What is going on at BYU?

[Avatar4321]

Controversial new hate speech.

Aparently, someone put up a picture of President Nelson, a quote, and the Proclamation by a poster for an lgtb event on campus and this is "hate". 

 

[OGHoosier]

3 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Controversial new hate speech.

Aparently, someone put up a picture of President Nelson, a quote, and the Proclamation by a poster for an lgtb event on campus and this is "hate". 

 

I'm currently a student at BYU. This was not a LGBTQ+ event, this was a publication of the on-campus, student-written, faculty-overseen  political quarterly, the BYU Political Review. They've become controversial recently. The last issue featured a defense of the legality of abortion (with a few claims that they were not endorsing it as a morally right position, just one that should be legal.) This most recent issue, which came out this week, featured as the cover article a piece expressing support for additional legal protections for LGBTQ+. While it did not directly endorse gay marriage as a morally acceptable stance, it defended its legality and advocated for, among other things, making LGBTQ+ a "federally protected class" and equality legislation regarding adoption by LGBTQ+ couples. The rainbow-background on the news stand was the front cover of the piece.

The Political Review has a few conservative authors but overall bends hard to the left, which isn't a problem on it's own, but when it comes to social issues, as demonstrated above, they do play a little fast and loose with Church positions on various matters. If BYU is paying for the printing of this publication, I would like to have that reviewed as I don't think tithing funds should be used for this.

As for the charge that it's "hate," the word hate has lost all meaning these days as everybody and their dog uses it to decry people who disagree with them on moral issues. I don't have enough time to be bothered every time somebody calls me or my coreligionists out as "hateful". 

I do have a copy of the article in my possession. Not sure if I'm allowed to scan an image of it and post it here but I'll see if I can so you can review it for yourself. 

Edit: Just checked out the Twitter thread. Absolutely freaking hilarious. What a fetid cesspool. 

Edited November 8, 2019 by OGHoosier

[MiserereNobis]

11 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

The last issue featured a defense of the legality of abortion (with a few claims that they were not endorsing it as a morally right position, just one that should be legal.)

Abortion must be legal and there must be abortion providers, since the LDS church believes that abortion is morally acceptable in the case of rape, incest, and danger to the mother.

(I'm the Catholic who sometimes likes to needle LDS on their abortion exceptions 😛)

[OGHoosier]

2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Abortion must be legal and there must be abortion providers, since the LDS church believes that abortion is morally acceptable in the case of rape, incest, and danger to the mother.

(I'm the Catholic who sometimes likes to needle LDS on their abortion exceptions 😛)

Thanks for the check, MiserereNobis. 

I should clarify that the article advocated for the legality of elective abortion.

[rockpond]

18 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

I'm currently a student at BYU. This was not a LGBTQ+ event, this was a publication of the on-campus, student-written, faculty-overseen  political quarterly, the BYU Political Review. They've become controversial recently. The last issue featured a defense of the legality of abortion (with a few claims that they were not endorsing it as a morally right position, just one that should be legal.) This most recent issue, which came out this week, featured as the cover article a piece expressing support for additional legal protections for LGBTQ+. While it did not directly endorse gay marriage as a morally acceptable stance, it defended its legality and advocated for, among other things, making LGBTQ+ a "federally protected class" and equality legislation regarding adoption by LGBTQ+ couples. The rainbow-background on the news stand was the front cover of the piece.

The Political Review has a few conservative authors but overall bends hard to the left, which isn't a problem on it's own, but when it comes to social issues, as demonstrated above, they do play a little fast and loose with Church positions on various matters. If BYU is paying for the printing of this publication, I would like to have that reviewed as I don't think tithing funds should be used for this.

As for the charge that it's "hate," the word hate has lost all meaning these days as everybody and their dog uses it to decry people who disagree with them on moral issues. I don't have enough time to be bothered every time somebody calls me or my coreligionists out as "hateful". 

I do have a copy of the article in my possession. Not sure if I'm allowed to scan an image of it and post it here but I'll see if I can so you can review it for yourself. 

The Church supports LGBT+ rights as long as religious freedom is also maintained.  So I don't see a problem with this article being published in a BYU periodical.

[OGHoosier]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The Church supports LGBT+ rights as long as religious freedom is also maintained.  So I don't see a problem with this article being published in a BYU periodical.

The problems come with regard to "federal protected class" legislation and adoptive equality legislation, especially since LDS Family Services does not arrange adoptions for homosexual couples. The positions endorsed by the article were vague but do put them on a collision course with Church policy. 

[Robert F. Smith]

21 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Abortion must be legal and there must be abortion providers, since the LDS church believes that abortion is morally acceptable in the case of rape, incest, and danger to the mother.

.....................................

I'm not sure that the LDS Church declares that abortion is ever "morally acceptable," but does take the neutral position that rape, incest, or danger to the mother might be exceptions.  The reason for that neutrality is respect for the divinely inspired Constitution, as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court (which has declared abortion legal within certain limits).  The same neutrality applies to same-gender marriage, which the LDS Church does not oppose because it is now the Supreme Law of the Land, as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court (under the 14th Amendment "equal protection" clause).  Naturally, circumstances may differ in foreign countries (where most Mormons live).

Another reason why abortion is not a central issue for Mormons is that the LDS Church has not formally defined when life begins.  Whether there must be abortion providers and whether any particular individual should have an abortion is solely to be determined by the persons directly involved and through the normal legal process in whatever jurisdiction (USA or foreign).  The same applies to birth control, which is not influenced by the LDS Church.

[rockpond]

23 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

The problems come with regard to "federal protected class" legislation

Why is this a problem?

23 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

and adoptive equality legislation, especially since LDS Family Services does not arrange adoptions for homosexual couples.

My understanding is the LDS Family Services discontinued all of its adoption services.  Am I incorrect on this?

23 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

The positions endorsed by the article were vague but do put them on a collision course with Church policy. 

I'm not seeing how.

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Controversial new hate speech.

Aparently, someone put up a picture of President Nelson, a quote, and the Proclamation by a poster for an lgtb event on campus and this is "hate". 

 

 

I wouldn't consider this hate speech either.  But it is inappropriate to deface someone's authorized campus poster with unauthorized signs.  Whomever taped those papers to the newsstand likely thought that they were doing the right thing in supposedly standing up for church doctrine but I believe they were breaking BYU rules (and thus the honor code) in so doing.

I welcome correction if things have changed and students are now allowed to post signs on campus without receiving proper permission.

[Nacho2dope]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I wouldn't consider this hate speech either.  But it is inappropriate to deface someone's authorized campus poster with unauthorized signs.  Whomever taped those papers to the newsstand likely thought that they were doing the right thing in supposedly standing up for church doctrine but I believe they were breaking BYU rules (and thus the honor code) in so doing.

I welcome correction if things have changed and students are now allowed to post signs on campus without receiving proper permission.

I totally agree, I don't think the signs were put up out of hate. There are many students at BYU who have posted on social media that they were very hurt by the poster, so I am not sure BYU would approve that poster with President Nelsons message. This is just my opinion I don't have any evidence that they would not approve it. I obviously do not want to offend anyone but I think if the BYU approves the article on the LGBT issue it should approve the poster of President Nelson, just my opinion.

Thanks 

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Nacho2dope said:

I totally agree, I don't think the signs were put up out of hate. There are many students at BYU who have posted on social media that they were very hurt by the poster, so I am not sure BYU would approve that poster with President Nelsons message. This is just my opinion I don't have any evidence that they would not approve it. I obviously do not want to offend anyone but I think if the BYU approves the article on the LGBT issue it should approve the poster of President Nelson, just my opinion.

Thanks 

I don't think BYU would ever approve taping a sign on top of someone's authorized newsstand/poster.  If the BYU students responsible for the Nelson quote and the paper claiming that Political Review publishes things contrary to church doctrine want to make their message known, they should do so through proper channels.

[Nacho2dope]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't think BYU would ever approve taping a sign on top of someone's authorized newsstand/poster.  If the BYU students responsible for the Nelson quote and the paper claiming that Political Review publishes things contrary to church doctrine want to make their message known, they should do so through proper channels.

I agree, I was thinking that if some students wanted to put his picture and message on a stand in a different area of the campus it would not be approved. Just my thoughts

[smac97]

A few thoughts:

1. This seems like a tempest-in-a-teapot issue.

2. The references to the unauthorized article as being "hate" is absurd.

3. I disagree with unauthorized postings on school property.  But that's more a matter of property rights, not free speech.  The (anonymous?) critic of the BYU Political Review should be free to speak his/her mind, but in accordance with the property rights of BYU.

4. I think if the tables were turned, and if some diatribe critical of the Church was being surreptitiously posted around campus, those same people who are presently grousing about the anonymous critic would be lionizing the author of the piece critical of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[the narrator]

2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

I should clarify that the article advocated for the legality of elective abortion.

Which is the only practical way to keep abortions legal for rape victims. Given (1) the added trauma of forcing a rape victim to prove her rape, and (2) the difficulty of proving most rapes, the only real and practical way to provide legal abortions for rape victims is to ensure the legalizing of elective abortions. A rape-exemption clause is utterly impractical and unnecessarily harmful.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Which is the only practical way to keep abortions legal for rape victims. Given (1) the added trauma of forcing a rape victim to prove her rape,

Hmm.  I'm not sure that's correct.  However, that is an important consideration.  I'll think on it.

11 minutes ago, the narrator said:

and (2) the difficulty of proving most rapes, the only real and practical way to provide legal abortions for rape victims is to ensure the legalizing of elective abortions.

I question that.  A law could be crafted to criminalize abortions generally, but then include exceptions.

11 minutes ago, the narrator said:

A rape-exemption clause is utterly impractical and unnecessarily harmful.

Why is it "utterly impractical?"

As for it being "unnecessarily harmful," isn't that usually an argument against elective abortion?  After all, such procedures are about 100% "harmful" to the baby.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rpn]

3 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

The Political Review has a few conservative authors but overall bends hard to the left,

Thinking abortion should be legal and that LGBTQ+ community should not be able to be dismissed for that are not "left wing" in any way.    The church bucks most right Christians in not taking any disciplinary action for  abortions for rape incest and life of the mother ---- and Dallin Oaks himself has fully explained how that is doctrinally supported in a book he wrote a few years ago.  And the church supported Utah's early law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in employment and housing.   

  Those ideas are mainstream and fair, though certain iterations that would overturn religious objections and put gender dysphoria in the same category as a protected class are not.

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

The problems come with regard to "federal protected class" legislation and adoptive equality legislation, especially since LDS Family Services does not arrange adoptions for homosexual couples. The positions endorsed by the article were vague but do put them on a collision course with Church policy. 

LDSFS no longer arranged adoptions.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I don't think BYU would ever approve taping a sign on top of someone's authorized newsstand/poster.  If the BYU students responsible for the Nelson quote and the paper claiming that Political Review publishes things contrary to church doctrine want to make their message known, they should do so through proper channels.

Ever visit college campuses?

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Ever visit college campuses?

Yes.  What's your point?

[OGHoosier]

Well, I got caught with my pants down. Thanks for correcting me on LDS Family Services ceasing adoption procedures, I hadn't known. 

[OGHoosier]

1 hour ago, rpn said:

Thinking abortion should be legal and that LGBTQ+ community should not be able to be dismissed for that are not "left wing" in any way.    The church bucks most right Christians in not taking any disciplinary action for  abortions for rape incest and life of the mother ---- and Dallin Oaks himself has fully explained how that is doctrinally supported in a book he wrote a few years ago.  And the church supported Utah's early law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in employment and housing.   

  Those ideas are mainstream and fair, though certain iterations that would overturn religious objections and put gender dysphoria in the same category as a protected class are not.

The article in particular advocated for free and unlimited elective abortion. I clarified that for MiserereNobis above, I apologize that it wasn't made more clear. 

[rpn]

56 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

The article in particular advocated for free and unlimited elective abortion. I clarified that for MiserereNobis above, I apologize that it wasn't made more clear. 

So what if it is argued that the decision doesn't belong to government, but to individuals?   (That would be the only consistent position with less government in all other areas.)

Conservatives are famous for wanting government out of personal choice and business.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  I'm not sure that's correct.  However, that is an important consideration.  I'll think on it.

I question that.  A law could be crafted to criminalize abortions generally, but then include exceptions.

Why is it "utterly impractical?"

As for it being "unnecessarily harmful," isn't that usually an argument against elective abortion?  After all, such procedures are about 100% "harmful" to the baby.

Thanks,

-Smac

It is impractical because who is going to adjudicate that rape occurred? If the rapist is prosecuted do you go by the verdict? What happens if the proceedings drag on and it becomes a late term abortion or the baby is born. If they are found not guilty does that mean there was no rape even though not guilty is not innocence? Does a judge rule quickly? Sounds like a horrible job. So now a rape victim has to go to court to convince a judge? Sounds a little traumatizing. Back alley and unlicensed clinics inbound!

[2BizE]

What part of this is hate? I’m not seeing it apparently.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, the narrator said:

..................... A rape-exemption clause is utterly impractical and unnecessarily harmful.

Not to mention incest.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

..................................

Why is it "utterly impractical?"

As for it being "unnecessarily harmful," isn't that usually an argument against elective abortion?  After all, such procedures are about 100% "harmful" to the baby....................

Elective abortion is already legal by dint of U.S. Supreme Court decision, based on viability of the fetus outside the womb.  Defining a fetus as a "baby" already prejudices the matter, unless the fetus would be viable if removed from the womb.

The reason the LDS Church does not choose to interfere in decisions to seek abortion is the considerable trauma for the victim of rape or incest in being put through hell to get permission from the govt for such a procedure.  That is why the Church leaves it between the victim and her doctor.  It minimizes the damage.

State laws can be and have been formulated to enforce religious dogma on such issues, but I believe that they are a violation of the First Amendment "establishment of religion" clause.  We are supposedly a pluralistic society.