Understanding current LGBT criticisms with a historical precedent

[phaedrus ut]

I came across something recently and I think it's interesting in light of the current criticisms of BYU's desire to join the Big 12.  Because of the ban on black members going beyond baptism in their church membership I had heard about some of the historical controversies. I knew about the Wyoming 14, the protests from UTEP, and Stanfords suspension of competition with BYU but I hadn't read about the protests at University of Washington and the church's public response.  I just recently read The BSU takes on BYU and the UW Athletics Program, 1970.  From the article:

Quote

In January of 1970 the Black Student Union (BSU) at the University of Washington launched a protest campaign demanding that the UW sever all athletic relations with Brigham Young University (BYU).  Later, the BSU also demanded that the University make a statement condemning BYU as a racist institution...Inspired by successful protest campaigns at other universities, the UW’s BSU launched their own campaign against BYU in the first few weeks of the 1970 winter quarter. 

The interesting part of the article for me was that on March 31, 1970 BYU took out a full page ad in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Ernest Wilkinson wrote in rebuttal.   

Quote

Students of any race, creed, color, or national origin are accepted for admission to Brigham Young University provided they maintain ideals and standards in harmony with those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and meet the university's academic requirements

Which reads strangely similar to the statement from BYU spokesperson yesterday 

Quote

BYU welcomes as full members of the university community all whose conduct meets university standards

There are some other interesting points in the article.  Quoting Brigham Young as a defender of the rights of "the negroes", saying there were no blacks living within a 35 mile radius of the university, confirming that the ban on those of black African lineage has been "confirmed by each Prophet of the Church".  But one of my favorite quotes is 

Quote

And there is not one iota of evidence to indicate that the priesthood doctrine of the Mormon Church interferes with the civil rights of any person. Black members of the Mormon Church do not object to it. 

 

Phaedrus 

[jbarm]

So would you have a problem with Universities or other entities banning interaction with BYU because of the LDS Church's unwillingness to extend the priesthood to women?

Same thing, isn't it?

Certainly can couch it within Civil Rights framework.

Can't allow others to believe anything that is different than your own progressive views, you know.

Edited August 10, 2016 by jbarm

[carbon dioxide]

The thing I have always laughed at is that most of the criticism BYU and the Church got from the priesthood ban came from those not a part of the Church.  They don't believe the Priesthood was restored to Joseph by Peter, James, John and John the baptist.  They don't believe in the authority of the priesthood in the Church.  They don't believe anything that the Church does or says about the priesthood. Yet at the same time complain that it was racist and wrong for the Church to deny something to certain members that they themselves do not believe in.  "How dare the church deny a false or nonexistent authority to blacks.  That is racist."  WHAT!!!!    And then when the Church does give the priesthood to the Church, rather than celebrate and desire to join the Church, they then mock the Church for making changes and claiming the Church gave in to public pressure.  There is a certain segment of the population that will always complain about something.  They live unhappy lives.

[USU78]

No offense to the OP, but do we really need two threads on this subject?

[Robert F. Smith]

http://www.ldsliving.com/BYU-s-Response-After-25-LGBT-Groups-Criticize-BYU-in-Letter-to-Big-12/s/82832/?utm_source=ldsliving&utm_medium=sidebar&utm_campaign=mr .

[phaedrus ut]

12 hours ago, USU78 said:

No offense to the OP, but do we really need two threads on this subject?

I hadn't seen the BYU public defenses of the bans on black members before and I thought it would be worthy of discussion.  The priesthood ban is now portrayed as a non-doctrinal mistake of the past but in the advertisement we have the President of BYU affirming the ban as doctrine and it's confirmation by every prophet.  I also found the claim that black Mormons did not object to the policy.  We know quite a few were in the USA, Africa, and Brazil.  It was just a year later that the Genesis group was formed to work on the problem.  Our of curiosity do you find the full page response from BYU to be completely honest and accurate? 

Phaedrus

[Daniel2]

19 hours ago, jbarm said:

So would you have a problem with Universities or other entities banning interaction with BYU because of the LDS Church's unwillingness to extend the priesthood to women?

If anyone believes in freedom of self-determination, how could they object to the above?  Aren't private Universities or other entities free to set their own rules...?

Meaning, if you support BYU's right to determine their own rules regarding the conduct of their own students and prohibiting certain behaviors among it's population, then you equally support other universities' right to choose to withdraw from participating with BYU, regardless of their rationale, no....?

[Daniel2]

19 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

I came across something recently and I think it's interesting in light of the current criticisms of BYU's desire to join the Big 12.  Because of the ban on black members going beyond baptism in their church membership I had heard about some of the historical controversies. I knew about the Wyoming 14, the protests from UTEP, and Stanfords suspension of competition with BYU but I hadn't read about the protests at University of Washington and the church's public response.  I just recently read The BSU takes on BYU and the UW Athletics Program, 1970.  From the article:

The interesting part of the article for me was that on March 31, 1970 BYU took out a full page ad in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Ernest Wilkinson wrote in rebuttal.   

Which reads strangely similar to the statement from BYU spokesperson yesterday 

There are some other interesting points in the article.  Quoting Brigham Young as a defender of the rights of "the negroes", saying there were no blacks living within a 35 mile radius of the university, confirming that the ban on those of black African lineage has been "confirmed by each Prophet of the Church".  But one of my favorite quotes is 

 

Phaedrus 

As I and many others have said all along, the advancement of civil rights for LGBT citizens in the LGBT equality movement has been, is, and will continue to mirror racial equality of the civil rights movement, including increasing social pressure on universities and boycotts of sporting programs.  No one should be surprised by these developments. 

Your OP is an exceptional example of this.

Thanks for so clearly illustrating the parallels with specific examples.  Well done.

D

[rongo]

19 hours ago, USU78 said:

No offense to the OP, but do we really need two threads on this subject?

The other one is now closed, so maybe it's a good thing to have this one . . .

[USU78]

6 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

I hadn't seen the BYU public defenses of the bans on black members before and I thought it would be worthy of discussion.  The priesthood ban is now portrayed as a non-doctrinal mistake of the past but in the advertisement we have the President of BYU affirming the ban as doctrine and it's confirmation by every prophet.  I also found the claim that black Mormons did not object to the policy.  We know quite a few were in the USA, Africa, and Brazil.  It was just a year later that the Genesis group was formed to work on the problem.  Our of curiosity do you find the full page response from BYU to be completely honest and accurate? 

Phaedrus

As a friend of mine recently said of a basketball player counseled out of USU's program, he works as hard as he knows how.

[rongo]

Indications that this isn't just BYU being targeted, and that it won't just be Big 12 membership being threatened:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438849/religious-freedom-california-law-christian-colleges-financial-aid-poor-students

I don't think we're far from advocacy groups seeking to bar Pell Grants and other federal items from BYU. What David French writes is very applicable to the BYU issue right now.

Those behind the attempts in California

claim that they’re merely trying to protect vulnerable LGBT students from discrimination, but exactly zero California citizens are required to attend Christian institutions. Every single LGBT student can find an alternative secular education, and most of them will: The population of poor LGBT students who want to attend an orthodox Christian institution is vanishingly small. Few “out and proud” gay students want to attend schools that teach biblical inerrancy. Even fewer transgender students want to attend schools that teach that there is no distinction between sex and gender, and that sex is fixed at birth.

To protect a nonexistent class of “victims,” then, the California legislature seeks to punish students who actually believe the tenets of the Christian faith and who want to attend the same schools that wealthier Christians are able to afford and attend. They seek to force Christian schools to choose between their sincere, religiously motivated desire to educate California’s poorest citizens and some of the most basic tenets of the faith pertaining to vital matters of identity, sexuality, and marriage.

In almost two full decades of defending religious liberty on college campuses, I can count on my fingers the number of cases in which LGBT students were actually prevented from participating in Christian organizations they wanted to join or lead. And I can recall exactly zero instances in which those who desired to join such an organization didn’t also desire to change that organization’s message on matters of sexuality and scriptural interpretation. In other words, they were joining not to follow but rather as an act of personal activism.

 

To California legislators, some students are more equal than others. Those who have state-approved beliefs can use the force of law to try to bring Christians institutions to their knees. Those who follow Christ, by contrast, are reviled, their rights circumscribed day by day.

[churchistrue]

I got excited at first because I thought this was an LGT thread.  LGBT.

[USU78]

18 minutes ago, rongo said:

Indications that this isn't just BYU being targeted, and that it won't just be Big 12 membership being threatened:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438849/religious-freedom-california-law-christian-colleges-financial-aid-poor-students

I don't think we're far from advocacy groups seeking to bar Pell Grants and other federal items from BYU. What David French writes is very applicable to the BYU issue right now.

Those behind the attempts in California

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Enfoeffment. Imperialism. Yup.

[california boy]

23 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

I came across something recently and I think it's interesting in light of the current criticisms of BYU's desire to join the Big 12.  Because of the ban on black members going beyond baptism in their church membership I had heard about some of the historical controversies. I knew about the Wyoming 14, the protests from UTEP, and Stanfords suspension of competition with BYU but I hadn't read about the protests at University of Washington and the church's public response.  I just recently read The BSU takes on BYU and the UW Athletics Program, 1970.  From the article:

The interesting part of the article for me was that on March 31, 1970 BYU took out a full page ad in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Ernest Wilkinson wrote in rebuttal.   

Which reads strangely similar to the statement from BYU spokesperson yesterday 

There are some other interesting points in the article.  Quoting Brigham Young as a defender of the rights of "the negroes", saying there were no blacks living within a 35 mile radius of the university, confirming that the ban on those of black African lineage has been "confirmed by each Prophet of the Church".  But one of my favorite quotes is 

 

Phaedrus 

We are hearing some of the same rhetoric today as we did back then.  "All are welcome to attend BYU"  "Gays can participate in our sports program."  "Those from other schools will be allowed to participate even if they have gay team members"  It is all sounding too familiar.  But as history has shown, discrimination is discrimination and some athletic programs will not put up with discrimination.  Just like BYU has core values that prevent gay students from holding hands, hugging, dating, marrying etc, so do other athletic groups have core values that have a no tolerance for discrimination, and no desire to participate with those who do think it is ok to discriminate against (back then, blacks) now LGBT.

One of the concerns that was brought up is how gay students and teams will be treated while at BYU.  The response from BYU spokesman assured the Big 12 that they would only be treated with respect.  But what happens when a gay team player is seen holding hands with his boyfriend.  What happens if they are seen giving a light kiss.  It was not that long ago when church security handcuffed a couple for a simple kiss on what was once city property but now is church property in SLC.  Can anyone truthfully say that gay couples from other schools will be left alone without harassment from BYU security?  Are LGBT students expected to abide by the school honor code, something they have never promised to do? 

College age kids are overwhelming by 80% supportive of LGBT civil rights.  Just what does the Big 12 think the response from their student bodies will be when they have their first game against a school that treats gays differently than they do their straight students?

These are some of the issues that will have to be addressed.  Just releasing a statement saying all LGBT are welcome at BYU does  not address what the big issues if BYU is to be a part of the league that has different core values.  And even if BYU is passed over for these reasons, this issue is not going to just disappear.  BYU tried this same approach once before of pretending that discrimination did not exist.  We know how that turned out.

It's deja vu all over again.  

[cinepro]

21 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

The thing I have always laughed at is that most of the criticism BYU and the Church got from the priesthood ban came from those not a part of the Church.  They don't believe the Priesthood was restored to Joseph by Peter, James, John and John the baptist.  They don't believe in the authority of the priesthood in the Church.  They don't believe anything that the Church does or says about the priesthood. Yet at the same time complain that it was racist and wrong for the Church to deny something to certain members that they themselves do not believe in.  "How dare the church deny a false or nonexistent authority to blacks.  That is racist."  WHAT!!!!    And then when the Church does give the priesthood to the Church, rather than celebrate and desire to join the Church, they then mock the Church for making changes and claiming the Church gave in to public pressure.  There is a certain segment of the population that will always complain about something.  They live unhappy lives.

If you find that funny, then get a load of this:

I don't golf, and I'm not black, but I still strongly object to the idea of a Golf Club discriminating against black people.

 

 

[churchistrue]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

Just what does the Big 12 think the response from their student bodies will be when they have their first game against a school that treats gays differently than they do their straight students?

 

Since the BYU football team has been playing 12 football games a year against exactly these kind of schools, you could probably figure that out.  

 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

Since the BYU football team has been playing 12 football games a year against exactly these kind of schools, you could probably figure that out.  

 

Sometimes publicity like this pac 12 admission is what makes people aware of the policies BYU has against gays.   Time will tell.  Perhaps I am totally wrong.

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

If you find that funny, then get a load of this:

I don't golf, and I'm not black, but I still strongly object to the idea of a Golf Club discriminating against black people.

 

 

I believe in the freedom of association and if its a private club, I think they can do whatever they want.  If my neighbor does not want native Americans to walk on his lawn, why should I care? Its his lawn.

[kllindley]

17 hours ago, california boy said:

We are hearing some of the same rhetoric today as we did back then.  "All are welcome to attend BYU"  "Gays can participate in our sports program."  "Those from other schools will be allowed to participate even if they have gay team members"  It is all sounding too familiar.  But as history has shown, discrimination is discrimination and some athletic programs will not put up with discrimination.  Just like BYU has core values that prevent gay students from holding hands, hugging, dating, marrying etc, so do other athletic groups have core values that have a no tolerance for discrimination, and no desire to participate with those who do think it is ok to discriminate against (back then, blacks) now LGBT.

One of the concerns that was brought up is how gay students and teams will be treated while at BYU.  The response from BYU spokesman assured the Big 12 that they would only be treated with respect.  But what happens when a gay team player is seen holding hands with his boyfriend.  What happens if they are seen giving a light kiss.  It was not that long ago when church security handcuffed a couple for a simple kiss on what was once city property but now is church property in SLC.  Can anyone truthfully say that gay couples from other schools will be left alone without harassment from BYU security?  Are LGBT students expected to abide by the school honor code, something they have never promised to do? 

College age kids are overwhelming by 80% supportive of LGBT civil rights.  Just what does the Big 12 think the response from their student bodies will be when they have their first game against a school that treats gays differently than they do their straight students?

These are some of the issues that will have to be addressed.  Just releasing a statement saying all LGBT are welcome at BYU does  not address what the big issues if BYU is to be a part of the league that has different core values.  And even if BYU is passed over for these reasons, this issue is not going to just disappear.  BYU tried this same approach once before of pretending that discrimination did not exist.  We know how that turned out.

It's deja vu all over again.  

 

There are some significant differences though. And I'm not just referring to legitimate disagreements about the ontological similarities or differences between race and sexual attraction.  The rhetoric of the civil rights movement was substantially different than that of the current LGBT movement.  One LGBT Activist and Writer wrote the following:

Quote

 

Though we have come quite far in the past few years, we are still routinely discriminated against. But rather than follow King’s example, some of us have decided to meet ideological violence head on with our own. We demand to be taken seriously, even as we dismiss our opponents’ request that we listen to them. . . . . 

King called for blacks to love the white men who hated them. Why? Because, says King, the white man “needs the love of the Negro … to remove his tensions, insecurities, and fears.” In a similar way, when we love the straight people who fear and misunderstand us, we become an example of the kind of queer love we’re advocating. When we love our opposition, without any promise of return, we remind our power-drunk world that true love is always queer since it subverts the norm of tribalism by forcing the lover to traverse the chasm between “us” and “them.”

Of course, King’s is only one way of doing activism. We have every right to keep going about queer politics with the same fundamentalism we’re ironically impugning. But if we are serious about our desire to be “on the right side of history,” we need to be clear about where exactly that boundary is drawn. As Dr. King reminds us, that boundary isn’t between black and white, or queer and straight — that boundary is between hate and love. If Dr. King is right about this, then I wonder if it’s possible to side with the queers, and yet still be on the wrong side of history.

 

http://time.com/2332/what-the-gay-rights-movement-should-learn-from-martin-luther-king-jr/

 

 

[Daniel2]

38 minutes ago, kllindley said:

 

There are some significant differences though. And I'm not just referring to legitimate disagreements about the ontological similarities or differences between race and sexual attraction.  The rhetoric of the civil rights movement was substantially different than that of the current LGBT movement.  One LGBT Activist and Writer wrote the following:

http://time.com/2332/what-the-gay-rights-movement-should-learn-from-martin-luther-king-jr/

I'm not seeing how your example exemplifies your assertions that "there are some significant differences" or that "the rhetoric of the civil rights movement was substantially different than that of the current LGBT movement."

After all, there were more radical, militant, pro-violence factions of the racial equality movement, as well.  It's easy to cherry-pick quotes from the fringe groups on any given topic, but that doesn't prove they are dissimilar in substantial ways.

Coretta Scott King, the great Dr. King Jr's widow, certainly agreed that the two movements are similar:

A Collection of Coretta Scott King Quotes regarding GLBT Rights

---

Source: Reuters, March 31, 1998.
Coretta Scott King, speaking four days before the 30th anniversary of her husband's assassination, said Tuesday the civil rights leader's memory demanded a strong stand for gay and lesbian rights.

"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice," she said. "But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'" "I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people," she said.
 

---

Source: Chicago Defender, April 1, 1998, front page.
Speaking before nearly 600 people at the Palmer House Hilton Hotel,
Coretta Scott King, the wife of the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Tuesday called on the civil rights community to join in the struggle against homophobia and anti-gay bias. "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood," King stated. "This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group."
 

---

Source: Chicago Sun Times, April 1, 1998, p.18.
"We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny . . . I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be," she said, quoting her husband. "I've always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy," King told 600 people at the Palmer House Hilton, days before the 30th anniversary of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination on April 4, 1968. She said the civil rights movement "thrives on unity and inclusion, not division and exclusion." Her husband's struggle parallels that of the gay rights movement, she said.
 

---

Source: Chicago Tribune, April 1, 1998, sec.2, p.4.
"For many years now, I have been an outspoken supporter of civil and human rights for gay and lesbian people," King said at the 25th Anniversary Luncheon for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.... "Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Ga. and St. Augustine, Fla., and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement," she said. "Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions." - Chicago Tribune, April 1, 1998, sec.2, p.4.
 

---

Source: Coretta Scott King, remarks, Opening Plenary Session, 13th annual Creating Change conference of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Atlanta, Georgia, November 9, 2000.
"We have a lot more work to do in our common struggle against bigotry and discrimination. I say 'common struggle' because I believe very strongly that all forms of bigotry and discrimination are equally wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere. Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination."
 

---

Source: Reuters, June 8, 2001.
"We have to launch a national campaign against homophobia in the black community," said Coretta Scott King, widow of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., the slain civil rights leader.

 

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

I'm not seeing how your example exemplifies your assertions that "there are some significant differences" or that "the rhetoric of the civil rights movement was substantially different than that of the current LGBT movement."

After all, there were more radical, militant, pro-violence factions of the racial equality movement, as well.  It's easy to cherry-pick quotes from the fringe groups on any given topic, but that doesn't prove they are dissimilar in substantial ways.

Coretta Scott King, the great Dr. King Jr's widow, certainly agreed that the two movements are similar:

 

 

I identified two main ways in which the movements could be seen as different.  One revolved around whether sexual orientation is equivalent to race.  That argument is largely moot, due to the general societal acceptance of an essentialist view of sexual orientation.  That's fine.  I don't believe any argument about distinction is necessary or helpful.  In my comment, I specifically set aside that argument to focus on tone.  Thus I am confused by why you felt the need to include quotes from Mrs. King.

The second way in which the two movements differ is the ways in which activist work is predominantly approached (or more importantly, perceived).  You are right that there were more radical, militant, pro-violence factions in the racial equality movement.  I just don't think that we remember them as being particularly effective in bringing about change, or as being especially noble for their tactics, despite the nobility of their cause. As Brandon Ambrosino says, MLK Jr.'s approach to activism is only one of many.  And current LGBT activists are free to continue their pursuit of social change with the same fundamentalism they simultaneously attack.  However, when so many religious/conservative people report feeling attacked, persecuted, or discriminated against by LGBT social activism, does that activism really have the desired impact? Do you think that increases or decreased the likelihood that an individual will re-examine their prejudices?  

I appreciate how another LDS LGBT member explained this frustration:

Quote

 

Many gay people know this all too well--did any of that bullying, mockery, shaming, lecturing, and so forth, change your sexual orientation? Then would anyone think name-calling, hatred, public shaming, and shunning, change people's deeply held religious beliefs? I guess the implicit assumption there is that sexual orientation cannot change, but that religious belief not only can, it must be *compelled* to change. . . .

I would suggest a different approach. If you really are on the "right side of history," what is the best way to get the rest of us to come around to it? There is certainly much more understanding and tolerance needed for gay people. But could it maybe, just maybe be possible that people who hold to traditional religious values might deserve tolerance and love, even if they are "wrong"? That just because you can do something, because now you have a lot of cultural power you used to lack, and can now compel people to do things you couldn't do previously, does that mean it is wise, or even good, to do so?

 

 

Finally, would you clarify what you meant with your jab about cherry-picking quotes.  I don't understand that.  I quoted Time magazine, hardly a "fringe group."      

[stemelbow]

18 hours ago, california boy said:

Sometimes publicity like this pac 12 admission is what makes people aware of the policies BYU has against gays.   Time will tell.  Perhaps I am totally wrong.

I can't sit idly by and see all these mistakes in this discussion. We're talking Big 12 not Pac 12.  the Pac 12 wouldn't consider BYU if it came with a 50 billion dollar endowment.  Well maybe they would, but the football fan side of me doesn't see these seemingly small errors as useless.  I have to say something at some point. 

[rongo]

21 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The Pac 12 wouldn't consider BYU if it came with a 50 billion dollar endowment.  Well maybe they would, but the football fan side of me doesn't see these seemingly small errors as useless.  I have to say something at some point. 

We do have to put our foot down at some point, right?

What gives me hope is that --- barring the juggernaut of LGBT activism being an invincible tsunami --- the Big 12 is fundamentally very different from the extremely left-wing and snobbish Pac 12. BYU is a much better fit with these schools from the former Big 8 and Southwest Conferences (not West Virginia) culturally than with Pac 12 schools, which hate BYU and everything it stands for in a much more primeval way. 

Although wouldn't mind Big 12 membership, I want BYU to remain independent (I love the variety of the schedule and the availability of the games to watch). The problem is that that is the fastest route to the type of isolation and ostracism that LGBT activism wants to inflict on BYU, so at this point (after this week's happenings), I now want conference membership. I don't want the activists to win --- and, as waverider has pointed out, they are set not just on winning, but on revenge and continuing sanctions. The LGBT activists are the functional equivalent of the biker gang on Pee Wee's Big Adventure. "I say we stab him! Then we stomp him! Then we hang him! Then we kill him!"

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E88HEuwInno

[california boy]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I can't sit idly by and see all these mistakes in this discussion. We're talking Big 12 not Pac 12.  the Pac 12 wouldn't consider BYU if it came with a 50 billion dollar endowment.  Well maybe they would, but the football fan side of me doesn't see these seemingly small errors as useless.  I have to say something at some point. 

Thanks for correcting me. 

[Rock_N_Roll]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

 the Pac 12 wouldn't consider BYU if it came with a 50 billion dollar endowment.  

And yet three Pac 12 teams have agreed to play BYU this year.