BYU classroom lecture


mikbone
 Share

Recommended Posts

8:59 Professor says BYU wants students to come up with "a personal definition to you on what it means to be virtuous and to obey the law of chastity... They want you to come up with your own personal definition of that"

What?? Personal definition now governs the law of chastity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm...

I don't know the professor.  It sounds like he may have issues himself that hearing such things or ideas made him happy regarding what he felt the new stance was.  It would be interesting to know what he thinks now after the clarification.

Either way, this is no reason for people to send him death threats or other things similar to that.

The biggest feeling I got was that he may have been part of the target audience that he, himself, was addressing, and as such, perhaps had this hit home closer than it may have to others.  In that light, if he has had it hidden, perhaps he was feeling relief, or if he was open, it had another impact upon him.

Or, it could just be the way he portrayed it and he does not engender feelings within himself of like quality.  It was simply his enthusiasm and the way he talked about it that made me think that he may have the ideas he expressed hitting closer to home in regards to his own personal affects than people may realize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mikbone said:

Does this qualify as apostasy?

Does it make you uncomfortable?

Does this qualify as apostasy?

I would say that he likes and supports aspects of the great and spacious building, the whore of all the earth. There are aspects of truth that offend him. If he continues on this path, yes, this is a path that definitely could lead to apostasy.

One of my brother's was on this path a long time ago, and now he has decided he no longer has a testimony or belief in the Church. Yes, a voice of warning, if unchecked this ideology leads to apostasy.

Does it make you uncomfortable?

Yes. He took paid time from a course where he had a captivated audience to preach his will, his ideology. He is justifying and rationalizing concepts in order to feel better about his position. If I were in his class I would have been uncomfortable as he was taking class time (I am not paying college tuition, nor the Church tithing) to preach his philosophy.

Law of Chasity?

I am still shocked that any member of the Church is not able to understand the difference between heterosexuals romantically holding hands and homosexuals romantically holding hands. His idea of "Law of Chastity" was "sex." The law of chastity isn't just "sex."

Yes, homosexuals to a small degree are breaking the law of chastity if they are kissing or holding hands. The Church's clarification shouldn't have needed to be made to a righteous generation.  A righteous generation would understand. The Church's clarification is due to a wicked generation growing stronger in their desire for their truth (like Satan) to be heard and accepted.

@NeedleinA > The Spirit.

No. Anytime someone preaches their own ideology the Spirit will not testify of it. However, the notion of being respectful (that is a truth) which the Spirit will bear witness of, and there is a difference between being respectful and maintaining integrity with regards to covenants and the first great commandment (and second), and not maintaining integrity (in that thing) regarding perversions of the law of chastity and preaching contrary to the will of God (as covenanted members).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The story BYUHCO is now giving is that they were telling callers all along that a) no, they didn’t have a specific rule against gay dating; but b) that it’s still wrong and students shouldn’t do it.

https://universe.byu.edu/2020/03/10/needs-edits-from-print-and-caption-impacts-of-byu-honor-code-changes-still-emerging/

Do I believe them?

Frankly, no.

But Brau, as a grownup Mormon who is paid for the quality of his ostensible brainpower, still should have known better than to go as far as he did, which was to suggest that gay affection was not only permissible but morally right.

Moreover, his suggestion/threat that BYU students who expressly and publicly defended the status quo ante/Family Proclamation on-campus were now themselves potentially ripe for HCO discipline; was positively goonish—but nonetheless a useful object lesson and warning.  These people love libertinism, but they do not love any kind of liberty that fails to serve libido.

I’ll say it more plainly.  They hate liberty.  Hate it.

Jimmy Brau is now whining about supposed threats to his safety, being made by the alt-right.  I have no idea whether his claims are true, or just more politicized lies in the vein of the politicized lies he has already told.  I certainly don’t advocate any abridgment of his human or constitutional rights.  But he is, quite bluntly, a petty Stalinist who needs to be fired.

He’d do the same to you.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/12/2020 at 9:35 AM, NeedleinA said:

8:59 Professor says BYU wants students to come up with "a personal definition to you on what it means to be virtuous and to obey the law of chastity... They want you to come up with your own personal definition of that"

What?? Personal definition now governs the law of chastity?

I know what you mean by this, but...

The discussion groups I frequent tend to focus on sexual behavior/standards within heterosexual marriage. Frequently within these groups, the question of what is appropriate between a married couple comes up, and most of the time we try to steer couples towards "use your own personal definitions to govern your understanding of the law of chastity." (within, of course, the limitation of going outside of the marriage). So many times, the most difficult cases are the "but my mom/dad/bishop/stake president said that Elder (apostle/prophet) so and so said that..." because that appeal to authority carries a lot of weight in the Church. Take Professor Brau's statement outside of the context of this particular controversy, and I see many promoting exactly this -- come up with your own personal definition of what virtue and chastity mean (if any of you follow Jennifer Finlaysen-Fife, she frequently talks about this). Is it really that terrible of a skill to develop -- the ability to make moral judgements -- to really understand right from wrong?

I think the thing that I see in this is that so many of us are afraid that, if we give students permission to make their own moral judgements, then they might make (in our estimation) wrong moral judgements (in this case, deciding that homo-romantic behavior is acceptable under the law of chastity). How shall we deal with CES students who come to wrong conclusions? How far should CES honor code offices go in "policing" students' moral reasoning and conclusions and the behavior that flows out of that reasoning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If these comments were made during a lecture that was supposed to be about business, I would be unhappy about that. It sounds like 10 minutes being spent on material totally unrelated to the primary subject or purpose of the lecture. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

If these comments were made during a lecture that was supposed to be about business, I would be unhappy about that. It sounds like 10 minutes being spent on material totally unrelated to the primary subject or purpose of the lecture. 

In part, at least when I was at BYU, it was not uncommon (perhaps required) that professors (art, computer science, etc) would take time to bear their testimonies or share how their subject matter related to the gospel etc. What happened in this particular case, I don't know.

Edited by NeedleinA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

In part, at least when I was at BYU, it was not uncommon (perhaps required) that professors (art, computer science, etc) would take time to bear their testimonies or share how their subject matter related to the gospel etc. What happened in this particular case, I don't know.

That was common when I went as well. I remember some classes beginning with prayer, and, especially in religion but also in other courses, professors would definitely relate lessons to the gospel from time to time. That would have been 2007 to 2011 so not that long ago. I would have just walked out of this guy's class and dropped him after a stunt like this. I'd take the W on my report card if need be. 

Edited by Midwest LDS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

In part, at least when I was at BYU, it was not uncommon (perhaps required) that professors (art, computer science, etc) would take time to bear their testimonies or share how their subject matter related to the gospel etc. What happened in this particular case, I don't know.

This is one aspect that I loved about BYU and how some professors would intertwine gospel truths within their discourse/lesson material. This teacher wasn't taking time to relate gospel truths.

Something I have loved about the Book of Mormon is the symbolism of Nephi building a boat after the manner the Lord showed him, not after the manner of man. We live in a day where a covenanted member is wanting to teach and have accepted relationships that are not after the manner the Lord has shown us, but after the manner of the natural man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 3/12/2020 at 11:43 AM, Anddenex said:

Yes, homosexuals to a small degree are breaking the law of chastity if they are kissing or holding hands.

I disagree. Homosexuality is the sin. Holding hands and kissing aren't sins. We permit is among women to an extent. Are you going to take two girls who are dancing together at a church dance and excommunicate them for breaking the law of chastity? Is kissing and holding hands between a heterosexual couple who aren't married breaking the law of chastity?

I think you are confused about cultural norms and what constitutes the law of chastity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

I disagree. Homosexuality is the sin. Holding hands and kissing aren't sins. We permit is among women to an extent. Are you going to take two girls who are dancing together at a church dance and excommunicate them for breaking the law of chastity? Is kissing and holding hands between a heterosexual couple who aren't married breaking the law of chastity?

I think you are confused about cultural norms and what constitutes the law of chastity.

You see everyone, it really is straightforward. We can leave this matter up to the chastity lawyers and they can assure us that there really is nothing wrong with holding hands or kissing as part of a homosexual relationship. The legal experts have informed us It's all perfectly corban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

What's the difference? Just curious.

The key term here is "romantically" holding hands. Do I really need to go any further than that? If so, one is sanctioned by God, the other is not. One is ordained and supported by God, the other is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

I disagree. Homosexuality is the sin. Holding hands and kissing aren't sins. We permit is among women to an extent. Are you going to take two girls who are dancing together at a church dance and excommunicate them for breaking the law of chastity? Is kissing and holding hands between a heterosexual couple who aren't married breaking the law of chastity?

I think you are confused about cultural norms and what constitutes the law of chastity.

Nope, not confused at all. How did this jump to excommunication for breaking the law of chastity with holding hands and kissing? I believe we both recognize there are varying degrees of breaking the law of chastity.

That is OK, you can disagree, but it doesn't change what is supported by God, and what has strictly been forbidden by Him. Homosexual acts of any kind, romantic, are a sin. Yes, we permit (or better said God permits) the act of holding hands and kissing between heterosexuals as good as this leads to proper union between ordained marriages.

I am honestly not sure how anyone would think that two men or two women romantically kissing isn't breaking the law of chastity.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

[1] Holding hands and kissing aren't sins.

[2]Are you going to take two girls who are dancing together at a church dance and excommunicate them for breaking the law of chastity? 

1.  Even if one of the parties to the hand-holding/kissing happens to be married to someone else?

2.  What does the BYU honor code have to do with excommunication?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

 

I think you are confused about cultural norms and what constitutes the law of chastity.

Showing romantic affection toward the same gender is a sin. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/12/2020 at 9:01 AM, mikbone said:

Does this qualify as apostasy?

Does it make you uncomfortable?

Not necessarily  -  I am only uncomfortable with the concern that it will be misunderstood.

I posted something but it appears to have been lost - I will try again.  Most of what is in the video I agree with and I am likewise comfortable.  But there are problems - if I am to highlight what I think may be a problem - many may think I stand firmly against or for things that I am not.  That seems to be most often the responses to surface understanding.  Joseph Smith suggested that we teach correct principles and allow each individual to govern themselves.  I believe this is at the foundation of the great divine gift of agency.  There seems to be to be two important principles for the Latter-day Saints of G-d.  First that we teach (by example and expression) principles of truth.  The second is that we all other the privileged to govern themselves.

It appears to me that the professor concentrated his remarks almost entirely on the second grand principle taught by Joseph Smith concerning agency - that principle is allow and respect others, the privileged to govern themselves.  Most that argue, do so in terms of right and wrong while concentrating almost entirely on what they believe to be the first principle.   And so it is (often with myself as well) that when we think we teach a correct principle - that others will govern themselves in the same manner as we would govern ourself with the understanding of such principles of truth.

I believe the place of disagreement has to do with the "Law of Chasity".  There are two aspects of the law spoken of in scripture.  First is the "Letter" of the Law and the second is the "Spirit" of the law.  I believe the great difference between man and beast is the intelligence of man.  Most think emotions are separate and different from intelligence.   I believe this is because often emotions are blamed for doing stupid things - but if we understand that emotions are an integral part of our intelligence - we should not attempt to disengage one from the other.  We are told that the Law of Chasity is governed by the principles of sexual activity.  I believe there is another principle of the Law of Chasity expressed in the divine covenant of marriage.

I have learned in life that there is, from time to time, great expressions of hate and anger in how certain individuals disagree with we all should be governing ourselves.  This should not be.  A Saint of G-d should never be angry with how anyone governs themselves - they may properly be disappointed but when we become angry Satan has taken over our heart.  I know for my self it is most difficult to discuss things in anger and maintain the spirit of G-d - so I believe Satan employs such tactic specifically for his advantage.  But it seems to me that either a person shuns logic and reason and replaces such with emotion to justify the manner they govern themselves or they have not understood the correct principle to begin with.  If they have not understood the principle and are seeking truth - the will embrace the truth and be glad for it.  But if ruled by emotion that drives faulty logic - they will become angry if confronted with correct principles or a challenge to their behavior.

My point is that whatever a person does in anger - will result in the spirit of G-d withdrawing.  And without the spirit of G-d correct principles cannot be taught nor learned.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I question his explanation of the events surrounding the former student of his being fired.  It may be that he is making an interpretation rather than truly relaying exactly what happened.  It may be that this is an instance of a game of telephone.  But it may be that he's either delusional or lying.

The firing could just as easily be explained by a dozen other reasons.  One of them could be that the former student in question really was a very crude and obnoxious individual that never understood the Lord's counsel to love thy neighbor.  It could be that he was (counter to all counsel from the Brethren) truly homophobic.  In any case, how would this change in policy have changed the outcome?

He can make a grandstanding claim that honor code / policy was to blame for the former student's behavior.  But I never saw anything in the honor code or Church policies/doctrines/beliefs that would support such behavior.  He did that all on his own.  I don't see how the non-change would have affected the behavior of this employee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share