How bad is BYU football?

Football
141

What part of “The Church has determine there was no revelation nor doctrine that supports the banning of the Blacks from the Priesthood” do you not understand? NO DOCTRINE OR REVEALTION… Duh!

You realize that SWK supposition to the Lord was to change the POLICY (Not Doctrine) of the blacks because a black member asked him about why he was denied the blessings. It bothered SWK to the point he took it to the Lord.

But I also have to say I believe what Elder D. Todd Christofferson said in General Conference:

"At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.”

I believe President Benson comments about Communism falls into this category.

142

Not sure what your first paragraph meant. Pres. Monson never said the words revelation or doctrine in his statements. He said as you pointed out, the reason is unknown. But that doesn’t mean BY didn’t have a revelation direct from the Lord. I think he did.
You need to read SWK revelation again. It was “thus sayeth the Lord” and it is DOCTRINE. If BY wasn’t doctrine then SWK revelation shouldn’t be in the D&C.

143

Where or when has President Monson ever addressed the priesthood ban?

You’re referring to the Gospel Topics essay, which was written by Paul Reeve and approved by the Brethren. As it stands on the website, it is anonymous and unsigned by design. The essay tries to thread the needle by disavowing past explanations (even ones like the 1949 First Presidency one) while leaving room for people to also believe that the ban and its timing were God’s will (the ban itself isn’t disavowed, only past explanations for it). The essay also doesn’t address the scriptural or doctrinal underpinnings for the ban (including statements from Joseph Smith himself. He was back and forth on it, and made statements every bit as supportive as Brigham Young).

It’s a tricky issue, for sure, and the essay does as good a job as could be hoped, I think. I personally think that throwing out any reference to the pre-existence is a mistake. It’s the only way certain things in life can make sense (race is only one of these issues, and not even the most important one).

The Richard Turley book also doesn’t lay MMM at the feet of Brigham Young.

144

Thanks for the information and you stated the truth well. "The ban isn’t disavowed, only the explanation isn’t clarified. And, I wouldn’t think President Monson would do that to Brigham Young.

Personally, I’m not sure if the explanations are wrong. A couple of them certainly were reasoned very logically. Myself, Perhapse the reason is that blacks hadn’t moved far enough away from their African superstitions and religions. That may have caused tribulations and struggles in a small growing church that needed straightness in its direction. We have seen struggles that happened in South America where branches began to bring back old mystic traditions. Fortunately, the Church was big enough to deal properly with those situations. Just speculation.

And I’ve read enough on MMM to know BY didn’t order the massacre. :slight_smile:

145

Moses gave the Priesthhod authority first to Aaron and his sons. Then to Levites.

146

Oh, I don’t believe they are, either. The essays are anonymous and unsigned for a reason: they offer plausible deniability, and they also leave room for LDS across the spectrum to believe whatever they want: the ban was 100% man-made and non-God-approved, or the inception, duration, and ending of the ban were all God’s will. Both views are viable.

The explanations are attacked because of PC and PR considerations. If the pre-existence has no bearing on our station and lot in life, then it is impossible to believe that God is just. Country, time era, conditions, access to the gospel, etc. are all much more important factors than race. And, for other purposes, we believe that the pre-existence has an impact (foreordinations, “many of the noble and great ones,” etc.).

As for questions like, “So, the Brethren are impacted by PR and PC considerations,” my answer would be, “I think it’s obvious that they are, and have been for a long time.” I believe that they hold the priesthood keys, but I don’t believe that they are remote controlled robots or that God micromanages everything. I wish they were less PR/focus group/survey driven in a lot of things, lately.

I don’t think I could have written a better essay trying to make as many people as happy as possible. Disavowing past prophet and First Presidency doctrinal declarations is a slippery slope, though. Can’t the current statements then be disavowed in the future? Etc. :slightly_smiling_face:

147

People already disavow past teachings by prophets because the present day prophet is the only one we should listen to. I disagree because then the scriptures would be pointless and throw away all Ensigns and conference talks.

The ban being lifted was done by revelation. If it was just a matter of policy established by BY then no revelation would have been necessary.

148

Rubicon,
I think that opinions change from time to time and from one person in authority to another person in authority. Last Tuesday, LDS apostle M. Russell Ballard used
Brigham Young University devotional address to, (among other things), address, where gay Mormons fit in the faith.

I know Elder Oaks grandson. I think that while both have some deep differences of opinion, they, each in their own right are good men. Yes, Apostles have opinions as well as revelations. One can not be challenged while the other can.

In Tuesday’s devotional, Apostle M. Russell said in part, " “I am a general authority but that doesn’t make me an authority in general, ”“I worry that members expect too much from their leaders and teachers, expecting them to be experts [in areas and topics] well beyond their expertise.” "“ If you have a question that requires an expert, please take the time to find an expert to help you.”

On LGBT Mormons • Any member has a place in God’s kingdom. It may be difficult sometimes for gay Latter-day Saints to see “where you fit in the Lord’s church but you do.”

“Mormon leaders, along with the rank and file, need to “listen to and understand what LGBT members are feeling and experiencing”.

"We must do better than we have in the past until all feel they have a spiritual home … a place to worship and serve the Lord.”

" On LGBT civil rights • The best approach is to protect “core rights” of all people and then find “reasonable compromises in other areas where rights conflict.”

“The LDS Church successfully lobbied for Utah’s 2015 law protecting LGBT individuals from housing and job discrimination while safeguarding some religious libertie”

. “Earlier this year, the Utah-based faith filed legal papers backing a Colorado baker who refused on religious grounds to make a cake for a same-sex wedding”.

" The church strongly condemns “bullying or harassment of any kind.”

"Every person is a child of God and deserves to be treated with kindness and civility. That’s why the church supported August’s LoveLoud concert in Orem, to send a “strong message that LGBT people should never be mistreated.”

" All humans are “fallible, flawed.”

“At some point in your own life, no father, no mother, no children, no professor, no student, no missionary or mission president is perfect”.

"The only real solution … is to forgive and love one another.”

,

149

I think all Mormons absolutely agree on this. The conflict, and the friction, comes when some think that teaching the commandments and standards needs is de facto demeaning to LGBT people. And, there are Mormons who want living a gay lifestyle to be “de-criminalized” in the Church (not against the commandments). Others see gay marriage as being within the law of chastity because they are “married.” When normative Mormons teach and publicly agree with the Church’s teachings and stances (show love and respect to everyone, any law of chastity violations are sin and are wrong, gay marriage is wrong and will never be accepted in the Church, etc.), they face a lot of anger from outside the Church and from self-described “progressives” inside the Church. These people see counsel, such as you quoted from Elder Ballard, as meaningless because we still teach that it is wrong. They think that everything we say about love and respect for all people is hollow because we refuse to stop teaching that it’s wrong.

But yes, I think we all agree with everything Elder Ballard said that you quoted.

150

H[quote=“Rubicon, post:149, topic:7651”]
They think that everything we say about love and respect for all people is hollow because we refuse to stop teaching that it’s wrong.

But yes, I think we all agree with everything Elder Ballard said that you quoted.
[/quote]

SG: I agree with both. I think sometimes when the Brethren speak about this subject without clarifying the act as sinful, people assume it isn’t sinful because the Apostle innthis case didn’t mention it is sinful. That’s a really silly argument. What I like about Elder Oaks is that he’s direct and to the point and never leaves us wondering.

The fact is, we are to treat even murderers with love and respect and care. President Kimball would visit the Prison and wanted to go to the murderers row. The warden wouldn’t let him. But he loved and cared for everyone who has sinned. That’s everyone! That’s what Elder Ballard was stressing. He wasn’t stressing it’s okay to have homosexual acts.

151

Actually McKay,
from my dealing with LDS members of the church who support the LBGT issue, they do not want the church to “de-criminalized”, or change the standards for Chasity, and they really don’t want the church to change their beliefs period.

What most of them were asking for was respect for the people who are gay, don’t push Prop 8 and stop the anti gay language given by “Some” church leaders…

My daughter was among those that took offense to how the church dealt with gay marriage issue. She understood their stand, but what really bothered her is how members of our ward vilified gays IN CHURCH and no one did anything about (I was teaching a class at the time, or I would have remind the members that their comments were not appropriate for class). There was no “hate the sin, not the sinner” talk in these comments, it was pretty much if someone is gay they are evil…

I will say that she was happy that the church worked with the State and LBGT to create the Utah law that gives rights to the LBGT, while also protecting religious freedom. In fact, the Utah law is often sited as to what can happen when people work together on this issue.

Personally, I had no problem with “Gay marriage”, my thought was that they should have to get the same Marriage penalty Tax from the federal government as the rest of us has to pay… :open_mouth:

I think the main problem that Elder Ballard was talking about is that some members have forgotten to “Love their Neighbor” in spite of the short coming they may have…

1 Like
152

At a Q&A fireside with youth, one of the questions (I’m pretty sure it was from one of the three Norwegian foreign exchange students in our ward at the time) was “Why do Mormons hate gay people?” I answered it by asking everyone who had a gay friend or family member to raise their hands. Almost all hands were up. I said that the answer to the question “Do Mormons hate gay people?” was there in the room. We all know and are friends with gay people, and they wouldn’t say that we hate them. What people mean when they say we hate gay people is that we teach that acting on it is a sin.

I agree with you that many LDS who support LGBT issues are not antagonistic towards the Church. I know gay members who even fully support the Church’s stance on it as a sin and on marriage — even when they themselves don’t live this (some of these are under discipline, and some are not). But most people who are passionate about these issues want to see at least one of these changes:

  1. They don’t want homosexuality to be a disciplined sin in the Church.

  2. They want the Church to define those who are in gay marriages as not violating the law of chastity (because they are legally married).

  3. (a smaller number) They want gay sealings to be performed and recognized in temples.

If they don’t support at least one of them, then they have no problem at all with the Church’s stance or policies on gays or gay marriage. If they are unhappy with the Church’s stance or policies on gay marriage, then they want something(s) to change. And not just for people to be nicer to gay people. We have gay people in all of our wards, and while there may be some outliers of bad behavior towards them, overwhelmingly Mormons are very nice to them. What people think isn’t nice is that we still teach (and believe) that the sin is — a sin.

1 Like
153

This topic was about “how bad is BYU football”, not about lifestyle choices in and out of the church.

So… how bad is BYU football?

I think that the program hit a new low point. I don’t know if it has ever been this bad. Losing to a team that was D-2 only 5 years ago and had not won an away game against any FBS opponent since that time is bad. No, it is REALLY bad. I don’t think there is any point in trying to make excuses or explanations for anything because the team is out of them. I don’t care how bad the season has been, BYU should NEVER lose to a team like UMass… NEVER.

154

Went to sleep while watching game on TV and missed a good portion of it. So spent that portion of my time effectively.

155

It’s pretty hard to describe. There is no way Detmer should keep his job, as much as I hate to say it. Do people REALLY realize how TERRIBLE UMass and Eastern Carolina’s defenses are? I mean, they are TERRIBLE. And both just completely stoned us. I’d say the university should be embarrassed, but since it appears (at least on TV) that no one went to the game anyway, I guess nobody cares enough to be embarrassed about it…Sitake would be fired at any “normal” D1 program, but BYU will not pay two multi-million dollar coaches at the same time. Tuiaki? No comment. This is a total dumpster fire. Maybe BYU could play Oregon State in the Futility Bowl.

156

I remember certain posters back when Anae was OC wanting Detmer as OC.

Telling us that he would bring back the “Glory” days…

not sure which glory days they are talking about.

4 QB’s has played this year and all them looked lost and horrible. so is it the QB’s or Detmer?

Detmer needs to go, along with Mahe, Empey, and Calhoon. they have not done their jobs.

and please put Kaufusi back as the D-line coach… he has coached some of the best d line in recent history.

157

I’m glad you aren’t the coach. We would have new coaches every year and no continuity.

158

you make laugh… only you would think the offensive coaches deserve another year…

did you see the lack of fans in the stands?

that mean BYU is losing money, then you add in the fact that major donors to the program could pull their money ( why do you think Crowton left?)

as much as you deny it, money drives BYU football.

159

I was one of the last Bronco supporters, and hated to see him go. That said, I admit I was very excited about Sitake and Detmer as recruiters, and hoped the coaching would be OK. Instead I see terrible coaching and a complete breakdown in team chemistry and discipline. Multiple RM’s in one year getting kicked off the team or suspended for the season is NOT ok with this BYU alum. All I ask is that we win enough to be relevant and fun, and not embarrass the church or BYU. Stake and crew are failing on all fronts. When Iliaki moved Kaufusi off the DL, where he has sent lots of guys to NFL paychecks, to LB, where Kaufusi had never played or coached, I thought Iliaki must be crazy, and that Sitake should have told his completely inexperienced DC to pump the brakes. But Sitake let it stand, and that told me that we are messed up. Our D stinks–UMass had allowed the most sacks in all of D1, and we could barely pressure the kid; that’s what you get when you rush 3 or 4 and drop 7 or 8 every down.

On offense, I have no idea what to say, except that Detmer and Cahoon seem way overmatched. Our WR are the meekest D1 group I’ve ever seen, and our O as a whole is simply unwatchable. I’m a super positive guy and love BYU, and have close ties to the athletic department, yet I would rather run errands and go to a matinee movie or play with my grandson, so that I can fast forward–VERY FAST–late at night and not damage my eyeballs watching the grease fire that is our offense. Shoot, I’ll be in Honolulu next Saturday with access to free tickets and am not even going to the game.

160

There maybe scapegoats that will leave. But, unless the HC, OC, DC resign on their own, they will be back. There’s no reason for panic.
Strength and flexibility coaches and trainers have to do better. The key that no one wants to see is the injuries. And, in key positions. That has to change!