Today the Church issued a letter with some clarification on the changes made to the BYU Honor Code. As you know the changes that were made in conjunction with the release of the new Handbook have caused some confusion and some people to grossly misinterpret things. Sadly, there have even been death threats and completely nasty behavior from the “ally” camp heaped on students who feel compelled to defend the gospel. Not good people, not good at all.
The press release is can be found HERE
The critical text reads as follows:
“A foundational doctrine of the Restored gospel of Jesus Christ is that ‘marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children’ (The Family a Proclamation to the World’). Church leaders have long taught these principles.
“Same-sex romantic behavior cannot lead to eternal marriage and is therefore not compatible with the principles included in the Honor Code.
“We are grateful for the commitment that all students and employees in the Church Educational System make to live the principles and spirit of the Honor Code.”
So there it is. Same-sex dating has never been allowed at BYU and other church schools, and it still is not allowed.
Thanks for writing this Joyce. I’m glad to see the Church clarifying this situation.
Apparently there will be a protest at the Wilkinson Center today at 1pm and then at the COB at 2pm by people who are upset about this clarification.
If you don’t like the rules at BYU find another school to attend. There are 15 other kids who were denied a spot at BYU, who’d love to live the Honor Code (ie: the commandments and standards of the church) who could fill your seat in a second. It’s not fair to them to have whiny kids sniveling about the commandments.
This whole situation has been revealing though, and perhaps that’s a good thing.
I wonder how many people who protest BYU’s policy are actually attending BYU.
Who knows, but I looked up some of these twitter accounts referenced, that made the death threats. They claim to be BYU students and they are horrid in their tone, language, and complete disdain for the Honor Code and the standards of the Church. WHY ARE THEY AT BYU? I just know that all of the good kids at BYU need our prayers right now. I can’t imagine the chaos on campus today.
Threats of death or violence are illegal in most places, specifically including Utah (Utah code 76-5-107. Threat of violence — Penalty.) and are thus a violation of the Honor Code provision to “Obey the law and follow campus policies”.
They are also a violation of the provision to “respect others including the avoidance of profane and vulgar language”. Aren’t threats of violence even less respectful than common profanity or racial slurs?
Joyce, FTFY
I just know that all of the
goodkids at BYU need our prayers right now.Some observations:
1. Somebody at BYU/Church admin should have known how this was going to play out. They need to stop being no naive about how pro-LGBT activists operate. Read Rules for Radicals and understand that there are plenty of malignantly bad actors at BYU. I mean seriously — you take out an entire section relating to homosexual behavior and you didn’t think that LGBT activists were going to parley that into a huge media “victory” – brief although it was? This was 100% unnecessary and it was an unforced fumble. And they are now emboldened. There will be further momentum/agitation on their part now, and it didn’t have to be this way.
2. Any attempt at accommodation on the Church’s part will not be met with a good faith attempt on the other side. I really wish some folks would grow up and understand that they are dealing with savvy political activists. I wish we had a few savvy political activists to vet things on *our* side.
3. A clarifying statement was slow, slow, slow in coming. It needed to come out much sooner than it did. Again, this shows that folks aren’t really understanding what they are contending with.
4. Good will come from this, but in an age of moral and doctrinal confusion, these unforced errors do a *lot* of harm.
Now, please don’t misconstrue my criticism above as a criticism of the Brethren. The fumble occurred below their paygrade. I just really hope the folks involved have learned their lesson. And perhaps, a housecleaning is in order at BYU?
@MT:
“This was 100% unnecessary and it was an unforced fumble.
…
Now, please don’t misconstrue my criticism above as a criticism of the Brethren. The fumble occurred below their paygrade.”
Perhaps. But if the FP and Q12 did vet the HC change, and I think they did, it would mean that other unstated factors and considerations are in play. The Brethren are not obligated to make public the Lord’s reasonings and purposes.
Over on JrG, someone quoted this tweet:
Church history has bunches of apparent mis-steps that turned out to be wisdom in hindsight. My guess: The Lord is playing 3D chess. Let’s not complain because we can only see a 2D playing field.
Good comment, Michael Towns. I have to wonder if there is a disconnect between some administrators on the BYU campus and the brethren. As you say, the mistakes are not coming from the brethren but instead from somebody else at a lower level.
Or as Book Slinger points out, it could be that there is no mistake at all. Very interesting.
Michael Towns,
Thank you for your comments. I agree but have a slightly different viewpoint.
The Brethren optimistically overestimate the ability and readiness of the overall Church membership to apply the principle Joseph Smith taught when he said “I teach them correct principles and let the govern themselves.”
We have been witnessing this faith in us from our Church leaders over the past 2 years.
We shifted from Home Teaching to Ministering which emphasizes the higher and holier way of seeking the spirit to serve families rather than relying on the mechanics of a monthly visit and lesson.
We went from 3-hour church meetings to HOME-centered, church-supported gospel study. The responsibility is all on us.
President Nelson practically begs us to keep the spirit close by and develop our abilities to receive personal revelation to guide our lives.
The Church leaders are placing great confidence in us, I feel, and in many cases we are letting them down. The original HC update should have been enough, but many of us are still like the children of Israel who need Moses to spell it out for them.
In my opinion, the failure is on our part, not theirs. So many of us are simply not ready. I include myself in this number, but I’ll keep trying.
Cheers.
I appreciate the feedback on my comment. You all gave me more to think about, so thank you.
We live in deeply fascinating times.
@ MT,
What would have been the political savvy thing to do? When you throw out a piece of meat, the wolves are not going to not attack. The Brethren obviously felt something needed to be done, and they didn’t shrink from that. Sometimes we think we know better, but any way you play it, the forces are out there and are going to respond. On the face of it, it looks like a fumble from a bunch of amateurish conservatives, but that’s exactly what the Radicals wanted it to look like. Having made a clarification statement, however slow it was (Elder Johnson had to consult with the FP and Q12), and it did need to be carefully worded, this will now pass. The caravan moves on.
Mapinguari — sure pray for all the kids, but you know what, it’s the “good kids” that largely have been forgotten in the effort to make the LGBT kids feel loved. Speaking from my own experiences, it’s nice to be told your efforts at keeping the commandments and supporting the brethren are appreciated. That is not said nearly enough. So, pray for the good kids too.
And for what it’s worth the protests at BYU were violent today. LGBT allies started throwing punches and pushing the “good kids” who showed up to peacefully defend the Honor Code. Why are these kids at BYU? If you feel the need to show up and chant, “Hey-ho the Honor Code has to go!” BYU might not be the right place for you.
Tiger, I’m really not worried about the caravan. But lots of people are naive about the nature of the opposition to truth and the church. That’s my opinion of course, but I’m entitled to it.
I think, Michael Towns, what we have is a situation similar to this one:
https://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2020/3/4/autism-and-communion-textbook-social-media-clash-between-parents-press-and-church
It’s not quite the same thing, but when I saw this analysis, it seems like it basically applies:
“But here is the basic outline for this painful train wreck.
(1) Church leaders make an initial decision on a complex issue.
(2) Outraged parents and/or activists immediately fight back in social media (like this).
(3) Church leaders begin researching various church statements on the issue at hand, thinking they have time to prepare a more nuanced and accurate statement.
(4) Parents and/or commentators on the viral post quickly contact local media.
(5) Initial media reports lead to blast of local, regional and even national press coverage.
(6) Heat from media reports stuns church leaders, especially since they didn’t think that their initial response was the carved-in-stone final statement on the issue.
Raise your hand if you have seen this process play out on a wide variety of hot-button or sensitive church issues.”
I’d like to focus in on this statement, namely “Same-sex romantic behavior cannot lead to eternal marriage and is therefore not compatible with the principles included in the Honor Code.”
My comment on Febuary 25 in Joyce’s earlier post on this subject is relevant to this point, so I won’t repeat it all here. Briefly, there are 4 types of love mentioned in the Bible: Charity, Friendship, Familial Affection, and Romantic (eroticism). The Honor Code statement focuses only on same-sex Romantic behavior. I will be so bold as to say that behavior demonstrating the other 3 types of love are highly encouraged on campus and in the Church.
Different cultures and eras accept varying ways of demonstrating these 3 other types of love. For example, when I lived in France males who were very good friends or close relatives would often greet each other with “bisous”, or kisses on the cheek as a demonstration of Familial Affection or close Friendship.
We find 3 cases in the New Testament of Paul exhorting Christians to “greet one another with a holy kiss” and one case (1 Thessalonians) where he states “Greet all the brothers with a holy kiss.” The adjective “holy” separates it from romantic intent, and that is a key point.
It all depends on the intent of the action, which is very hard to judge. Would someone freak out if I walked across the quad with my arm around my brother’s shoulder? What if I was holding the hand of my 7 year old grandson? I don’t think anyone would care. But if you changed the participants and the intent, it becomes an issue.
I hope the students and faculty recognize that there is a broad spectrum of Love and that the Honor Code restricts only a small portion of one of its versions.
Cheers.
Thanks John for your comments, both times. I’ve been away dealing with some family stuff and have not had time to respond to comments.
Once again, the LGBT community frames itself as the victimized, traumatized parties in their relationship with the church. People like playing the victim, because that means you didn’t do anything wrong. If you have done nothing wrong, then you don’t need to change. Because it’s hard to change. It’s uncomfortable.
Those who are weeping and wailing and gnashing their teeth about this “reversal” haven’t been paying attention to a word the church has been saying for the last 15 years. The doctrine of the church has always been the same.
I am with Joyce on this one – BYU is and always has been extremely clear on where they stand on LGBT issues. If you don’t like it, if you’re going to hold your nose and whine and complain while you get an Ivy-league standard education for a fraction of the price, maybe you *don’t* belong at BYU and you should let another student who agrees with the school’s mission attend. NO ONE is *entitled* to a BYU education. I think a lot of students who protested yesterday forgot that for a minute.
If you choose to attend BYU you know it is a church-run institution. The same is true for catholic colleges and universities. And if you attend a church-run institution it is absolutely self explanatory that you are expected to adhere to church standards.
So I don’t understand the fuss about it.
The age of most college students is still in the range when they have not reached full maturity. There is no similar excuse for those who are in positions of leadership, whether teachers or local church leaders. Youth are notorious for letting emotion take precedence in decision making. As a student at BYU in the sixties I was distressed at the amount of passionate ‘necking’ going on all over the campus as soon as winter relaxed its grip. I felt the open displays of eros were against the principles of the Honor Code. Is it possible that the changes were meant initially as a reminder that all students were expected to keep the laws of chastity, not just those with homosexual leanings?
The fact that there was a difference between the BYU HCO and BYUI HCO interpretations indicates that the BYU HCO interpretation was made by BYU HCO staff and did not come from higher in the hierarchy. Faithful members should be concerned that there are many BYU administrators and professors who are itching to distance the school from the restored gospel and church of Christ. Their efforts were rebuffed this time, but these folks make smaller-scale decisions that go unnoticed every day. Personnel is policy.
^^^
I support both Elder Johnson’s letter and President Ballard’s two most recent BYU talks. I’m concerned that some on this thread are forgetting the command to listen to and love our LGBT brothers and sisters includes those mourning the Johnson letter. Pray for the good kids, and they are (almost) all good kids. Stand for the letter, stand for loving lgbt kids. I hope the protestors choose to stay at BYU and learn more of our heavenly father’s plan to exalt his children.
Hey “Concerned citizen”
Does “listen and love” mean that I have to capitulate to their demands, even with the shouting and death threats?
Asking for a friend.
I am sincerely concerned that all of the “love our LGBT brothers and sisters” jargon means that we encourage them to stay committed to sin rather than encourage them to “go and sin no more,” which is what the Savior urges them to do. Of course everybody should love everybody else. These days, LGBT people are guaranteed 100 percent love from all the people around them because any other action means you are shunned and your lose your job. But there is another sad side to this situation: you don’t love somebody by encouraging them to take steps away from eternal progression. I wish concerned citizen was as concerned about that as he is concerned about virtue signaling and lecturing other people as to how they should behave.
I define love the way the Savior does, as taught by his prophets. I stand by my post.
As mentioned, I support Elder Johnson’s letter. Thar ought to have given commentators insight sufficient enough for them not to accuse me of things i do not believe.
After many, many years of following the LGBT debate as it manifests itself in our Church community, I’ve come to a few conclusions.
1. The end goal for most activist gay Latter Days Saints is the ability to give full physical sexual expression to their attraction with no corresponding ecclesiastical or cultural consequence.
2. However, they can’t come out and say this, for obvious reasons.
3. Hence, their dialogue is always cloaked in forms of subterfuge and drenched in empathic terminology. “Mourn” “listen” “have a conversation” etc etc etc.
4. Once you fully understand that No. 1 above is the End Goal, everything else about their tactics and strategy falls into place. Their mask has slipped, and their true aims and desires are revealed.
Note that I make a distinction between gay Latter Day Saints who are faithful to sexual purity and chastity and *activist* gay Latter Day Saints who say all the right words but who are not truly interested in abstaining. The former are incredible heroes; the latter are apostate wolves.
Remember: the End Goal for the activists is nothing less than total victory and the *Church must change* to accommodate their vision. Appeasement does nothing for either side.
The “mourners” at BYU right now are mourning because they literally can’t get away with gay/lesbian sexual expression. They are “mourning” because they can’t take pleasure or happiness in sin. The sooner hard truth is sustained and supported, the sooner they can abandon their nihilist vision and they can get back on to the path of peace. The current fashion of wanting to “be nice” at all costs only prolongs the conflict. I wish that weren’t true, but it is.
And for those who disagree with what I’ve written here: search your feelings. You know it to be true.
I think we can support BYU’s policy and the Church’s stance on human sexuality while showing a lot more empathy for those who struggle or are feeling harmed by this policy shift. A lot of the commentors here are very dismissive of these students and suggest they should not complain or should just leave BYU. I think we can and should be a lot more compassionate.
These are 18-24 year olds who are still learning, growing, and coming to maturity. Many are away from home for the first time. College can be a disorienting time and it can also be a time of enormous change. People may have started at BYU with the best intentions, but struggle with the tension between what the world and the Church teach about sexual orientation. We should not be harsh and judgmental. Showing Christlike charity is also the thing most likely to lead these young souls to stay in the Church, and stay close to the Savior. We can still enforce standards, but must do so with a lot more humility.
Similarly, I think we can particularly mourn with those mourning this week. Two weeks ago they were told there was a policy change that was very meaningful to them. They interpreted Elder Ballard’s talk as supportive of them. And then the policy is suddenly clarified in a way contrary to what they have been told. We can empathize with how frustrating that must be for these students. I think we can also relate to their desire for human connection and relationships, and their fear of being judged harshly in an environment which can be more focused on the letter than the spirit of the law.
We can do that while still supporting the policy.
How we talk to and about people matters. How we treat people when they disagree with us matters.
More lectures from the self-righteous. Are you guys having fun off-line complaining about “tone” and people who dare to express themselves differently than you do? Don’t you realize that these kind of lectures aimed at other people do nothing but make you look intolerant and, frankly, kind of creepy? There are so many other things in the world to be concerned about, and you are spending your time lecturing other people as to how they should behave on-line. Absolutely pathetic.
Btw, these comments from “Concerned citizen” and Daniel are classic examples of concern trolling.
I have read the recent comments. The talk “Israel, Israel, God is calling” by Elder Holland is excellent. Whatever my own flaws, I hope many here will review that talk in the coming days and weeks.
Geoff,
I think it is deeply unfair to accuse people urging more empathy of “concern trolling.” I care about this topic because I know a lot of people who are strong faithful members who are struggling with this change and are especially put off by the way members of this blog or #deznat posters fail to display empathy. This is an enormously difficult issue for millenial members (or Gen Z members), and so I think we can do more to understand how people feel about this topic.
I think that Elder Ballard in his recent devotional modelled exactly that attitude of empathy and Christlike compassion. He began by focusing on all the good things that millenials do and how their strong values push them to be more Christlike. He then offered some needed caution and correction. He started from a place of mutual understanding and built common ground. That is the example I see the Apostles modelling.
A near-constant I’ve experienced over the years is this attitude: Hey, you traditional true blue Mormons who believe in traditional marriage and support the truth claims of the Church! You’re the ones who needs to change, not the rainbow flag gay sexual liberationist neo-Marxists.
I just love the lectures at this point.
Daniel Ortner,
The people most in need of your advice are the LGBT activists. The most confrontational of those on the side of the gospel are merely reading the family proc on campus — a perfect example of turning the other cheek. Meanwhile, LGBT activists march across BYU accusing the Church of causing suicides.
Also, it is the LGBT activists who promote ignoring the spirit of the law. The entire controversy was based around a legalistic interpretation of the updated Honor Code that conveniently contradicted the spirit of the law of chastity.
Daniel O and Concerned Citizen, I mean this quite sincerely: you two are among the least tolerant individuals I have ever dealt with in my life. (Note: Concerned Citizen wants to be anonymous, but unfortunately I have dealt with him before). You love to travel around the internet telling other people how to behave and what they should and should not write. And when people like myself push back in the nicest way possible and say very, very nicely: “please just ignore what I write if you don’t like it,” your response is not love or empathy — it is more self-righteous lectures about how your way of writing and expressing yourself is THE ONLY WAY TO DO IT OR YOU ARE NOT FOLLOWING THE BRETHREN. SEE, I JUST LINKED AN ARTICLE OR A CONFERENCE POST THAT CLEARLY SHOWS YOU ARE WRONG AND I AM RIGHT!!!!! Heavenly Father knows that we all express ourselves in different ways. He knows we all have different ways of showing concern and love. I know that He loves me even with all of my faults. Could it possibly be that I, too, and other like me actually love and care for other people but I am simply expressing it differently than you are? But the message I get from you two and several others in your tribe is nothing but disapproval, scolding and a holier-than-thou attitude.
A true gesture of love and empathy would be for you two to just leave other people alone when they write comments you don’t like. I say that with complete sincerity. Just move on and do something else with your lives. You are not convincing anybody and are causing a lot of unnecessary contention. Thank you.
Geoff,
I think your ad homenim attack on me and others posting here is very inappropriate. I am nevertheless going to try one more time to respond to the substance of what you wrote.
We are all on the same team ultimately. My tribe is the Church of Jesus Christ. My goal in posting is to invite others (and myself) to draw closer to Christ. I believe you are also a disciple of Jesus Christ striving towards the same goal. And yes, I recognize that we need all kinds in the Kingdom of God. We need those who more stridently preach doctrine like President Oaks just as much as we need those who strike a more empathetic tone like Elder Uchtdorf.
If I offer comments about tone, I do so not in order to scold or be holier-than-thou but out of a concern for the negative impact that the tone can have on people I care deeply about who I see struggling as a result. This isn’t just a matter of unnecessary contention. I am very concerned about the impact that comments like yours have on members on the margins. I don’t think that it is best way to create a community that welcomes everyone.
As in all things, there is a balance between compassion and conviction. I do not claim to perfectly strike that balance. It is entirely possible that I go too far in the direction of compassion in some of my posts here. I try on the other hand when speaking to those who are struggling to offer as faithful a perspective as possible. I am not perfect at it (none of us are). And I appreciate feedback from you and from others as I try to become more Christlike in my approach.
Daniel O, mission accomplished. You have sent our your message about tone. You are completely uninterested in looking at the fact that others may receive your message, understand it, and still disagree with it and not really appreciate the constant hectoring and lecturing. Can we please move on now?
Given that BYU students are young and liable to make mistakes, and many have a tendency to push the boundaries of acceptable behavior, the Honor Code Office is in a difficult position of maintaining the standards students promised to observe when they were admitted, while focusing on repentance rather than being punitive. It must focus on teaching correct principles and self discipline, and at the same time be able to act against those who are willfully rebellious against the standards. This is a difficult balancing act. Being composed of humans instead of angels, the HCO sometimes errs in one direction, sometimes the other.
However, it seems that a few students are becoming confrontational and demanding that the university (or the Church) abandon their standards and tolerate the kind of conduct they would prefer, while at the same time they go about persecuting those who are willingly obedient to the declared standards. While not prescribing what anyone should do, I simply observe that this kind of thing is not new (It was a chronic problem among the Nephites) and never ends well for the defiant.
Good point Confutus. We can see several examples of this in the BoM and elsewhere in the scriptures.
This recent situation on BYU Campus and the post and comments strengthen my testimony that the Church is in good hands. The focus on principles in the letter reaffirms what the Church has taught.
I have at times wondered what conditions would lead to trying times in the last days. However many last days we have to go through still, the Church continues to be, and I believe will continue to be, a light that shines in darkness.
Thanks Daniel O. for your posts. I think your tone was respectful and humble and I admire the way you responded to criticism. That’s not an attempt to give veiled or backhanded criticism to anyone else either; I just wanted to say I liked how you handled this conversation.
I just finished reading Jacob 2 (maybe everyone else too?) and I was appalled at Jacob’s tone when confronting sin and “whoredoms.”
It’s upsetting that he didn’t address the struggle of those Nephite men who wanted concubines. Did he consider that maybe those natural urges weren’t a choice? He seemed more focused on leading them to eternal life through obedience to God than mourning with them.
And I know the next chapters are even worse! Is there a petition to re-write the BOM with a more friendly tone towards those of us who struggle with natural urges (start with getting rid of Mosiah 3:19)
Joey, the reason Jacob’s tone is so firm is because sexual sin is next to murder and denial of the Holy Ghost in its seriousness. If he were not that firm he would not be doing his duty as a prophet to warn people and call them to repentance. These men were in serious sin, they were neglecting their families, they were shirking their priesthood responsibilities, all for their own selfish pleasure. They needed to be called out and called to repentance in the harshest words possible — sometimes people are so lost in sin the only thing that will shake them is a hard chastisement. I could share a story of a friend who was excommunicated for sexual sin — he said the only thing that woke him up to what he had done was being excommunicated. He also says it was the best thing to have ever happened to him, because thru the repentance process he was richly blessed.
Every one struggles with trials and temptations, but we are taught in 2 Nephi 2: 26, “And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.”
There is ALWAYS a choice — to resist sin and the things that trouble you, or to give into those things and become a slave to physical impulses and actions. You do not have to act on the struggles you have. You do not.
You are here to overcome your weaknesses, in Ether 12: 27 teaches, “And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.” Everyone is given that grace, and the opportunity to approach the Lord for help in overcoming ALL that troubles us: be that same sex attraction, gender dysphoria, anger, gluttony, sloth, greed, envy, unkindness, porn addictions, spending addictions, rebellious hearts etc. We have to be willing to take the Savior at his word and to truly take His offers of help. But we have to be willing to lay aside our wants, our agenda, our worldly ways of thought and deed. The Savior asks us to lay those aside so he can lift us up. If we don’t lay those things aside, he cannot help us, and we will sink.
As for Mosiah 3:19, that is the whole crux of our being on earth. So no, it won’t be removed from the Book of Mormon, nor will the Book of Mormon be written to fall into line with popular thought and custom. As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we will always be different, we will always be called to live a higher standard than the world.
Ours is not a bottom up democracy of a church. We believe in and have a testimony of Doctrine & Covenants 1: 38, “What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.” You either believe that Prs. Nelson and the other apostles are called as prophets or you don’t and they are just making things up as they go along. If it’s the former then this truly is the Church of Jesus Christ. If it’s the latter, then this church is no different than any other church out there. But it is the former. We are the Church of Jesus Christ with prophecy, revelation and all that is needed to save and exhalt men and women.
From Nephi we read: 1 Nephi 16: 1-3, “1 And now it came to pass that after I, Nephi, had made an end of speaking to my brethren, behold they said unto me: Thou hast declared unto us hard things, more than we are able to bear.
2 And it came to pass that I said unto them that I knew that I had spoken hard things against the wicked, according to the truth; and the righteous have I justified, and testified that they should be lifted up at the last day; wherefore, the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center.
3 And now my brethren, if ye were righteous and were willing to hearken to the truth, and give heed unto it, that ye might walk uprightly before God, then ye would not murmur because of the truth, and say: Thou speakest hard things against us.”
If the Honor Code clarification is hard to take, if the Church’s stand on marriage, chastity, family structure (ie: the Family Proclamation) then perhaps it’s you/the individual who needs to change and not the Church. Everyone struggles with something. Everyone can choose to come to the Savior for help to overcome or to kick against the pricks as Paul wrote in the New Testament. Going to the Savior is by far the easier and less painful path.
To close this comment, Apostle Paul said it perfectly in Ephesians 4: 14-15, “That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:” We stand by our principles and the doctrines of Christ as members of Christ’s church. We can choose to act, we can choose to receive the grace the Lord has for us. We choose to reject the world and all of it’s ridiculousness, because we know the Lord, our Savior Jesus Christ has so much more to offer than the things this world does.
Joey:
Excellent satire. I love it.
Joey is making a satiric point, but I think Joyce’s answer is a good one for people who may try to attack the Church’s position on sexual sin.