Thursday, February 27, 2020


BYU no longer prohibits Homosexual Behavior

BYU is my alma mater. Part of my experience at attending this private Church university was to live by the strict observance of the Honor Code. No beards, wearing Church issued modest gym attire and not being able to drink caffeine. Included in the Honor Code was the specific ban on homosexual behavior, including sexual relations and “all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings.”

However, this week that all changed.  In the update, all references to homosexual behavior has been removed. Many national news media outlets has reported that section was deleted from the Honor Code. BYU students who were confused at the changed called the Honor Code office and they said that staff  told them it meant they would no longer be disciplined for dating, holding hands with or kissing people of the same sex.

This week  a video recording was released where a BYU professor says school’s gay Honor Code change is 'a blessing

After watching the video myself, I sent the above link to family members who are currently serving in callings in the Church. I asked for them to share with me their thoughts. This was an email response I just received from one of them.

"Hmmmmm.... where are my thoughts?? For the first 3/4 of the video I have to admit, I was confused! Where is the clarification?? I was really trying to stay with him and it wasn't until he posted the one sentence bomb directly from the honor code office, "The honor code no longer prohibits that."
I use to think I was in the majority with my opinion (not that that matters) but i'm realizing that I'm slowly becoming the minority. What a helpless feeling! I'm so use to being a black and white person but now I feel I'm being asked or forced to live in the gray and what s most difficult and unsettling is this is just the tip of the iceberg!!! Soon there will be no limits, no boundaries anywhere with this issue"

After hearing about the Honor Code change, a current BYU student sent the following letter to the President of BYU, Kevin Worthen and Members of Brigham Young University administration.

Here is a copy of that letter. It is well written and worth the read.

February 22, 2020

Dear President Worthen, and members of Brigham Young University administration,

My original intent in this writing was to bring to the administration’s attention some teachings I fear, if left unchecked, would allow the adversary to lead BYU students and alumni “carefully down to hell,” as Nephi warned would happen in the last days. Man made 1 philosophies, both apparent and subtle, have woven themselves into the curriculum of many BYU courses. Not only are they contrary to gospel teachings, they cripple faith in Christ and teach acceptance of sin.2

On Wednesday February 19th, deletions concerning homosexual behavior were made to the honor code. As the student body reacted to these changes, I felt a more solemn responsibility devolving upon me. I have covenanted to be a witness of God at all times, in all things, and in all places. I feel it my duty as one who bears His priesthood to write as the Spirit directs.

Please know that a letter of this nature is not something I take lightly, and is the result of much prayer and fasting. Consequently, I do not write my own thoughts, but write according to the Spirit of God which is in me.

Christ invites us to repent and come unto Him as a little child. The idea of going back to go 3 forward is a profound one, especially in light of the fact that children know nothing. Not only do they know nothing, but they know that they know nothing. Conversely, Jacob warns, ...When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish. But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God. (2 Nephi 9:28-29)

There is eternally a spiritual danger associated with learning: pride. Mankind has an inclination towards it. It’s eternally a part of a pattern we call “the pride cycle.” As soon as we get a little of something, as we suppose, we immediately begin to set ourselves up. This 4 is the nature and disposition of almost all men. This is the great barrier that dictates why many are called, but few are chosen.

Due to this fact, we are eternally at risk of falling prey to this error. Even an angel with authority in God’s presence was cast down because of pride. We’re never fully safe from its 5 grasp, and historical patterns suggest that it is always our inevitable downfall.

Academic institutions worldwide are guilty of setting aside His counsels. They trample the God of Israel under their feet by setting Him at naught. We are guilty of doing the same 6 when we ignore His word, asking instead for things which we cannot understand.7

The Lord has been unequivocal in His declaration that marriage between a man and a woman is in the image of God. There are no exceptions. I’d think this matter clear enough, but am continually surprised by how many members (faculty and student alike) believe this doctrine to be changeable, man made, or even contrary to God’s true character.

One class in which I am currently enrolled, Sociality of Gender, starts day one on the basis that gender is sheerly a social construct. It leaves no room for legitimate biological differences, or makes any attempt to support or understand the assertion laid out in The Family: A Proclamation to the Word, that gender is an essential characteristic and part of one’s eternal identity. While I understand the value in considering opposing viewpoints, no effort in this class is made to consider more than one. The required text, entitled Questioning Gender, reads in one passage the following:

“As sociologists who understand the importance of social construction, in this textbook we’ll assume a strong social constructionist perspective. This means that most of the time we’ll talk about gender rather than sex categorires, assuming that both are socially constructed. We’ll talk about women and men rather than females and males. ... “Most theorists who argue from the strong social constructionist point of view would say that , yes, of course we have physical bodies. The problem is that our categories--male and female--don’t accurately describe the reality of those physical bodies. In fact, many would argue that the diversity in our physical bodies is greater than our categories would lead us to believe. They might go so far as to argue that our belief in how bodies should be gets in the way of our perceiving the way bodies actually are. Because we believe that everyone should have a penis or vagina, we tend to ignore the repeated cases of people who have both. Because we believe that one’s biological sex category should match up with the gender one expresses, we stigmatize transgender people, who violate these norms.”9

Later in the book, another paragraph reads,

“We began this chapter with one vision of what sexuality might look like in a world without gender. John Stoltenberg’s (2006) vision of having sex without having a sex is also a world where solidity of the links between sexuality and gender becomes a little more fluid. A queer theory approach gives us another vision of what sexuality unhooked from sex category and gender might look like. Kate Bornstein (1994) is a transwoman, and in her book Gender Outlaw, she suggested what desire might look like uncoupled from these other categories. Instead of basing our sexual choices on the particualr genitalia someone does or does not posses, which is assumed under the categories of homosexual and heterosexual, what if we chose based on the particular type of sexual activity we prefer? Bornstein proposed a set of colored bracelets that could be worn to indicate the type of sexual activity preferred by individuals as well as their preferred position of dominance or passivity. An orange bracelet would indicate “anything goes,” while a light blue bracelet would indicate a preference for oral sex.” Surely the kinds of things one likes to do sexually are an important component of sexual compatibility, perhaps as important as if not more important that someone’s sex category or gender. Someone’s sex category or gender doesn’t necessarily tell us anything about what they do or don’t like to do sexually.” 

To put it mildly, it takes a good deal of study to acquire some forms of ignorance. Such ignorance is what fills the minds of the students enrolled in these courses at BYU. In other courses I’ve taken, like Anthropology, professors champion a postmodern reality, denying objective reasoning while embracing the idea that our reality is socially constructed. These teachers “teach with their learning, and deny the Holy Ghost.” As degrees multiply, so too 10 does spiritual ignorance.

Unfortunately, the effect that these teachings have on students is equally disheartening. Following are just a few posts made by students in an online discussion assignment:

“This week it was interesting to think about the fact that everything we grow up thinking and believing about our own gender is completely structured by the society we live in. What we as a culture choose to accept as being good or bad or right or wrong is then put into place. I found it so interesting that some of the rituals done in other cultures to create masculinity were exactly the things other cultures found tolessen their masculinity. It’s all about perspective and tradition and how we 11 choose to look at things. This is why it’s important to take a class like this so that we can broaden our horizons and understand there’s more than one answer.” 
“Chapter five reading was honestly super interesting to me, especially the one section that gives the heteronormativity questions. I’ve never thought about or asked myself the why behind my sexual orientation. Maybe it's because of the church’s beliefs or the way I’ve grown up or both combined. It was also interesting to think about how heterosexual activity has never been questioned before, it’s always been accepted as the norm. The book referenced near the beginning of the chapter also seems like an interesting point of view to have about sexual orientation and sexual actions. If we were to break down categories and live in a world without these preconceived notions I think there would be less judgment about sexual orientation.” 
“I really loved reading about those things too. You do start to wonder how heterosexual relationships just became ‘the norm’. I think the way the world is going we are starting to recognise that there isn't just one norm.” 
It saddens me to think that this is what BYU has become. We have gone from defending the truths revealed in scripture, to tolerating sin, to living in fear of speaking truth, to teaching these things ourselves. This brings me to the recent revisions made to the honor code.

As you know, the previous honor code stated explicitly that “[h]omosexual behavior is inappropriate and violates the Honor Code. Homosexual behavior includes not only sexual relations between members of the same sex, but all forms of phsycial intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings.”

Last week, this was removed. Whether the percpetion was intentional or not, every media news outlet (including Deseret News) reported on BYU’s decision to permit same sex dating. The world rejoiced.

Granted it may have been a decision that BYU’s administration was wrestling with privately for a very long time, the only way an honor code revision of this nature could be made is by setting aside the Lord’s counsel. The result has been an influx of homosexual behavior on campus. If these effects were unintentional, failure to unequivocally clarify such will have the same effect as if they were not. Such a clarification would result in disapproval from every media outlet presently commending our “step in the right direction.”

If the effects of these changes were intentional, and the Church Education System and Board of Trustees anticipated and planned to welcome homosexual behavior on campus, then the God of Israel has been set at naught, period. Even if we don’t allow homosexual relations, our tents have been pitched towards Sodom. Along our trajectory, there will be 12 a steady decline in the morality of students attending BYU. We will begin to look more and more like any other secular university, and less and less like the light of the world, or the salt of the earth. And when salt loses its savor, it’s “thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out, and trodden under foot of men.”13

"Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord. And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord; First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord." (D&C 112:24-26)

The Lord of the Vineyard will prune the branches that bring forth wild fruit. If BYU continues to allow these teachings and this behavior to infiltrate its grounds, its people and all those whom it affects will become ripe in iniquity. Then will that which Samuel prophesied be likened unto us:

[And the author quotes:  Helaman 13:5-8, 13-17, 24-29, 30-33]

The strength of Jehovah is found in those who make His arm theirs. If we fail to trust Him and lean to our own understanding, we will be left to our own devices when these things come. The arm of flesh cannot turn the Missouri river out of its course.14

It is not too late to avoid these calamites, but I testify by the same Spirit of revelation by which these prophecies were given that these things will surely come to pass if we don’t repent. I pray that the Lord’s anger be turned away from us, and that we would repent and be saved. I know I am nothing, but I know of these things myself; my words will be vindicated by God because I speak the truth according to the Spirit of God, the scriptures, and all the holy prophets.

With much love,

Cameron Mayer

1 2 Nephi 28:21
2 As opposed to teaching “an everlasting hatred against sin and iniquity.” Alma 37:32
3 3 Nephi 9:22
4 D&C 121:39
5 D&C 76:25
6 1 Nephi 19:7
7 Jacob 4:14
8 For the record, research suggests that the “repeated cases” the author references accounts for between .05% and 1.7% of the population, depending on the study and the measure
9 Question Gender, Robyn R. Ryle
10 2 Nephi 28:4
11 Per the textbook, the initiation rituals this student is referencing deal with boys of age performing oral sex on older men in order to initiate them in to masculinity.
12 Genesis 13:12
13 Matthew 5:13; 3 Nephi 12:13, 3 Nephi 16:10-15
14 2 Nephi 4:34, D&C 121:33. No man can prevent God’s justice, whether that be to blessing or to cursing



Good thing BYU still does not allow facial hair. That has NOT been removed from the Honor Code. HEAVEN FORBID that we look anything like the man who the University is named after.

Friday, February 14, 2020


"He who controls the media 
controls the minds of the public."
 Noam Chomsky

I found it interesting to see the headlines of all the major newpapers who reported about the 100 BILLION dollars (+plus) fund that the LDS Church has amassed.  Here are some examples from The  Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, The Washington Post, and our local Salt Lake Tribune. Then look as the positive spin on the same story in the headline from the Deseret News.


Here was the headline in the Deseret News this week about the same story.

What is really ironic is the name of the Deseret News reporter who wrote this article for the paper. His last name is Shill. Not sure that is his pen name or his real name, either way, he might want to consider a new "pen" name. Shill is probably the worst name you could have as full time writer for the Church. The definition of "Shill" is not necessarily positive.

With headlines in all the major national newspapers, no wonder the Church wants/needs to own their own media channels to soften the negative news that has been dominating the headlines. In public relations and politics, spin is a form of propaganda, achieved through knowingly providing a biased interpretation of an event or campaigning to influence public opinion about some organization or public figure.

The church holding company, Deseret Management, owns several media subsidiaries that run the Deseret News, the largest newspaper in Utah, KSL TV station, 11 radio stations includig KSL Newsradio,  a publishing and distribution company, and more.  A few years ago, the church sold 17 radio stations for $505 million to better focus on Internet ventures.
The Church also owns the Bonneville International Corporation which operates and owns radio stations nationwide, Bonneville Communications, Bonneville Interactive, and Bonneville Satellite Company.
Another company the Church own is  Deseret Digital Media which operates the Web sites of other Deseret Media Companies media companies, including and

On Monday February 10th 2020, the Wall Street Journal, released a exclusive interview with Mormon Leaders regarding the Faith's amassed 100 Billion Plus in investments.
LINK TO THE Wall Street Journal's audio
Here is one person's opinion posted publically in a comments section:
In multiple responses to having a secret $124+ Billion dollar cash fund, the LDS Church has stated how sacred their responsibility is to care for the widow's mite. Invariably, when tithing comes up in LDS context, the story of the widow's mite is trotted out. 
Being raised in the LDS Church, I remember frequently being taught about the widow's mite. The context in which Church lesson manuals address the widow's mite (from Primary to Come Follow Me manuals), is all about her sacrifice and how we should always pay an honest tithe, even in our extreme poverty.
From the current Primary (children's) manual: "There are people who say they cannot afford to pay tithing because their incomes are small. … No one is ever too poor to pay tithing” (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p. 212). 
The story of the widow's mite is explicitly taught in the LDS Church as a lesson that even in our most extreme poverty, we should pay tithing to the LDS Church. I have heard this my whole life and could find innumerable additional examples where this is explicitly taught. 
The problem is this is almost 180 degrees removed from what Christ is actually teaching in this exact story. The passage is a direct condemnation of (1) the rich giving a fraction of their wealth to the church and (2) allowing a widow in their midst to give her last pennies to the church. 
The story is not just Mark 12: 41-44. The immediately preceding verses are: 
38 ¶ And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces,
39 And the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts:
40 Which devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation 
Literally, the immediately preceding verse talks about the church leaders "devouring widow's houses" and receiving greater damnation. Yet every LDS Church lesson manual I can find blows past verse 40 and only addresses 41-44. Every reference to the widow's mite is an expectation and demand that impoverished members pay their tithing regardless. 
What is not spoken of is that a poor member's Temple Recommend is also tied directly to paying your tithing. So when Alma speaks of the poor being cast out of the synagogues, this is literally the case in the LDS Church today. If you don't pay your tithing, you are not worthy of a recommend - which means all your temple blessings, your eternal family, and promises of the Celestial Kingdom are gone. 
So, when the LDS Church invokes the widow's mite in context of their $124 Billion Dollar rainy day fund, it makes me furious. To think that "devouring widow's houses" (verse 40) to add to your secret/sacred fund is in any way endorsed by what Christ is saying here is an absolute desecration of the text and the message 
If anything, the Biblical text of the widow's mite, including the condemnation of the rich and the scribes (the church leaders), condemns the LDS Church both in demanding money from the impoverished faithful, and condemnation for not using that money to raise that same widow out of her poverty. 
I have nothing to say if faithful members above the poverty line pay tithing. But to teach children (current primary manuals) that the widow's mite means that you pay tithing instead of food or housing is morally wrong. To demand tithing of the impoverished in third world countries is morally wrong. To demand tithing of the poor that is directly tied to access to the temple (eternal families, heaven), is morally wrong. And to demand tithing while you are accumulating an almost unfathomable amount of wealth is morally wrong. 
And to repeat, ad nauseam, that Christ taught this in the widow's mite story, is morally wrong.

And this just in.. a new Deseret News article for more damage control: 

Friday, February 7, 2020

2020. 02.07 - What BYU WILL and WILL NOT accommodate

Next month BYU will be begin hosting some of the biggest events they hold on their campus all year. The first event is the National Ballroom Dance Competition. Every March, thousands and thousands of spectators, along with 26 national judges fill the Marriott Center to watch over 3,000 registered couples and teams vie for National Championship of Ballroom Dancing.  The second event is the annual Women's Conference, which is largest two-day gathering of LDS women anywhere in the world.

It might surprise members of the Church to find out who BYU is allowing to participate and who are not welcome to attend. 

"Nursing mothers cannot be accommodated at BYU Women's conference."

Here is the link to the BYU website where is explicitly states that mothers are not allowed to bring their nursing babies to any of the events. What is interesting is that teenage boys 17 and older ARE allowed to attend. I don't know which one can be more disruptive.. a sleeping baby or a teenage boy playing on his cellphone. 


"BYU will allow same-sex dancing at annual competition."

The event will be historic for the conservative college, which is owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. To host the coveted showcase, which it has every year since at least 1997, BYU was required to lift its ban keeping same-sex couples from competing this spring. 

Here is the link: