference to homosexual behavior at BYU. They are trying to stick to their doctrine while also obeying Federal law.

You may not like it, but this is what is happening and its the same thing as what happened to polygamy over a hundred years ago....

They might be a federally protected class but they are not a spiritually protected class. You may not like it but the FACT is that there will be no same sex couples in the celestial kingdom.

Irrelevant to the discussion but I've come to expect you to attack me for no good reason so....cheers!

i'mnotspecial wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 11:26 am

thestock wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 9:18 am Its not too hard really. Lets look at history:

In the late 1800's the Church's isolation in the Utah territory came to an end as the United States government decided that it was going to take a personal interest in a group of people that were openly breaking the law (polygamy). Eventually, the Church leaders decided to abandon polygamy as a doctrine in favor of gaining statehood for Utah and all the benefits that come with the federal government purse strings (although many would still practice it in secret for decades).

Fast forward to today: you may not like it but the FACT is that within the past few decades homosexuals have become a federally protected class. This means that you break the law if you refuse to hire someone because they are a homosexual, for example. Federal law trumps state law. BYU, although a private institution, still is subject to Federal laws. A student that is a homosexual cannot be refused a grant or any other privilege on the basis of their sexuality.

So this is why BYU and the Church is becoming vague about their reference to homosexual behavior at BYU. They are trying to stick to their doctrine while also obeying Federal law.

You may not like it, but this is what is happening and its the same thing as what happened to polygamy over a hundred years ago....

Yes, but with a marked difference this time.

With polygyny, when the church went back to monogamy only, it wasn't a violation of Eternal law. There is nothing inherently wrong with having one wife, even if polygyny is acceptable to God when authorized and practiced according to righteous principles.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, isn't that way. There's nothing to fall back on. Therefore, trying to balance the law with the doctrine is the only way, unless we rely on God to fight our battle for us, which I don't object to, even if it means hard times.

Polygamy was terrible. If you think God sent an angel with a flaming sword to tell Joseph Smith to marry and have sex with young girls that were in his employ....then I have a bridge to sell you. Discriminating against people who are different from you is also pretty terrible. You can nitpick their sins all you want....I will nitpick yours.

thestock wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 11:53 am

i'mnotspecial wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 11:26 am

thestock wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 9:18 am Its not too hard really. Lets look at history:

In the late 1800's the Church's isolation in the Utah territory came to an end as the United States government decided that it was going to take a personal interest in a group of people that were openly breaking the law (polygamy). Eventually, the Church leaders decided to abandon polygamy as a doctrine in favor of gaining statehood for Utah and all the benefits that come with the federal government purse strings (although many would still practice it in secret for decades).

Fast forward to today: you may not like it but the FACT is that within the past few decades homosexuals have become a federally protected class. This means that you break the law if you refuse to hire someone because they are a homosexual, for example. Federal law trumps state law. BYU, although a private institution, still is subject to Federal laws. A student that is a homosexual cannot be refused a grant or any other privilege on the basis of their sexuality.

So this is why BYU and the Church is becoming vague about their reference to homosexual behavior at BYU. They are trying to stick to their doctrine while also obeying Federal law.

You may not like it, but this is what is happening and its the same thing as what happened to polygamy over a hundred years ago....

Yes, but with a marked difference this time.

With polygyny, when the church went back to monogamy only, it wasn't a violation of Eternal law. There is nothing inherently wrong with having one wife, even if polygyny is acceptable to God when authorized and practiced according to righteous principles.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, isn't that way. There's nothing to fall back on. Therefore, trying to balance the law with the doctrine is the only way, unless we rely on God to fight our battle for us, which I don't object to, even if it means hard times.

Polygamy was terrible. If you think God sent an angel with a flaming sword to tell Joseph Smith to marry and have sex with young girls that were in his employ....then I have a bridge to sell you. Discriminating against people who are different from you is also pretty terrible. You can nitpick their sins all you want....I will nitpick yours.

Please clarify -- are you saying that the leaders of the Church are discriminating against LGBTQ because they are withholding temple recommends, temple marriages, priesthood ordinations for transmasculine folks, and same-sex dating and PDA for gays at Church schools?

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 11:56 am

thestock wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 11:53 am

i'mnotspecial wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 11:26 am

thestock wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 9:18 am Its not too hard really. Lets look at history:

In the late 1800's the Church's isolation in the Utah territory came to an end as the United States government decided that it was going to take a personal interest in a group of people that were openly breaking the law (polygamy). Eventually, the Church leaders decided to abandon polygamy as a doctrine in favor of gaining statehood for Utah and all the benefits that come with the federal government purse strings (although many would still practice it in secret for decades).

Fast forward to today: you may not like it but the FACT is that within the past few decades homosexuals have become a federally protected class. This means that you break the law if you refuse to hire someone because they are a homosexual, for example. Federal law trumps state law. BYU, although a private institution, still is subject to Federal laws. A student that is a homosexual cannot be refused a grant or any other privilege on the basis of their sexuality.

So this is why BYU and the Church is becoming vague about their reference to homosexual behavior at BYU. They are trying to stick to their doctrine while also obeying Federal law.

You may not like it, but this is what is happening and its the same thing as what happened to polygamy over a hundred years ago....

Yes, but with a marked difference this time.

With polygyny, when the church went back to monogamy only, it wasn't a violation of Eternal law. There is nothing inherently wrong with having one wife, even if polygyny is acceptable to God when authorized and practiced according to righteous principles.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, isn't that way. There's nothing to fall back on. Therefore, trying to balance the law with the doctrine is the only way, unless we rely on God to fight our battle for us, which I don't object to, even if it means hard times.

Polygamy was terrible. If you think God sent an angel with a flaming sword to tell Joseph Smith to marry and have sex with young girls that were in his employ....then I have a bridge to sell you. Discriminating against people who are different from you is also pretty terrible. You can nitpick their sins all you want....I will nitpick yours.

Please clarify -- are you saying that the leaders of the Church are discriminating against LGBTQ because they are withholding temple recommends, temple marriages, priesthood ordinations for transmasculine folks, and same-sex dating and PDA for gays at Church schools?

No, none of that. If the Church went 100% private and dolled out its own scholarships and pell grants funded by tithe payers for every student that goes there and wants to employ and pay only heterosexual professors that fit the correct mold it wants, then there is no problem whatsoever on my end.

My problem is when people in this Church want to have their cake and eat it too. If BYU wants to participate in Federal programs and have an NCAA division I charter, then it must uphold and sustain the law....which includes allowing people to study there or work there that might fall outside the preferred mold.

But you didn't say anything about NCAA charters, or even BYU. You said "Discriminating against people who are different than you is also pretty terrible..."

Bishops, mission presidents, BYU admins, GA's discriminate against people because of what they perceive are their sins. Smoke? You can't be baptized. Gay married? You can't hold a calling and may be dis-membershipped. Transsexual? You can't go to RS or PH or YM or YW meetings.

thestock wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 11:53 am

i'mnotspecial wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 11:26 am

thestock wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 9:18 am Its not too hard really. Lets look at history:

In the late 1800's the Church's isolation in the Utah territory came to an end as the United States government decided that it was going to take a personal interest in a group of people that were openly breaking the law (polygamy). Eventually, the Church leaders decided to abandon polygamy as a doctrine in favor of gaining statehood for Utah and all the benefits that come with the federal government purse strings (although many would still practice it in secret for decades).

Fast forward to today: you may not like it but the FACT is that within the past few decades homosexuals have become a federally protected class. This means that you break the law if you refuse to hire someone because they are a homosexual, for example. Federal law trumps state law. BYU, although a private institution, still is subject to Federal laws. A student that is a homosexual cannot be refused a grant or any other privilege on the basis of their sexuality.

So this is why BYU and the Church is becoming vague about their reference to homosexual behavior at BYU. They are trying to stick to their doctrine while also obeying Federal law.

You may not like it, but this is what is happening and its the same thing as what happened to polygamy over a hundred years ago....

Yes, but with a marked difference this time.

With polygyny, when the church went back to monogamy only, it wasn't a violation of Eternal law. There is nothing inherently wrong with having one wife, even if polygyny is acceptable to God when authorized and practiced according to righteous principles.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, isn't that way. There's nothing to fall back on. Therefore, trying to balance the law with the doctrine is the only way, unless we rely on God to fight our battle for us, which I don't object to, even if it means hard times.

You can nitpick their sins all you want....I will nitpick yours.

Thank you for at least being more honest now. I see our conversation had an effect!

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 12:07 pm But you didn't say anything about NCAA charters, or even BYU. You said "Discriminating against people who are different than you is also pretty terrible..."

Bishops, mission presidents, BYU admins, GA's discriminate against people because of what they perceive are their sins. Smoke? You can't be baptized. Gay married? You can't hold a calling and may be dis-membershipped. Transsexual? You can't go to RS or PH or YM or YW meetings.

thestock likes to throw up chaft to confuse. He/she/it will talk about one thing and then when you nail them down claim they were really talking about something else.

"No guys you have it completely wrong we can NEVER apostatize. We've been told so many times... trust me! No need to be vigilant guys, God would NEVER EVER allow us to apostatize! All is well in Zion!"

Anyone who's been reading the Book of Mormon chapters set for this week may have noticed what Isaiah said... that is we have gone totally off course and that God, through the one mighty and strong/end-time Servant, call him what you will, will have set us straight. What more could God have done for his vineyard? It's written in prophecy - we have gone off course. We are fast descending the slippery slope to apostasy, and we couldn't be more pleased with ourselves.

Not only Isaiah, but Nephi, Moroni, etc. all tried to tell us... may YHVH have mercy on this people...

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 9:51 am
Now that homosexuality has become politicized, and a protected class of people

I'm still waiting for "straight white married male" to become a federally protected class ( #notwaiting ).... already a minority....