Just wanted to give '71 another reason to complain about the Honor Code

[Jeff Lebowski]

Wouldn't that be better addressed through a private meeting with professors and administrators of BYU?

Also, I went and read the transcript of the talk. I disagree with you read of it, it is pretty bad. The rhetoric creates and us vs. them dynamic.

He absolutely puts the individual on blast that came out in his speech. Just because he didn't use his name doesn't mean it wasn't directed at him. Also, what is divisive about someone being honest about their sexuality?

The use of the phrase "live with this same-sex challenge" is absolutely problematic. He then follows that up with preaching about unkindness and cruelty, right after he used a very unkind phrase. Many would also argue that the phrase "live with this same-sex challenge" in and of itself is cruel.

I have a hard time not seeing some real animosity in this statement "confused about what so much recent flag-waving and parade-holding on this issue means."

It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me and it certainly isn't something that will build bridges or reduce animosity.

You missed my point. But that's OK. I am not interested in debating this.

[MartyFunkhouser]

You missed my point. But that's OK. I am not interested in debating this.

That is fine. I'm not really that interested in debating it either. IMO, it is ultimately disappointing to see what was said.

[Northwestcoug]

easy—just live a life of monastic solitude in a theology that teaches that the sacrament of marriage is a prerequisite to achieving eternal salvation, particularly while all your friends and family constantly wax poetic about the singular importance of their spouse and children in their happiness. no sweat.

Well when you put it that way, easy peasy!

Yeah, I think he could have made his point without publicly calling out the commencement speaker. That speech was pre-approved by the college, so I guess he was effectively putting the college on blast.

I am guessing that this incident from June played a big role in forming Holland's motivation for the talk:

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/comme...-davis-we-are/

I am sure the brethren don't appreciate being lectured on how to do their job by BYU faculty in the pages of the SL Trib.

Is that author affiliated with BYU?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Well when you put it that way, easy peasy!

Is that author affiliated with BYU?

https://politicalscience.byu.edu/dir.../richard-davis

[Northwestcoug]

https://politicalscience.byu.edu/dir.../richard-davis

Thanks. I could have looked it up .

[old_gregg]

I am sure the brethren don't appreciate being lectured on how to do their job by BYU faculty in the pages of the SL Trib.

by the way, you’re right about this, and this is the exact issue that is the lynchpin of our theological disagreements.

[All-American]

by the way, you’re right about this, and this is the exact issue that is the lynchpin of our theological disagreements.

Which one are you, the brethren or the BYU faculty?

[old_gregg]

Which one are you, the brethren or the BYU faculty?

And they are dancing, the board floor slamming under the jackboots and the fiddlers grinning hideously over their canted pieces. Towering over them all is the judge and he is naked dancing, his small feet lively and quick and now in doubletime and bowing to the ladies, huge and pale and hairless, like an enormous infant. He never sleeps, he says. He says he'll never die. He bows to the fiddlers and sashays backwards and throws back his head and laughs deep in his throat and he is a great favorite, the judge. He wafts his hat and the lunar dome of his skull passes palely under the lamps and he swings about and takes possession of one of the fiddles and he pirouettes and makes a pass, two passes, dancing and fiddling all at once. His feet are light and nimble. He never sleeps. He says that he will never die. He dances in light and in shadow and he is a great favorite. He never sleeps, the judge. He is dancing, dancing. He says that he will never die.

i don’t know

[Paperback Writer]

I've probably shared this before - I taught Seminary part-time at Woods Cross HS my last year of college. Coming from a family of educators and not to far removed from a mission, I contemplated entering the CES system.

I don't even know how the conversation came up, as I didn't spend a lot of time talking with HS kids about sex, but one of my students told me that another of the teachers there at the time had done a lesson on morality and the law of chastity, and essentially taught that if we really understood the sacred nature of sexual intercourse, we would only partake of that forbidden fruit within the bounds of a temple marriage and ONLY with the intent to procreate and bring spirits into the world. He went on to tell the kids that he and his wife only bumped uglies when they were trying to get her pregnant - and outside of that they did not have sex.

So - there are some folks working an element of the monastic solitude angle in spite of being married.

Those teachings found their way to the mission field in the early 1980s. As a DL, I was interviewing a young married couple for baptism when the husband expressed concern about the church's law of chastity. They had been taught by sister missionaries. I clarified the church's stance on the matter, much to the husband's relief. When I met with the sister missionaries afterward, one of them claimed I was in error. An uncomfortable discussion ensued among four presumed virgins about the law of chastity, sex, and church doctrine.

[MartyFunkhouser]

I've probably shared this before - I taught Seminary part-time at Woods Cross HS my last year of college. Coming from a family of educators and not to far removed from a mission, I contemplated entering the CES system.

I don't even know how the conversation came up, as I didn't spend a lot of time talking with HS kids about sex, but one of my students told me that another of the teachers there at the time had done a lesson on morality and the law of chastity, and essentially taught that if we really understood the sacred nature of sexual intercourse, we would only partake of that forbidden fruit within the bounds of a temple marriage and ONLY with the intent to procreate and bring spirits into the world. He went on to tell the kids that he and his wife only bumped uglies when they were trying to get her pregnant - and outside of that they did not have sex.

So - there are some folks working an element of the monastic solitude angle in spite of being married.

This person is a homosexual.

[old_gregg]

This person is a homosexual.

[Northwestcoug]

Read excerpts of the talk. It does come across as a clear shot across the bow and overly combative. Not lost on some twitter people I saw is his reference to Kimball's talk of the first 100 years of the Y, given right before the ending of the priesthood ban.

This is going to come back again and again for the church. No matter if you believe that the anti-gay doctrine will someday be thrown away (personally I don't see enough space for it to happen in LDS theology) or if it really is an eternal doctrine, the history of previous doctrines being rescinded is glaring for all to see. A healthy dose of humility is needed any time a leader rails against gay rights within the church. The way the current leaders, all of whom worked through the priesthood ban era, act as if it wasn't a clear doctrinal change (and was delayed for years because some of those leaders had to work through their own personal biases), is just disturbing. It's disturbing that they can't acknowledge in humility that they have been forced to their current improved stance on LGBT issues because society and decent people both inside and outside the church have moved past them.

[Northwestcoug]

I've probably shared this before - I taught Seminary part-time at Woods Cross HS my last year of college. Coming from a family of educators and not to far removed from a mission, I contemplated entering the CES system.

I don't even know how the conversation came up, as I didn't spend a lot of time talking with HS kids about sex, but one of my students told me that another of the teachers there at the time had done a lesson on morality and the law of chastity, and essentially taught that if we really understood the sacred nature of sexual intercourse, we would only partake of that forbidden fruit within the bounds of a temple marriage and ONLY with the intent to procreate and bring spirits into the world. He went on to tell the kids that he and his wife only bumped uglies when they were trying to get her pregnant - and outside of that they did not have sex.

So - there are some folks working an element of the monastic solitude angle in spite of being married.

I heard that a couple of times. But it was more of a vague nod to that teaching, like you cannot separate the dual purposes of procreation and pleasure from sex. I also heard somewhere that a husband was happy that the wife was pregnant so their sexual activity would increase.

I know, not church doctrine. But I did hear those whispers as well.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Those teachings found their way to the mission field in the early 1980s. As a DL, I was interviewing a young married couple for baptism when the husband expressed concern about the church's law of chastity. They had been taught by sister missionaries. I clarified the church's stance on the matter, much to the husband's relief. When I met with the sister missionaries afterward, one of them claimed I was in error. An uncomfortable discussion ensued among four presumed virgins about the law of chastity, sex, and church doctrine.

That’s funny.

I have heard of people like that but never met one in real life. Lunatic.

[Moliere]

I heard that a couple of times. But it was more of a vague nod to that teaching, like you cannot separate the dual purposes of procreation and pleasure from sex. I also heard somewhere that a husband was happy that the wife was pregnant so their sexual activity would increase.

I know, not church doctrine. But I did hear those whispers as well.

I’ve never heard this and in fact was taught the opposite that sex is for pleasure and procreation and not always both at the same time. I guess this is another one of those issues that it really depends on the individual doing the teaching as it was not church doctrine as far as I know. There’s a chance it was a bastardization of the church’s brief stance on various forms of birth control.