Fido wrote:Notice I didn't side one way or another on my comment. I just said that is the one outstanding thing--and if they did something there, what complaints would people have about the school?
You turned it into "who wants to see gay people holding hands and kissing at BYU!?!"
Per the latest guidance from the church on same-sex attraction, these descriptions are given:
"Identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin and does not prohibit one from participating in the Church, holding callings, or attending the temple."
...
"Sexual relations are reserved for a man and woman who are married and promise complete loyalty to each other. Sexual relations between a man and woman who are not married, or between people of the same sex, violate one of our Father in Heaven’s most important laws."
I wouldn't have a problem or worry that BYU isn't being "LDS-enough" if they went with that standard. Having sex outside of marriage or between people of the same sex would be honor code violations. Forget about hand-holding, kissing, or whatever else. The LGBTQ people would then only have the complaint that married heterosexual couples can have sex but a homosexual couple can't. But that makes lines much clearer and easier to defend.
One can say "the honor code is fine the way it is"--but it has already undergone two significant revisions this year alone.
Ygridiron4ever wrote:Fido wrote:Now the only outstanding "issue" that has come up over the past year and a half which has not been addressed is the LGBTQ issues with the honor code. If they come up with some kind of honor code adjustment that doesn't single out a group for different treatment, I don't think anyone would have legitimate complaints that have been so newsworthy of late.
Some interesting movement in that area as well with the newly re-launched "Mormon and Gay" page on the official LDS.org website. The church is working hard to address the issue in a way that clearly acknowledges the changing worldly light in which the LGBT 'condition' is being cast while maintaining eternal doctrinal understanding.
It was once the position that "gay" was a choice and a lifestyle, and that one could be same-sex attracted and Mormon. But not gay and Mormon.
If I read the new language right, the church now accepts the titles lesbian and gay similarly to how it once viewed the identifier "same sex attracted."
So a person can now be gay and hold a temple recommend, as long as they truthfully answer questions the same way a celibate heterosexual does.
That has trickle down to BYU.
First, anyone paying attention in some of the more recent General Conferences would have heard the Brethren encourage homosexuals not to define themselves as "gay" or "lesbian" but stressed to identify themselves as children of Heavenly Father. The obvious intent to maintain a more eternal outlook and not get caught up in these labels that didn't exist before this life and won't in the hereafter. The more homosexuals in the Church come to identify themselves in this way, including dwelling on the "I was born this way" issue, the more they'll feel justified in acting on those feelings and relate more to current social and political trends (the philosophies of men) than Gospel doctrine.
Second, the relaunching of the website isn't really a sign of much change, as much as some wished it was and some media outlets have portrayed it as. For instance, as long as they have lived the law of chastity, gays have been able to hold a recommend for a long time. That's not new. While the Church continues to make an effort to reach out to gays, the doctrine of the Church hasn't and won't change because it's eternal doctrine. The Lord's doctrine. So those people inside and outside the Church, who are wishing and waiting for the day the homosexuality will be embraced and accepted, besides showing a shocking ignorance and unbelief of Gospel principles, are setting themselves up for disappointment.
Third, one wonders the reasons some, including on this board, want so much to appeal to the world. To capitulate in an effort to appease groups that are hostile to the Church and Gospel. I'm reminded of what President Benson said years ago about some members "not being so much concerned about bringing the Gospel into the world as they are bringing the world into the Gospel." That certainly fits more than a few posters on Cougarboard who were mad - not at the LGBT groups or the Big 12 - but at BYU for not getting the invite.
Sure, the HC could say something like "no sex before marriage" and leave it at that. But that would be a foolish move. It wouldn't satisfy those critics who will never be satisfied until the Church bends to their will. Nor, as I pointed out before, would it address the issue of homosexual couples showing affection. Sorry but that should not just be "forgotten about." That's a problem even if they aren't having sex. But it is not a problem for heterosexual couples, as long as they don't have premarital sex, but is allowed and even encouraged as people often find their spouses while attending.
It's important to maintain a distinction and highlight the differences between heterosexual and homosexual lifestyles and relationships. The world wants us to believe it's only about "love" and that's all that matters. And it seems some in the Church, either because they agree with this philosophy or because they simply want to appease the world, are buying into this on one level or another.
I would finish with this question -
What is BYU's role?
Is it to reflect the beliefs and standards of the Church, even if those things are treated with contempt and hostility by critics? After all, are we not always talking about BYU sports being a way to introduce the world to the Church?
Or is it to slowly do away with, alter, or minimize these beliefs and standards in an effort to passify critics and fit in more with the world? And for what? A mess of pottage in the form of an P5 invite? To no longer be on the hit list of some LGBT or feminist group?