california boy

Yea, exactly. I think most will agree that because of their heavy handed reaction to the Y lighting, the Church got painted as continuing its intolerance and adversary relationship with the LGBT community. It perpetuated that image whether that was the intent or not. And maybe that was their intention. To draw the line deeper in the sand. If that was the intent, then mission accomplished. If however their intent was to improve the relationship with the LGBT community, they could have used it as an opportunity to allow the Y lighting. That would have shown to the LGBT students and the LGBT community that there is room in the Church and at BYU for them. They could have even issued a press release clarifying their position. Something like "While the Church is firmly committed to marriage between only one man and one woman, and that gender is eternal, there is still room for all of God's children in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, even members of the LGBT community." Do you see that if that was their intent, that would have been a much more positive message, while still being clear about maintaining Church teachings? It is an up hill battle TBH. It is interesting, this subject came up a few days ago with a good straight friend that knew I used to be a member. He started in about how horrible the Church is to the gay community and that I must have hated being a part of it. I told him that yes, there are parts about the Church that I think are unhealthy if you are gay, but there are parts that I also really liked about the Church. I told him about how positive my mission experience was and how much I learned from it. I also told him that some of my kids are still active in the Church and for them, it works. They are straight and have young kids. It is giving their family a strong foundation of right and wrong. In the next couple of years as those kids get a little older, they will have to wrestle with what the Church teaches and what they know from personal experience with their grandfather and my partner who they love. My friend then told me about an employee he had who was Mormon and how good of worker he was and never said anything negative about gays. But I had to agree with him that if he had an LGBT child, the Mormon Church is probably not the place to raise that LGBT child. Sorry, that is how I feel. I don't think I am alone.

Sorry it has taken me a little time to get back to you. I have been traveling and away from my computer. I did however want to respond. I totally agree that the Church can and does define how it treats the LGBT community. And yes, I agree that the LGBT flag does represent a community that the Church does not support EVERYTHING that community might be engaged in. I don't support everything either. But I do recognize that the LGBT flag represents the community. It represents not being ashamed for being different. It represents a struggle to have the same constitutional rights that all Americans have. It represents numerous charity and humanitarian efforts the community participates in. It represents tolerance for those that have a different point of view. It represents the God given agency that has been given to all of us to live our lives the way we each believe is how we should live our lives. It represents family and friends. It represents being able to love my partner and have a quality of life with him. Just like the American flag represents this country, which not all can I agree with, when someone burns an American flag, it probably doesn't mean that they hate EVERYTHING about America, but for those that are looking on, the message they get is one of hatred towards America and all that it stands for. But by not allowing colored flashlights to light up the Y one night a year during gay pride, that also sends a message to the world, to members, to BYU students, and to the LGBT community. Most people reacted to that message like the burning of an American flag. It is a message of being one of zero tolerance for the LGBT community. It reinforced in a big way the Churches often hostile relationship with the LGBT community. And it reinforces a message of intolerance within the Church membership whether intentional or not. I certainly did not read a single article praising BYU for it's tolerance by not allowing the Y lighting. In fact every article I read brought up all of the hostile actions BYU and the Church have taken against the LGBT community. So whether that was the intent or not, that was the message received. And if that IS the message BYU wanted to send, then yes, they were successful. By sending that kind of message, and so many that have come before, it defines the Church's relationship with the LGBT community much more than writing a letter supporting fair housing and employment. Is that really so hard to understand?

So do the brethren only view the rainbow colors as being solely about sex?

Oh I agree with you. Maybe you can tell me why BYU/the Church had such problems with students looking for just some acknowledgment that they are part of BYU/the Church by lightning up the Y with flash lights but somehow that was a line in the sand

Why does the church sign these letters? I seriously want to know. Honestly it seems so fake, like they are trying to pretend about the LGBT community two weeks after taking all the LGBT pamphlets out of the BYU newspaper. As far as I can tell their excuse came down to an objection of a drag name in a small ad on the very back of a resource piece for LGBT students This is the same university/church that freaked out over colored lights on the Y that simply acknowledged that there are LGBT students at BYU that would like to be visible

No iris not the kids that are the problem From the article “The actual grooming that’s happening is on the other side, where all these people are grooming their kids to hate other people because of how they dress and who they love,” Watcher said. “As parents, we’re trying to raise our kids to be good, respectful human beings for everyone around them.”

It really saddens me to hear how judgmental members of the Church have become. Instead of joining with these LGBT students in helping them feel like they are a part of the University and the Church, they are doing all they can to isolate them and make them fearful for being there. i wish I could send them all to a Lady Gaga concert to let them know that it is ok to be different and that there are a whole slew of people out there that love ❤️ them as they are.

No. As long as it was peaceful. Are there groups you would prohibit from shining flashlights? Especially given the legal agreement on the land that was purchased

Historically yes. BYU students have always been able to climb up to the Y. I used to climb up there regularly with friends when I went there. My parents did as well. No permits or special approval was ever required. Never been an issue until a bunch of LGBT advocates decided to bring colored lights to show support for LGBT students and thought up the most peaceful way of doing that I can imagine what I would really like to understand is why does it matter to you or BYU Honestly the bigger issue BUU makes of this peaceful protest the more anti LGBT they look. At some point other schools are not going to want to have anything to do with BYU. They are bringing this animosity themselves over literally nothing of importance.

We are not talking about the laws governing other pieces of federal property. We ARE talking about Y mountain. It is required by law to have public access Not sure how much cleared that can be. I would love to hear BYU make the court case that people carrying flashlights at night was unreasonable access

When the land was purchased from the federal government, one of the conditions required public access to that land Under the bill, BYU would have to pay for an appraisal of the land and the price that results from that evaluation. The school would also have to guarantee public access to the mountain. BYU nor the Provo police had grounds to arrest anyone

I don't really think you can't put the Church on some kind of pedestal when it comes to recruiting children to accept its beliefs. I grew up when the Church promised all the kids in the ward to invite their friends to go swimming at the community pool. If they brought a friend, their admission and their friends admission to the public pool would be paid for by the missionaries. I was about 9 at the time. We would meet at the church every Saturday with a mob full of kids. The missionaries would present a missionary lesson designed to recruit the kids into the Church and then take them all swimming as a reward for sitting through the lesson. The Church also had a baseball program where they would organize kids into teams, have a recruitment lesson and then allow them to play baseball. They baptized a lot of pre teen kids using both of those methods. I don't remember a single on staying active after the free swim/baseball games quit.

Do you think the teachers behavior was acceptable???

Not surprised. Given the way the Church has treated gays, I rarely come across a LGBT person who has a good opinion of the Church n

Thank you for pointing out the exception. There are probably a few others. But the point is pretty clear.

Some yell "don't protect the homos". Some whisper their distain. Some start threads on this sit that regularly demean and marginalize the LGBT community. And some stand quietly by and never confront those that constantly attack the LGBT community. We have all seen the statement by Church leaders. Great guidance. Does anyone here really believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints really treats the LGBT community the way Church leaders have asked? Does BYU treat the LGBT community the way the Church leaders have asked? I have seen this referenced at least twice in this thread that was designed to spur outrage against the LGBT community. My takeaway is the more TBM you are, the less one is likely to follow that counsel. I know this is a bit harsh, but sometimes the weight of the constant demonizing and degrading the LGBT community gets pretty heavy to bear. I also know this post will probably do very little to change those entrenched attitudes.

Sadly not a single TBM upvoted this idea. That says a LOT.

The first post of the drag show was inappropriate since it gave no context but was used to deride and vilify the event. The Cougar shots show the hypocrisy of that derision and vilification. Neither shots are appropriate, yet the Cougar shots show the necessity of pointing out the hypocrisy that is expressed regularly and inappropriately on this forum and elsewhere in the Church. Why did InCognitus , Scott Lloyd and Hamba give a downvote for the Cougar shots but not the drag show shot. It seems totally hypocritical yet also typical.

I absolutely agree. Yet there are those that are willing to comment on the drag show shot as being in appropriate for family viewing, yet the exact same kind of shot of the Cogars gets minus thumbs down. So tell me, why is one judged by one standard and the other one is not allowed? Both shots are taken out of context and are probably not appropriate. But it does blatantly show the hypocrisy.

So let's take a look. This seems to be the worst shot used as examples of why the drag show is inappropriate and should be avoided by any TBM. Now lets take a screen capture of the Cougar cheerleaders. Which one is unmistakably sexualizing behavior in front of minors? You tell me. Cause I don't see much difference.

It is because it is so hypocritical. What is to be condemned if you are LGBT at BYU is celebrated and embraced if you are on the BYU squads. Yeah, I am pretty sick of it as well. But some of you guys just keep opening threads and piling on the LGBT community every chance you get while on the other side of your mouth you quote Church leaders as saying LGBT members are welcome in the Church. They are not. These continuing threads make that VERY clear. Actions have always counted more than empty words and platitudes. What you really are objecting to when you refer to the pile-on, is the mountain of evidence of that hypocrisy.

Oh that is a good one. How does wearing gold jewelry and make up an attempt to usurp priesthood leadership rolls in the Church? And are you telling me that a woman speaking in church and even praying a threat to the priesthood leadership? Sorry, not working for me.

So with his advanced understanding of God, I am assuming you are also in favor of his teachings about women not praying or speaking in church, not wearing make up, not wearing gold jewelry and all his other misogynist teachings? How do you reconcile this with current practices within the Church? Do you also call them to repentance?

Thanks for the message tips. Still not sure if I fixed it, but I did empty some messages I used to work on the BYU newspaper when I attended. Honestly I think it is a pretty big leap to suggest that anything advertised in The Daily Universe is approved by BYU. That would imply that every jewelry store, every auto mechanic, every hair salon that advertised in the BYU paper was endorsed by BYU. I can assure you, that is not true. They are just advertisers. Does that change your opinion at all about this?

Honestly, I don't see any other explanation for BYU being worried about a brochure that list therapist and outside support groups that are not "approved". Does the Church have to control everything that tightly in order to allow dissemination of information? Or does it just like the opportunity to be passive aggressive. The whole "We love LGBT members to attend BYU, we just want to be completely in charge of every single decision they make" thing.