Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Correct me if I misunderstood you, but it seems like you see it as relatively simple. I see it as a complex process. Refining takes time, and there can be many different factors that prevent someone from feeling Christ's grace. They could have thinking errors, or be dealing with abuse. There may be other issues I am not aware of as well.

I think it is simple, but that doesn't mean I think it is easy.  Just because people fall into one of those categories doesn't mean resolving their issues is just a simple recognition that they fall into those categories.  For someone dealing with clinical depression, recognizing it and taking medication doesn't mean it will magically be fixed, but recognizing the source is certainly a key in enabling the individual to power through it.  Recognizing the need to repent wont make the repentance process any easier, but it puts the individual into the right frame of mind to address their issue and be able to come out on top in the end with an understanding of their worth and stance before God.  Likewise, coming to understand the true doctrines and how one ought to apply them will be an ongoing process; for many, it will require completely rewriting their understanding of how God sees them and their relationship to Him, and how Christ's Atonement is and should be effectuated in their life.

I most certainly do think it is as simple as those categories, but falling within those categories does not make it easy to overcome the circumstances that got them there.  Recognition is just the first step.  I hope this clarifies my view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Before that day comes, however, the Saints will be put to a test that will try the integrity of the best of them. The pressure will become so great that the more righteous among them will cry unto the Lord day and night until deliverance comes.

Yes, we think we are secure here in the chambers of these everlasting hills, where we can close the doors of the canyons against mobs and persecutors, the wicked and the vile, who have always beset us with violence and robbery, but I want to say to you, my brethren, that the time is coming when we will be mixed up in these now peaceful valleys to that extent that it will be difficult to tell the face of a Saint from the face of an enemy against the people of God.

Then is the time to look out for the great sieve, for there will be a great shifting time, and many will fall. For I say unto you there is a test, a Test, a TEST coming.

This Church has before it many close places through which it will have to pass before the work of God is crowned with glory. The difficulties will be of such a character that the man or woman who does not possess a personal knowledge or witness will fall. If you have not got this testimony, you must live right and call upon the Lord, and cease not until you obtain it.

Remember these sayings: The time will come when no man or woman will be able to endure on borrowed light. Each will have to be guided by the light within themselves. If you do not have the knowledge that Jesus is the Christ, how can you stand?" (Heber C. Kimball, First Counselor in the First Presidency, May 1868, in Deseret News, 23 May 1931; see also Conference Report, Oct. 1930, p. 58-59)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Do you know "all" the details in order to say the bishop was less compassionate or more compassionate? Paying tithing isn't an automatic reason for someone to receive welfare. Justifications, or simply reasons that have been given by the Lord through his servants the prophets in the Hanbooks?

I agree, there are justifications, and that is part of leadership. The leader has to make a judgment call. In your mind, it might be less compassionate, while in his mind it was the best decision to make according to "all" the information the bishop has received (which may or may not have been discussed with the stake president).

I too have seen people go homeless who expect the Church to pay their bills while other members of the ward are working two jobs while this individual is only willing to work part-time, but he/she paid their tithing on that part-time work.

How do you determine "compassion" when you don't probably have all the facts? I was fortunate to serve with one of the most compassionate and loving men I have ever served with in a bishopric, and the irony is how often someone would specify he was not very loving or compassionate.

I sure have. Serving with one now who would be in this category. I have also seen the opposite. A bishop who became -- less compassionate -- in some members eyes, but in reality he wasn't less compassionate he was no longer willing to allow people to mooch off welfare. He came in helping everyone. As the EQP I watched slowly his mind change and watched him become more stern. He even said, "In my four years thus far I have become more strict [what others would call less compassionate] due to people who want to take advantage of Church welfare. I now follow the Lord and his guidance and make sure people who need welfare receive it and those who want to take advantage of the church I am more by the book (by the book in their eyes would be "less compassionate.")"

Seeing that sometimes, I, who am FAR less wealthy than some of these leaders but was the one that eventually helped some of them out of my own volition after my own discussions with them AND their families (which the Bishop never did)...I had a pretty good idea of what some of these kids were going through and yes, I had a pretty good idea of what these Bishops knew (and normally knew even more than they did).

To think that ONLY Bishops can know the complete story of someone in need is pretty ridiculous thinking.

I've known criminals in Church leadership that have gotten off due to connections, including those that committed first degree murder (though albeit, I also know one that is currently in jail and got sentenced finally as well).

However, going into those types of items is not my intent here.  I'm not trying to malign the church or it's leaders, but the idea that a Bishop or Stake President suddenly is more compassionate  or even "better or more holy or more godly' than others is what I'm trying to dispel.

So, I'm not going into that, but I've known some of these cases pretty darn well.  In addition, for other instances which I was not the one helping them out (when I could, I'm not even made of money) I can pretty much confirm that criminal investigations and legal defense and prosecution go into some pretty deep details.

This illusion is something that I think Jesus Christ ALSO fought VERY hard against during his mortal ministry.  In fact, he repeatedly pointed out that the Church leaders were not necessarily any better and many times worse than those who were humble followers of the gospel or the religion of the Jews at that time.

4 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

Addressing welfare:

You've seen?
This means you weren't privy to all the first person conversations/arrangements/agreements between the actual Bishop and the recipient. At best you were a partial observer trying to piece the situation together.

Not supposedly, actually. That is the policy, and for many good reasons.

Church welfare is designed to help individuals become self-reliant, not dependent.
Church welfare does come with strings attached. Strings like: exchanging service for goods, attending self-reliance courses, negotiating bills, reducing non-essential expenses, etc.
Individuals who are unwilling to follow those 'strings' will eventually find themselves cut off from Church welfare. Individuals willing to take all the steps they can towards self-reliance will not. Church welfare isn't designed to be a long term program. That would be a disservice to the recipient and unwise stewardship of fast offering funds.

False.
This statement reinforces that you have been a partial observer at best. If a ward can't cover a fast offering expense, it is bumped to the Stake to cover. If the stake can't cover it, the amount is requested from SLC. There is no such thing as "not enough money to actually HELP" when true qualified assistance is needed.

A Bishop who blindly throws money at every request that passes through his door, who doesn't require accountability from the individual, etc. is not following the Savior's plan and not fulfilling his goal:

 

Maybe it works different in your Ward and stake, but when I was doing this stuff, that didn't hold water.  My stake did NOT approve much if it wasn't something our ward could cover.  Sure, great, you had a nice Stake President...ours didn't do that.  That doesn't mean he was bad, but it shows that it really may boil down to leadership roulette if your Stake somehow works differently and ends up far more charitable.

There are a LOT of denials of money, even if asked and the attempt to show that it is "true qualified assistance."

A LOT was based on what we got as a ward and that...was it.  I personally covered a LOT more than that at times.  I may be considered far too generous, but I'd rather be considered TOO generous when facing the Lord than answering why I didn't help when I could.

That said, I probably STILL had instances where I could have done more and been better and I didn't.  I'm not innocent in this either.  I try, but I am still human.

This idea that Church leaders will instantly be better and more compassionate does not match up to my experience.  Of course, I may be one of the most compassionate people here according to some thoughts...or I could be an utter jerk.  I suppose it depends on whether one thinks that because of a calling I suddenly became far more compassionate, or if it's not really the calling but the character of the person that determines whether they are compassionate or not and how they handle things.

This is not to bad mouth Bishops or higher, it's simply to say I see it as a fallacy when people try to portray Bishops and other church leaders as suddenly so much better than anyone else simply because of a calling.  I HIGHLY doubt the Lord sees it as such.

There are different reasons people are called.  It probably has to do with the pre-existence and things that were agreed upon.  It may deal with what others needed, or perhaps what experiences the person being called themselves need to experience, but I don't think it has anything these days to do with somehow being the super duper righteous person on the block (me being a prime example of not being the super duper righteous person).  It can come from the Lord (I'm not disputing that) but that does not necessarily mean it's because they are so compassionate, will become compassionate or that they are great human beings.  Sometimes there may be other purposes (for example, maybe it's to teach them lessons that others do not need to learn) that are far beyond simply them being a good person (because, I know several that definitely WERE NOT good people).

 

4 hours ago, Anddenex said:

How does this comment connect with spiritual revelation for leaders of the wards (bishops). Is the Lord playing "leader roulette" when he calls a bishop? The Lord doesn't know who is being called, by which a stake president (presidency) would say they received revelation for?

Might there be a reason someone who is more firm (as some would call less compassionate) that the Lord decided to inspire the minds of the stake presidency to extend the call? Its true though, we all have our individual strengths and weaknesses, and at times, we -- in fact -- due receive callings in order for a weakness to be strengthened.

Coming back to this then, there are many reasons one may receive a calling.  It is not necessarily because they are the best or most humble or righteous or otherwise.  I think a LOT of it was agreed upon in the pre-existence and there can be several various reasons for it.  Sometimes it is because we need to learn something ourselves which we receive a calling.  This idea is not just restricted to Bishops and church leadership higher than that, but any calling.  Sometimes, it may even be to condemn us all the more than if we hadn't gotten the calling (such as with David who had all the blessings one can have, including the promised line of the Messiah and yet threw much of it away in something that condemned him far more than it may have others who did not have the power to even do what he did) or in otherwords to justify what we ourselves bring upon us due to our own sins and weaknesses.  Other times it could be that we simply need to learn from the experience and this is how it can be learned.  For example, Adam and Eve had a transgression from which they learned many things.  They were called to their calling and position before the world began and through their experiences began the human race.  Noah probably would have preferred not to have been the one designated to call others to repentence and build an ark, but doing so saved the human race as well as probably taught him and his family a great many things.  Sometimes it may also be because that is what is needed at that time.  Many would consider some of the things that Brigham Young did as harsh, but without his strictness and extremely strong willed strength it is possible that the Members of the Church would never have crossed the Mountains or, if they had, survived the first few years in the Desert.

So, there are many reasons one may be called.  It is not necessarily because they are the most righteous, humble, or best person in the bunch.  If it were the most righteous I would imagine that most of our Church leadership would be from the crowd that makes under 30K a year in all the leadership roles...but normally it seems to opposite occurs in our wards.

Adding in Edit - We receive callings in this life (not necessarily as a Bishop, it may be to be a Primary teacher or a Priesthood advisor or other callings).  These are not always necessarily because were are the most qualified or best qualified for that position.  We receive callings as the Lord wills, but it may not always even be the best fit.  There are many different reasons one may receive a calling.  It may be that the Relief Society teacher that teaches every odd Sunday is actually the best person in the Ward and maybe that Spiritual Advisor for Young men is actually the most humble, best with money and people skills, and best candidate for being the Bishop if we were going by qualifications.

That's not how it works though.  It's not necessarily due to qualifications or righteousness (though one needs to be righteous up to a point as in keeping their covenants and such) or compassion or anything else.  The idea this is why someone becomes a Bishop is something I very much disagree with.  These are not necessarily the qualifications that makes one a Bishop.  There are many various facets, but thinking that one will miraculously become more compassionate simply due to being called a Bishop I find is probably as deeply flawed as the idea where a young man thinks all his law of chastity problems will be solved if he gets married, or that a young lady thinks that all her problems with depression will be solved by being married. 

Normally what we are is what we bring.  We are the ones that need to be responsible for our actions and we are normally the ones responsible for changing ourselves to be more like the ideal that the Lord would have us be.  That's for EVERY member of the church including Bishops, Stake Presidents and any and everyone in Priesthood callings higher than that.

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A video was released today showing a supposed professor at BYU announcing to his class that due to the Handbook changes same-sex dating is now allowed on campus and is no longer an Honor Code violation.  

As someone not familiar with BYU or the Honor Code, thoughts?

 

https://youtu.be/p4gTHBP-Vv4

Edited by Grunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Grunt said:

A video was released today showing a supposed professor at BYU announcing to his class that due to the Handbook changes same-sex dating is now allowed on campus and is no longer an Honor Code violation.  

As someone not familiar with BYU or the Honor Code, thoughts?

 

https://youtu.be/p4gTHBP-Vv4

I don't believe it. This is the professor's interpretation.

Part of it is defining what a "date" is. In the world (at least in the US), "to date" often means "to fornicate with". The statement that you're "dating" someone is a way of saying you're fornicating with him or her. At BYU, that has never been the meaning of "to date". There, it has had the more traditional meaning of "to court".

I very seriously doubt that BYU policy is now that same-sex courting is allowed behavior. I'll believe it when I hear it from a reliable source. Someone videoing his professor in class does not qualify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Vort said:

I don't believe it. This is the professor's interpretation.

Part of it is defining what a "date" is. In the world (at least in the US), "to date" often means "to fornicate with". The statement that you're "dating" someone is a way of saying you're fornicating with him or her. At BYU, that has never been the meaning of "to date". There, it has had the more traditional meaning of "to court".

I very seriously doubt that BYU policy is now that same-sex courting is allowed behavior. I'll believe it when I hear it from a reliable source. Someone videoing his professor in class does not qualify.

There are numerous reports of Honor Code Office supposed verification, and a very vague Tweet from BYU.

 

Quote

In speaking with Honor Code Office Director Kevin Utt this afternoon, we've learned that there may have been some miscommunication as to what the Honor Code changes mean. Even though we have removed the more prescriptive language, the principles of the Honor Code remain the same.

Quote

The Honor Code Office will handle questions that arise on a case by case basis. For example, since dating means different things to different people, the Honor Code Office will work with students individually.

 

Edited by Grunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Vort said:

I don't believe it. This is the professor's interpretation.

Part of it is defining what a "date" is. In the world (at least in the US), "to date" often means "to fornicate with". The statement that you're "dating" someone is a way of saying you're fornicating with him or her. At BYU, that has never been the meaning of "to date". There, it has had the more traditional meaning of "to court".

I very seriously doubt that BYU policy is now that same-sex courting is allowed behavior. I'll believe it when I hear it from a reliable source. Someone videoing his professor in class does not qualify.

From what I understand the Honor Code update removes explicit mention against Homosexual behavior.  But the Law of Chasity has not been done away with.

In theory this means anything a Hetrosexual couple could do and not violate the Honor Code a Homosexual couple could do...  We will have to see if this is true in practice.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

This idea that Church leaders will instantly be better and more compassionate does not match up to my experience.
I suppose it depends on whether one thinks that because of a calling I suddenly became far more compassionate,
I see it as a fallacy when people try to portray Bishops and other church leaders as suddenly so much better than anyone else simply because of a calling.

You seem to be waging a war with 'someone' over instantaneous results. I don't see anyone here advocating that suddenly/instantly compassion overcomes our leaders because of a calling? If so, please provide the quote.

Edited by NeedleinA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Grunt said:

There are numerous reports of Honor Code Office supposed verification, and a very vague Tweet from BYU.

 

 

The Big Ugly of this is far from over. There will be gay couples called in for kissing or making out in public and they will get their panties in a bunch and file lawsuits over it  and sue the school and church and the whole crew of this hormonal, emotional, high strung BYU cruise ship from the First presidency down to this clown of a professor will get a back eye. I would bet on it. 

At BYU things need to be spelled out. Dresses this long, No facial hair unless there are skin issues, no bellies showing, no spaghetti straps,etc etc etc!! Many students are mature and sensible and realize you just can't play with sparks in a dry field without there being significant danger. They will respectfully hold off on PDA on campus. But many are barely out of childhood and will push the limits like a feckless spoiled kid until mommy and daddy come bail them out.

After a day and a half of conversations with the mom of a gay kid, I'm so tired of the whining and tantrums. Some parents are worse than the kids themselves and no wonder there are identity and maturity problems. I know that sounds harsh but I really haven't had any  reasonable and smart discussions with people from this crowd. State the obvous to them, such as yes you can get married and even adopt kids, but those kids will never experience having a mother (or father) in their home. That's a disadvantage for those kids right out of the gate. Doesn't matter to the gays getting married. It's all about "me, me, me!"  And sometimes their parents are snootier than snoot! 

But...the Lord loves them just as much as he loves me. I need to remember that. sigh!!

Edited by carlimac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, estradling75 said:

From what I understand the Honor Code update removes explicit mention against Homosexual behavior.  But the Law of Chasity has not been done away with.

In theory this means anything a Hetrosexual couple could do and not violate the Honor Code a Homosexual couple could do...  We will have to see if this is true in practice.

If this is accurate, the real problem lies not with the honor code adjustment, but with the people who will choose to tow the line and partially feed their homosexual appetite.  People are fooling themselves if they believe that a homosexual lifestyle is being considered acceptable.

In general, I do agree with the notion that heterosexual sin and homosexual sin of the same type are equal in their abuse of God's procreative powers, and thus should be treated equal in the process of repentance.  However, there are some things that I believe more quickly arrive at sin in a homosexual relationship that would not be considered sinful for a heterosexual couple.  One such example would be simply identifying as a homosexual couple, which, although not a sexual sin, is yet a sin of pride and rebellion in its blatant rejection of the foundational principles of the family unit, and the plan of salvation established from the beginning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, person0 said:

In general, I do agree with the notion that heterosexual sin and homosexual sin of the same type are equal in their abuse of God's procreative powers, and thus should be treated equal in the process of repentance.

I have considered this and have tried to see if I can reasonably incorporate this belief into my belief system. Something deep within me rejects it. The very nature of an intimate homosexual relationship is utterly contrary, not merely to God's plan of salvation, but to my gut-level understanding of family relations. I admit that maybe this is a variation of the "Ewwww! Gross!" objection, but I cannot honestly just dismiss it. There is something fundamentally wrong with the proposition of same-sex sexual relationships.

This might be perceived as the old "contrary to nature" argument, even though I know that homosexuality is certainly not contrary to nature. (But then, neither is forcible rape, sodomizing children, or killing your neighbor so you can have his wife.) However, that's not it. It seems more like...contrary to reason and rightfulness and loving smiles and puppy dogs and apple pie and basic human decency. Not sure how to explain it, but surely I'm not alone in feeling this way.

This is not meant as a condemnation of the homosexual who experiences such impulses. Rather, it's a gut-level rejection of the absolute equivalency between homosexual fornication and heterosexual fornication. To my mind, they are somehow different in kind, and thus I think different in severity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Seeing that sometimes, I, who am FAR less wealthy than some of these leaders but was the one that eventually helped some of them out of my own volition after my own discussions with them AND their families (which the Bishop never did)...I had a pretty good idea of what some of these kids were going through and yes, I had a pretty good idea of what these Bishops knew (and normally knew even more than they did).

To think that ONLY Bishops can know the complete story of someone in need is pretty ridiculous thinking.

I never said a bishop is the ONLY person who is able to know a complete story (so not sure where this stems from). I simply asked, "Do you know "all" the details in order to say the bishop was less compassionate or more compassionate?"

For example, were you there in the discussions with this individual and the bishop? Did the family "actually" tell you the whole story or what they wanted you to hear? The reason why I ask is because I have been apart of discussion where a person spoke with the individual and their family and they still did not know all the details (although they thought they did). The individual actually left out details that I had to actually clarify (because I knew more than them, and I didn't know all the details as I wasn't the bishop) more details.

As to criminals, it really didn't have anything to do with my response. So I am not sure the relation to my comment and the criminals. I don't believe bishops are perfect. They also do not have any promise over their heads that they will lead anyone astray. I don't think this is what @NeedleinA was trying to say, that leaders are better. I think, as to my understanding, is that he was pointing out that leaders (due to their calling) will experience more often spiritual experiences at a higher frequency. If you think about all the one-to-one conversations a bishop will have, ministry, he definitely will have more opportunities handed to him, where in my calling I would have to seek them out.

9 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

This illusion is something that I think Jesus Christ ALSO fought VERY hard against during his mortal ministry.  In fact, he repeatedly pointed out that the Church leaders were not necessarily any better and many times worse than those who were humble followers of the gospel or the religion of the Jews at that time.

In that light, previously stated, I don't disagree with this quoted statement.

9 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

This is not to bad mouth Bishops or higher, it's simply to say I see it as a fallacy when people try to portray Bishops and other church leaders as suddenly so much better than anyone else simply because of a calling.  I HIGHLY doubt the Lord sees it as such.

I didn't gather this from anyone's post.

9 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

There are different reasons people are called.  It probably has to do with the pre-existence and things that were agreed upon.....

I was simply pointing out that I don't believe the Lord plays Russian roulette when calling people to leadership positions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, scottyg said:

Masturbation for example is not a sin next to murder. Is it a big deal...yes, because it drives away the spirit and can progress to worse things. There is no one in the church teaching that youth (or anyone) who have a problem with it are akin to death row inmates.

 

Akin to death row inmates. You mean murderers? There is like virtually nothing else that will get you on death row except murder and perhaps the random treason case.

I invite you to read page 36 and tell me where they state masturbation isnt included in the sins next to murder.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/ForTheStrengthOfYouth-eng.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjGnPfyweTnAhVsCTQIHXVQALMQFjAAegQIBBAC&usg=AOvVaw0FbP7O_GM0pydlf9vY7APk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Vort said:

I have considered this and have tried to see if I can reasonably incorporate this belief into my belief system. Something deep within me rejects it. The very nature of an intimate homosexual relationship is utterly contrary, not merely to God's plan of salvation, but to my gut-level understanding of family relations. I admit that maybe this is a variation of the "Ewwww! Gross!" objection, but I cannot honestly just dismiss it. There is something fundamentally wrong with the proposition of same-sex sexual relationships.

This might be perceived as the old "contrary to nature" argument, even though I know that homosexuality is certainly not contrary to nature. (But then, neither is forcible rape, sodomizing children, or killing your neighbor so you can have his wife.) However, that's not it. It seems more like...contrary to reason and rightfulness and loving smiles and puppy dogs and apple pie and basic human decency. Not sure how to explain it, but surely I'm not alone in feeling this way.

This is not meant as a condemnation of the homosexual who experiences such impulses. Rather, it's a gut-level rejection of the absolute equivalency between homosexual fornication and heterosexual fornication. To my mind, they are somehow different in kind, and thus I think different in severity.

I agree.  It becomes clearer to me the further down the rabbit hole you go.  I think the Honor Code hubbub at BYU is what cleared it up for me.  Is a boy and a girl kissing an abomination unto God?  It's not an Honor Code violation, correct?  Yet two boys or two girls doing it is the same thing?   It just isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Anddenex said:

-- I never said a bishop is the ONLY person who is able to know a complete story (so not sure where this stems from).
-- So I am not sure the relation to my comment and the criminals.
-- I don't think this is what @NeedleinA was trying to say, that leaders are better.
-- I didn't gather this from anyone's post.

Our previous words were more than clear @Anddenex.
As of late, there are simply some individuals on the forum unnecessarily lugging around glaringly huge chips on their shoulders over certain topics, i.e. church leaders being imperfect.
X is said, they hear Y. X is repeated once again, but they still can only hear Y. Nothing is said, but Y is once again brought up. 
It is almost futile to attempt dialog, as long as those giant chips, that they voluntarily continue to bear, weigh them down to the point of distorted communication.

If a leader at some point has offended you, real or perceived... move on from it already. If a leader has not lived up to your expectations, real or perceived... move on from it already. In the process of repeatedly airing your less than perfect instances with leaders, you are either intentionally or unknowingly spreading distention, contention and weakening other members, NOT strengthening or spiritually lifting them up. If someone is here with the intention to damage the testimonies of others, there are too many folks here willing to call a spade a spade. If you are doing it and not realizing the damage you are causing, then listen to Elder Uchtdorf and:

Quote

Stop It!

Edited by NeedleinA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Vort said:

Not sure how to explain it, but surely I'm not alone in feeling this way. . . To my mind, they are somehow different in kind, and thus I think different in severity.

At an instinctual level, I feel the same way, but the way I wound up with such a perspective is in I trying to reverse the logic by asking myself, 'Can I justify a reason why two heterosexual people having illicit sexual relations is better than two homosexual people doing so?'  Ultimately, despite the fact that it almost seems natural to suggest that one is worse than the other, when I look at it from the angle of trying to suggest one is better than the other, I struggle to come up with anything.

That said, I speculate that a sinful act could be sinful in multiple ways, requiring independent repentance, not unlike the court system where a single crime can carry multiple 'counts'.  I wonder if homosexual relations, by nature, could involve a greater number of individual 'counts' of sin?

Ultimately, however, all sin is equal in the sense that any sin, no matter how small, is sufficient to eternally separate us from God and bring about permanent spiritual death.  I've said this before but, Christ's atonement paid the price for our sins and enabled Him to determine the requirements for repentance, which we experience, seemingly scaled on levels of severity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, person0 said:

Ultimately, however, all sin is equal in the sense that any sin, no matter how small, is sufficient to eternally separate us from God and bring about permanent spiritual death.

In this sense, the whole exercise of trying to rate sins from greatest to least seems futile. On the other hand, people need to understand what they've done wrong in order to truly repent of that wrongdoing. Equating homosexual fornication to heterosexual fornication seems to me to obscure some elements of wrongful behavior. But I speak as one not having authority in the area. That's what it looks like from my perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Grunt said:

I agree.  It becomes clearer to me the further down the rabbit hole you go.  I think the Honor Code hubbub at BYU is what cleared it up for me.  Is a boy and a girl kissing an abomination unto God?  It's not an Honor Code violation, correct?  Yet two boys or two girls doing it is the same thing?   It just isn't.

Tom Stringham, who used to run a blog called Virtuous Society, called the HCO yesterday and point-blank asked whether, since dating/PDA is supposedly not a LOC violation, that means married BYU students can date/engage in PDA on campus with persons other than their spouses and not run afoul of the HCO.  He says they wouldn’t give him a straight answer.

BYU, as usually, has done a miserable job of explaining itself.  That’s nothing new.  For now I’m taking a wait-and-see attitude.  It may well be that the new reality is simply that HCO won’t enforce *any* aspect of the honor code/dress and grooming standards [other than, perhaps, academic dishonesty or that sort of thing] and instead will punt those issues to the student’s bishop (who is supposed to be doing annual ecclesiastical endorsement reviews anyways)—if that were the case, I could actually get behind that pretty easily; and it may keep BYU from running afoul of the Department of Education the next time a Democrat is in the White House.  (“Golly gee, President Sanders; BYU would *love* to have more LGBTQ students; but for some reason there just aren’t any non-celibate Mormon gays amongst the pool of prospective students who have ecclesiastical endorsements from their bishops!”)

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

BYU, as usually, has done a miserable job of explaining itself.

As one who openly and unabashedly loves BYU, I am nevertheless not blind to its shortcomings. This mealy-mouthed non-response is simply one of many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It may well be that the new reality is simply that HCO won’t enforce *any* aspect of the honor code/dress and grooming standards

I'll believe that when they allow bearded men to take tests or check out books from the library.

Or maybe they will decide that this is the only aspect of the dress standard that is safe to enforce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I'll believe that when they allow bearded men to take tests or check out books from the library.

Or maybe they will decide that this is the only aspect of the dress standard that is safe to enforce.

I don’t know that the Honor Code prevents bearded *women* from taking tests . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2020 at 10:09 AM, NeuroTypical said:

However, if a member formally joins another church and advocates its teachings, withdrawing his or her membership may be necessary.)

And if the teachings of that other church happen to be fairly similar to those of our church, as many Christtian doctrines are, can a member who has joined another church be excommunicated from our church for apostasy for teaching things that are fairly similar to the teachings of our church? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, askandanswer said:

And if the teachings of that other church happen to be fairly similar to those of our church, as many Christtian doctrines are, can a member who has joined another church be excommunicated from our church for apostasy for teaching things that are fairly similar to the teachings of our church? 

I cannot answer authoritatively, but I'm pretty sure that simply declaring your formal affiliation with another religious body—ANY other religious body—is considered apostasy and thus grounds for excommunication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now