Page 1 of 3
BYU men can't have beards, but they can kiss their boyfriends
Posted: February 27th, 2020, 12:26 am
by Trucker
I think maybe there is a wrong emphasis at BYU regarding what is important. They are straining at gnats. They obsess over the small, minor laws, and ignore the weightier ones.
Who cares what hand we take the sacrament if we endorse sin. Who cares what student's facial hair is. Our priorities are out of whack.
Re: BYU men can't have beards, but they can kiss their boyfriends
Posted: February 27th, 2020, 6:04 am
by Luke
Brigham Young is banned from his own University.
As is John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith, a bunch more modern prophets and apostles, as well as probably all the ancient prophets and apostles.
And yeah - THE SAVIOUR.
At least sodomites can hold hands though... how progressive...
Re: BYU men can't have beards, but they can kiss their boyfriends
Posted: February 27th, 2020, 6:28 am
by mahalanobis
Yeah that thing that even remotely reminds us of polygamy (beards) is evil. But if it is something related to homosexual sex, well, that's okay because we don't want to be ridiculed by the world.
Re: BYU men can't have beards, but they can kiss their boyfriends
Posted: February 27th, 2020, 6:31 am
by nightlight
Trucker wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 12:26 am
I think maybe there is a wrong emphasis at BYU regarding what is important. They are straining at gnats. They obsess over the small, minor laws, and ignore the weightier ones.
Who cares what hand we take the sacrament if we endorse sin. Who cares what student's facial hair is. Our priorities are out of whack.
I glad in a way. This will serve as Smelling Salt to members who are dead asleep...
Re: BYU men can't have beards, but they can kiss their boyfriends
Posted: February 27th, 2020, 6:45 am
by Lizzy60
mahalanobis wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 6:28 am
Yeah that thing that even remotely reminds us of polygamy (beards) is evil. But if it is something related to homosexual sex, well, that's okay because we don't want to be ridiculed by the world.
We are being ridiculed by traditional / evangelical Christians. It's worth noting that there were enough Methodists who wanted to refrain from sanctioning homosexuality that they split their denomination in two.
So yes, Babylon is pleased (but they don't think we have gone far enough) but traditional Christians believe we have sold out to the devil.
Sitting on the fence, lukewarm on homosexuality. That's today's Mormonism. Ooops, I gave Satan another victory.
Re: BYU men can't have beards, but they can kiss their boyfriends
Posted: February 27th, 2020, 7:29 am
by johnBob
Lizzy60 wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 6:45 am
mahalanobis wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 6:28 am
Yeah that thing that even remotely reminds us of polygamy (beards) is evil. But if it is something related to homosexual sex, well, that's okay because we don't want to be ridiculed by the world.
We are being ridiculed by traditional / evangelical Christians. It's worth noting that there were enough Methodists who wanted to refrain from sanctioning homosexuality that they split their denomination in two.
So yes, Babylon is pleased (but they don't think we have gone far enough) but traditional Christians believe we have sold out to the devil.
Sitting on the fence, lukewarm on homosexuality. That's today's Mormonism. Ooops, I gave Satan another victory.
That's the thing most members don't get. They are so caught up in their own world, they have no clue what other traditional Christians are thinking. Which is that we are becoming the laughing stock. We claim to have a prophet, and yet we are simply following the world. Good luck on getting devoted Christians to join us right now!
Re: BYU men can't have beards, but they can kiss their boyfriends
Posted: February 27th, 2020, 8:44 am
by Silas
Lizzy60 wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 6:45 am
mahalanobis wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 6:28 am
Yeah that thing that even remotely reminds us of polygamy (beards) is evil. But if it is something related to homosexual sex, well, that's okay because we don't want to be ridiculed by the world.
We are being ridiculed by traditional / evangelical Christians. It's worth noting that there were enough Methodists who wanted to refrain from sanctioning homosexuality that they split their denomination in two.
So yes, Babylon is pleased (but they don't think we have gone far enough) but traditional Christians believe we have sold out to the devil.
Sitting on the fence, lukewarm on homosexuality. That's today's Mormonism. Ooops, I gave Satan another victory.
We have sold out to the devil. We did it in 1890. Ever since then we have never not caved to the wider culture.
Re: BYU men can't have beards, but they can kiss their boyfriends
Posted: February 27th, 2020, 9:05 am
by mike_rumble
"That's the thing most members don't get. They are so caught up in their own world, they have no clue what other traditional Christians are thinking."
This comment is so needed and so exactly right. Even here, in this forum, some of the brightest and most interesting posters seem to be afflicted with this narrow viewpoint. There are many churches that have already gone done the path that the LDS Church is now following. All we need to do is to look around to see the future of the LDS Church. Almost every major (and minor) church has accepted homosexuality and transgenderism in some form or another. And many churches, once strong and united, have split up or crumbled into smaller sects. The so-called traditional Christians probably don't think we have sold out to the devil. They probably are just grinning and thinking "welcome to our world". When the LDS Church explodes, traditional Christians will not be surprised.
Re: BYU men can't have beards, but they can kiss their boyfriends
Posted: February 27th, 2020, 9:06 am
by The Airbender
Silas wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 8:44 am
Lizzy60 wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 6:45 am
mahalanobis wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 6:28 am
Yeah that thing that even remotely reminds us of polygamy (beards) is evil. But if it is something related to homosexual sex, well, that's okay because we don't want to be ridiculed by the world.
We are being ridiculed by traditional / evangelical Christians. It's worth noting that there were enough Methodists who wanted to refrain from sanctioning homosexuality that they split their denomination in two.
So yes, Babylon is pleased (but they don't think we have gone far enough) but traditional Christians believe we have sold out to the devil.
Sitting on the fence, lukewarm on homosexuality. That's today's Mormonism. Ooops, I gave Satan another victory.
We have sold out to the devil. We did it in 1890. Ever since then we have never not caved to the wider culture.
Finally, someone talking some real sense.
Re: BYU men can't have beards, but they can kiss their boyfriends
Posted: February 27th, 2020, 9:16 am
by 4Joshua8
Hmmm...
Who was it that decided for everyone else in our culture (church and business) that clean shaven was inherently more righteous or more professional-looking than bearded?
My guess is that it was a razor company that influenced that perspective. And maybe some support from people who didn't like bearded kisses.
While I'm definitely not opposed to a man wanting a shave, where did this anti-beard thing start?
Re: BYU men can't have beards, but they can kiss their boyfriends
Posted: February 27th, 2020, 9:26 am
by johnBob
i'mnotspecial wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 9:16 am
Hmmm...
Who was it that decided for everyone else in our culture (church and business) that clean shaven was inherently more righteous or more professional-looking than bearded?
My guess is that it was a razor company that influenced that perspective. And maybe some support from people who didn't like bearded kisses.
While I'm definitely not opposed to a man wanting a shave, where did this anti-beard thing start?
The culture of men not having beards changed during WW1 and then was re-inforced by the 1918 flu pandemic. Gas masks don't work so well with beards . . . .
Re: BYU men can't have beards, but they can kiss their boyfriends
Posted: February 27th, 2020, 9:40 am
by Luke
Joseph, Brigham, John, etc. are all rolling in their graves.
Go and read '95 Theses' by Ogden Kraut. If he were still with us today he could have brought out a new version called '500 Theses'. Perfectly shows our situation.
http://ogdenkraut.com/?page_id=349
Re: BYU men can't have beards, but they can kiss their boyfriends
Posted: February 27th, 2020, 9:50 am
by Silas
The Airbender wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 9:06 am
Silas wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 8:44 am
Lizzy60 wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 6:45 am
mahalanobis wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 6:28 am
Yeah that thing that even remotely reminds us of polygamy (beards) is evil. But if it is something related to homosexual sex, well, that's okay because we don't want to be ridiculed by the world.
We are being ridiculed by traditional / evangelical Christians. It's worth noting that there were enough Methodists who wanted to refrain from sanctioning homosexuality that they split their denomination in two.
So yes, Babylon is pleased (but they don't think we have gone far enough) but traditional Christians believe we have sold out to the devil.
Sitting on the fence, lukewarm on homosexuality. That's today's Mormonism. Ooops, I gave Satan another victory.
We have sold out to the devil. We did it in 1890. Ever since then we have never not caved to the wider culture.
Finally, someone talking some real sense.
I strongly suspect that the church formally but themselves under the authority of the federal government during the time that plural marriage was banned from the church. I don’t believe that we can ever expect the church to make a meaningful stand against the government or even the broad culture. There was some kind of agreement made and the church is now bound to comply with the ruling elites wishes.
I would very much appreciate having someone demonstrate to me that this is wrong. But I’m increasingly convinced that these conclusions are correct.
Re: BYU men can't have beards, but they can kiss their boyfriends
Posted: February 27th, 2020, 9:58 am
by cab
Luke wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 9:40 am
Joseph, Brigham, John, etc. are all rolling in their graves.
Go and read '95 Theses' by Ogden Kraut. If he were still with us today he could have brought out a new version called '500 Theses'. Perfectly shows our situation.
http://ogdenkraut.com/?page_id=349
Maybe this is the more modern version
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6t-rQ ... sp=sharing
Re: BYU men can't have beards, but they can kiss their boyfriends
Posted: February 27th, 2020, 10:11 am
by cab
Luke wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 9:40 am
Joseph, Brigham, John, etc. are all rolling in their graves.
Go and read '95 Theses' by Ogden Kraut. If he were still with us today he could have brought out a new version called '500 Theses'. Perfectly shows our situation.
http://ogdenkraut.com/?page_id=349
Ogden's first quote is by Joseph Smith in April 1844.
"If any man writes to you, or preaches to you, doctrines contrary to the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, set him down as an imposter."
He then defends polygamy in point #67 of his article, citing Doctrine and Covenants 132. I find this disingenuous since that quote was given to specifically combat those preaching polygamy...
Likewise scripture in 1844 had nothing supporting "celestial plural marriage" and section 132 was added until 35 years later... Can you explain this Luke?
Re: BYU men can't have beards, but they can kiss their boyfriends
Posted: February 27th, 2020, 10:29 am
by captainfearnot
Lizzy60 wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 6:45 am
We are being ridiculed by traditional / evangelical Christians. It's worth noting that there were enough Methodists who wanted to refrain from sanctioning homosexuality that they split their denomination in two.
So what you're saying is that any pro-LGBT moves by the LDS church are likely to be ridiculed by half the Methodists, and celebrated by the other half. To which Methodists' opinions should the LDS church cater?
We were ridiculed by the rest of mainstream Christianity in 1978 for waiting so long to get on board with racial equality. And we've been trying to shed the image of being a racist church ever since, with limited success. Maybe today's leadership is trying to avoid a similar outcome with regard to the current issue.
I do think it's odd that you condemn LDS leaders for being sensitive to their own members' views and beliefs (through the use of think tanks, surveys, etc.) while at the same time condemning them for not being more sensitive to the views of non-LDS Christians. (Even more strangely, while acknowledging that non-LDS Christians are split on the issue themselves.)
There is a large evangelical church here in Dallas called Wilshire Baptist Church, that voted in 2016 to extend full faith and fellowship to LGBT members. A quarter of their members left the church immediately following the decision, but membership grew to more than replace those lost by the end of the following year. An associate pastor at Wilshire recently wrote an open letter to the UMC to offer insight and advice in light of their current struggles—which the UMC posted to their online forum, United Methodist Insight:
https://um-insight.net/perspectives/adv ... on-anyway/
To whom would you have the LDS leadership pay heed—the Christians that are ridiculing them, or the ones who are trying to address the issue in an informed and conscientious way?
Re: BYU men can't have beards, but they can kiss their boyfriends
Posted: February 27th, 2020, 10:42 am
by Silas
captainfearnot wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 10:29 am
Lizzy60 wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 6:45 am
We are being ridiculed by traditional / evangelical Christians. It's worth noting that there were enough Methodists who wanted to refrain from sanctioning homosexuality that they split their denomination in two.
So what you're saying is that any pro-LGBT moves by the LDS church are likely to be ridiculed by half the Methodists, and celebrated by the other half. To which Methodists' opinions should the LDS church cater?
We were ridiculed by the rest of mainstream Christianity in 1978 for waiting so long to get on board with racial equality. And we've been trying to shed the image of being a racist church ever since, with limited success. Maybe today's leadership is trying to avoid a similar outcome with regard to the current issue.
I do think it's odd that you condemn LDS leaders for being sensitive to their own members' views and beliefs (through the use of think tanks, surveys, etc.) while at the same time condemning them for not being more sensitive to the views of non-LDS Christians. (Even more strangely, while acknowledging that non-LDS Christians are split on the issue themselves.)
There is a large evangelical church here in Dallas called Wilshire Baptist Church, that voted in 2016 to extend full faith and fellowship to LGBT members. A quarter of their members left the church immediately following the decision, but membership grew to more than replace those lost by the end of the following year. An associate pastor at Wilshire recently wrote an open letter to the UMC to offer insight and advice in light of their current struggles—which the UMC posted to their online forum, United Methodist Insight:
https://um-insight.net/perspectives/adv ... on-anyway/
To whom would you have the LDS leadership pay heed—the Christians that are ridiculing them, or the ones who are trying to address the issue in an informed and conscientious way?
How about we fear God more than man? Let those who agree join us and those who hate that depart from us.
Re: BYU men can't have beards, but they can kiss their boyfriends
Posted: February 27th, 2020, 11:26 am
by Luke
cab wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 10:11 am
Luke wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 9:40 am
Joseph, Brigham, John, etc. are all rolling in their graves.
Go and read '95 Theses' by Ogden Kraut. If he were still with us today he could have brought out a new version called '500 Theses'. Perfectly shows our situation.
http://ogdenkraut.com/?page_id=349
Ogden's first quote is by Joseph Smith in April 1844.
"If any man writes to you, or preaches to you, doctrines contrary to the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, set him down as an imposter."
He then defends polygamy in point #67 of his article, citing Doctrine and Covenants 132. I find this disingenuous since that quote was given to specifically combat those preaching polygamy...
Likewise scripture in 1844 had nothing supporting "celestial plural marriage" and section 132 was added until 35 years later... Can you explain this Luke?
I used to hate polygamy, but I gained a witness of the principle through the Spirit unexpectedly.
The evidence that Joseph practised it is too mounting regardless. Since Brigham turned out to be right about everything he said he got from Joseph, i.e. Adam-God et al., I believe polygamy also came from Joseph.
The original revelation came from Joseph.
Re: BYU men can't have beards, but they can kiss their boyfriends
Posted: February 27th, 2020, 11:38 am
by cab
Luke wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 11:26 am
cab wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 10:11 am
Luke wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 9:40 am
Joseph, Brigham, John, etc. are all rolling in their graves.
Go and read '95 Theses' by Ogden Kraut. If he were still with us today he could have brought out a new version called '500 Theses'. Perfectly shows our situation.
http://ogdenkraut.com/?page_id=349
Ogden's first quote is by Joseph Smith in April 1844.
"If any man writes to you, or preaches to you, doctrines contrary to the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, set him down as an imposter."
He then defends polygamy in point #67 of his article, citing Doctrine and Covenants 132. I find this disingenuous since that quote was given to specifically combat those preaching polygamy...
Likewise scripture in 1844 had nothing supporting "celestial plural marriage" and section 132 was added until 35 years later... Can you explain this Luke?
I used to hate polygamy, but I gained a witness of the principle through the Spirit unexpectedly.
The evidence that Joseph practised it is too mounting regardless. Since Brigham turned out to be right about everything he said he got from Joseph, i.e. Adam-God et al., I believe polygamy also came from Joseph.
The original revelation came from Joseph.
I don't have that witness. Nor do I see the evidence the way you do.
Likewise I'm unaware of any time Joseph is on contemporary record teaching Adam God, blood atonement, or.plural marriage. If you have any I'd be interested to see it.
But my point is that using the April1844 statement by Joseph (or Hyrum?) seems call those preaching plural marriage to be imposters... I see no other way to interpret it...
Re: BYU men can't have beards, but they can kiss their boyfriends
Posted: February 27th, 2020, 11:39 am
by Sirius
cab wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 10:11 am
Luke wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 9:40 am
Joseph, Brigham, John, etc. are all rolling in their graves.
Go and read '95 Theses' by Ogden Kraut. If he were still with us today he could have brought out a new version called '500 Theses'. Perfectly shows our situation.
http://ogdenkraut.com/?page_id=349
Ogden's first quote is by Joseph Smith in April 1844.
"If any man writes to you, or preaches to you, doctrines contrary to the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, set him down as an imposter."
He then defends polygamy in point #67 of his article, citing Doctrine and Covenants 132. I find this disingenuous since that quote was given to specifically combat those preaching polygamy...
Likewise scripture in 1844 had nothing supporting "celestial plural marriage" and section 132 was added until 35 years later... Can you explain this Luke?
The scriptures had/have plenty supporting celestial plural marriage. It's the whole reason Joseph approached the Lord about it, while translating the Bible.
Re: BYU men can't have beards, but they can kiss their boyfriends
Posted: February 27th, 2020, 11:43 am
by cab
Sirius wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 11:39 am
cab wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 10:11 am
Luke wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 9:40 am
Joseph, Brigham, John, etc. are all rolling in their graves.
Go and read '95 Theses' by Ogden Kraut. If he were still with us today he could have brought out a new version called '500 Theses'. Perfectly shows our situation.
http://ogdenkraut.com/?page_id=349
Ogden's first quote is by Joseph Smith in April 1844.
"If any man writes to you, or preaches to you, doctrines contrary to the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, set him down as an imposter."
He then defends polygamy in point #67 of his article, citing Doctrine and Covenants 132. I find this disingenuous since that quote was given to specifically combat those preaching polygamy...
Likewise scripture in 1844 had nothing supporting "celestial plural marriage" and section 132 was added until 35 years later... Can you explain this Luke?
The scriptures had/have plenty supporting celestial plural marriage. It's the whole reason Joseph approached the Lord about it, while translating the Bible.
Um, no there's not. And no he didn't. But I'm not getting into this circular argument again for the 100th time.
Re: BYU men can't have beards, but they can kiss their boyfriends
Posted: February 27th, 2020, 11:52 am
by Sirius
cab wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 11:43 am
Sirius wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 11:39 am
cab wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 10:11 am
Luke wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 9:40 am
Joseph, Brigham, John, etc. are all rolling in their graves.
Go and read '95 Theses' by Ogden Kraut. If he were still with us today he could have brought out a new version called '500 Theses'. Perfectly shows our situation.
http://ogdenkraut.com/?page_id=349
Ogden's first quote is by Joseph Smith in April 1844.
"If any man writes to you, or preaches to you, doctrines contrary to the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, set him down as an imposter."
He then defends polygamy in point #67 of his article, citing Doctrine and Covenants 132. I find this disingenuous since that quote was given to specifically combat those preaching polygamy...
Likewise scripture in 1844 had nothing supporting "celestial plural marriage" and section 132 was added until 35 years later... Can you explain this Luke?
The scriptures had/have plenty supporting celestial plural marriage. It's the whole reason Joseph approached the Lord about it, while translating the Bible.
Um, no there's not. And no he didn't. But I'm not getting into this circular argument again for the 100th time.
Keep telling yourself that buddy.
Re: BYU men can't have beards, but they can kiss their boyfriends
Posted: February 27th, 2020, 12:00 pm
by cab
Sirius wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 11:52 am
cab wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 11:43 am
Sirius wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 11:39 am
cab wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 10:11 am
Ogden's first quote is by Joseph Smith in April 1844.
"If any man writes to you, or preaches to you, doctrines contrary to the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, set him down as an imposter."
He then defends polygamy in point #67 of his article, citing Doctrine and Covenants 132. I find this disingenuous since that quote was given to specifically combat those preaching polygamy...
Likewise scripture in 1844 had nothing supporting "celestial plural marriage" and section 132 was added until 35 years later... Can you explain this Luke?
The scriptures had/have plenty supporting celestial plural marriage. It's the whole reason Joseph approached the Lord about it, while translating the Bible.
Um, no there's not. And no he didn't. But I'm not getting into this circular argument again for the 100th time.
Keep telling yourself that buddy.
Ok, why don't you tell me then. Is the section heading scripture? Where did Joseph Smith write down his musings on this topic to prove your point?
Journal, sermon, periodical, anywhere contemporary to his life?...
Please share it with me if you have it. I am willing to change my stance.
But as long as we are limited to someone else (who isn't an enemy of his) saying they heard or saw Joseph say or do so and so, many years after he allegedly did it, I think my current line of thinking is reasonable.
Re: BYU men can't have beards, but they can kiss their boyfriends
Posted: February 27th, 2020, 12:43 pm
by abijah`
johnBob wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 7:29 amThat's the thing most members don't get. They are so caught up in their own world, they have no clue what other traditional Christians are thinking. Which is that we are becoming the laughing stock. We claim to have a prophet, and yet we are simply following the world. Good luck on getting devoted Christians to join us right now!
at least in a doctrinal sense, the fact we have been in a theological echochamber for at least a century or so becomes apparent in some weird ideas and perhaps has impeded the church in its mandate to build zion and taking the truth to those who seek it but know not where to find it. for some reason we thought sending young boys for a couple years to knock on peoples doors was the sole requirement to fill the earth with this restored knowledge, and thats enough, after that we can just carry on merrily through life in our comfortable mormon bubble.
there are many good christian organisations and movements in this country that know how to actually conceptualise the grand scope of both certain things in the scriptures as well as interpreting the social happenings of our day much better than the church has been able to.
Re: BYU men can't have beards, but they can kiss their boyfriends
Posted: February 27th, 2020, 1:46 pm
by Sirius
cab wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 12:00 pm
Sirius wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 11:52 am
cab wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 11:43 am
Sirius wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 11:39 am
The scriptures had/have plenty supporting celestial plural marriage. It's the whole reason Joseph approached the Lord about it, while translating the Bible.
Um, no there's not. And no he didn't. But I'm not getting into this circular argument again for the 100th time.
Keep telling yourself that buddy.
Ok, why don't you tell me then. Is the section heading scripture? Where did Joseph Smith write down his musings on this topic to prove your point?
Journal, sermon, periodical, anywhere contemporary to his life?...
Please share it with me if you have it. I am willing to change my stance.
But as long as we are limited to someone else (who isn't an enemy of his) saying they heard or saw Joseph say or do so and so, many years after he allegedly did it, I think my current line of thinking is reasonable.
By that logic, why even use the scriptures? They are in most cases, second or third hand accounts. The whole New Testament is limited to someone else saying they heard or saw Jesus say or do so and so. Seeking a journal entry, sermon, etc. from Joseph isn't going to change anything. Only the Spirit can bring truth, or change our stance; regardless who said it, or wrote it.