What is going on at BYU?

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Is there a specific campus policy that forbids absolutely the placing of content adjacent to a poster? That’s not a rhetorical question; I really don’t know. 

There used to be a campus policy that all posted material had to be approved by some admin office iirc.  There was an official stamp to demonstrate acceptance.  

There may have been certain bulletin boards assigned for a special purpose that didn't need approval, can't remember about those (looking for students to take over a lease or to carpool home with), iirc there was one in the WSC on the east side.

----

As far as I can tell, it appears on campus posters are submitted and then put up by campus personnel:

https://scheduling.byu.edu/poster_boards

https://scheduling.byu.edu/oak_posters

https://deanofstudents.byu.edu/PosterApproval

Edited November 11, 2019 by Calm

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The only part of the above that I see <might> apply in this instance is the point about obeying campus policies. Is there a specific campus policy that forbids absolutely the placing of content adjacent to a poster? That’s not a rhetorical question; I really don’t know. 
 

In any event, I stand by my opinion that the accusation was overwrought. Nothing was defaced. Nothing or no one was disrespected, unless you regard publicizing an opposing view as disrespect 

My recollection is similar to that of @Calm.  From my years at BYU back in the 90's, is that you couldn't hang any sign on campus without having received approval (which was usually marked with a stamp if the document wasn't already an official BYU printing).

I truly was not trying to sound "overwrought" about this.  As noted, my post pointed out that this isn't hate speech. I see this as a goofy but relatively harmless move (except that having read the article highlighted by the newsstand, I think those who are suggesting it is contrary to church teachings are wrong).

Here's my question for you @Scott Lloyd:  Do you think that taping unauthorized signs onto the newsstand of an approved campus publication is the type of behavior BYU students ought to engage in?

[Scott Lloyd]

15 hours ago, provoman said:

Unless there is some agreed upon "only the definition from ______ dictionary", then any argument against rockpond seems lacking

 

for instance

de·face

  (dĭ-fās′)

tr.v. de·faced, de·fac·ing, de·fac·es

1. To mar or spoil the appearance or surface of; disfigure.

2. To impair the usefulness, value, or influence of.

3. Obsolete To obliterate; destroy.

 

"spoil the appearance or surface of; disfigure"   Seems to me both happened, and as such use the word defaced is acceptable.

From the photo, the poster appears intact and unmarred to me. I still say the accusation is overwrought. 

Edited November 12, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

 Here's my question for you, @Scott Lloyd:  Do you think that taping unauthorized signs onto the newsstand of an approved campus publication is the type of behavior BYU students ought to engage in?

If they were tearing down posters, or if they were scribbling graffiti on them or damaging them in any way (the typically understood connotation of “deface”) I would say no, absolutely not. That would amount to vandalism or, in the case of unauthorized removal, theft. 
 

As it is, I’m not inclined to get spun up over it. I’m not even much worried about violation of the requirement that they be rubber stamped by admin unless it can be shown the actors were aware beforehand of the rule. It strikes me as being on the level of a parking violation in severity. Nothing to warrant getting hauled into the Honor Code office. 

Edited November 11, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If they were tearing down posters, or if they were scribbling graffiti on them or damaging them in any way (the typically understood connotation of “deface”) I would say no, absolutely not. That would amount to vandalism or, in the case of unauthorized removal, theft. 

Yes.  But that isn't the question I asked.

Quote

As it is, I’m not inclined to get spun up over it.

Neither am I (and I haven't gotten spun up over it).  In fact, I was less "spun up" over this incident than you seem to be over me using the word deface.

Quote

I’m not even much worried about violation of the requirement that they be rubber stamped by admin unless it can be shown the actors were aware beforehand of the rule. It strikes me as being on the level of a parking violation in severity. Nothing to warrant getting hauled into the Honor Code office. 

Strawman.  I didn't suggest that anyone be hauled into the Honor Code office.

Your dodge of the question tells me that you aren't willing to go quite so far as to deem this appropriate behavior for BYU students.  That was my main point, and I think we agree.  It seems that, really, you just wanted to argue with me over my use of the word deface.

Edited November 11, 2019 by rockpond

[SeekingUnderstanding]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes.  But that isn't the question I answered.

Neither am I (and I haven't gotten spun up over it).  In fact, I was less "spun up" over this incident than you seem to be over me using the word deface.

Strawman.  I didn't suggest that anyone be hauled into the Honor Code office.

Your dodge of the question tells me that you aren't willing to go quite so far as to deem this appropriate behavior for BYU students.  That was my main point, and I think we agree.  It seems that, really, you just wanted to argue with me over my use of the word deface.

Good to know that @Scott Lloyd wouldn’t view someone taping CES letter signs  to the Christus statue at temple square as defacement. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Good to know that @Scott Lloyd wouldn’t view someone taping CES letter signs  to the Christus statue at temple square as defacement. 

Extremely disrespectful and irreverent and engaging in criminal trespass, yes. But defacing? Hardly. 

Edited November 12, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[rpn]

22 hours ago, Calm said:

What do you define "justify" as if not "morally acceptable"? 

I think that the authors weren't anticipating this argument and might well have used a different word, had they done so.   In every awful case, some women do not abort (sometimes at great personal cost, or even actual harm.   I understood a lot better after I read Elder Oaks book on the subject.

[california boy]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

And once again you are coming to this board and misrepresenting the Church and its members to our faces.  

Is this really a surprise?

-Smac

So are you denying that some member is doing this to disparage the gay community and members like Scott Lloyd are perfectly fine with this?  Are you denying that the press is picking this story up and framing it as the Church once again disparaging  the gay community?  Are you denying that the church has a  history of anti gay positions?  

Because THAT is what my comment was stating.

And you SMAC, of all people, are in a pretty weak position to claim that some members of the church make untrue disparaging remarks against the gay community, given your diatribe against gays.and me specifically.  

Edited November 12, 2019 by california boy

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, california boy said:

So are you denying that some member is doing this to disparage the gay community and members like Scott Lloyd are perfectly fine with this?  Are you denying that the press is picking this story up and framing it as the Church once again disparaging  the gay community?  Are you denying that the church has a  history of anti gay positions?  

Because THAT is what my comment was stating.

And you SMAC, of all people, are in a pretty weak position to claim that some members of the church make untrue disparaging remarks against the gay community, given your diatribe against gays.and me specifically.  

Classy.

[kllindley]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

So are you denying that some member is doing this to disparage the gay community

I seriously question this.  Are you aware of any evidence or proof that the intent was to disparage the gay community? 

2 hours ago, california boy said:

and members like Scott Lloyd are perfectly fine with this?  

I don't believe that is a fair characterization of what he said. I understood him to have issues with the claims that it was "hate" and that it "defaced" the sign.  I agree with the opinion that both of those statements are overwrought reactions.  

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Are you denying that the press is picking this story up and framing it as the Church once again disparaging  the gay community? 

Do you have any links to this incident being reported in the press?  The original source was the Twitter feed of an BYU student who wanted anonymity to bash the school. 

2 hours ago, california boy said:

 Are you denying that the church has a  history of anti gay positions?  

I am. Just as I refuse to agree that differing viewpoints on same-sex sexual behavior constitutes hate speech. 

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Because THAT is what my comment was stating.

Then maybe you might want to consider wording your comment clearly rather than attributing motives to "faithful members" as a whole. Unless you actually meant what you typed. 

2 hours ago, california boy said:

And you SMAC, of all people, are in a pretty weak position to claim that some members of the church make untrue disparaging remarks against the gay community, given your diatribe against gays.and me specifically.  

 

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Are you denying that the church has a  history of anti gay positions?  

 

35 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I am.

This is why these conversations are tough.  That the church in the past has held anti-gay positions is a matter of fact.  We've moved away from many of those and sought to correct some, which is all commendable, but we can't pretend that past statements and teachings are not what they are.

 

35 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I understood him to have issues with the claims that it was "hate" and that it "defaced" the sign.  I agree with the opinion that both of those statements are overwrought reactions.

Deface, by definition, is an accurate description of what was done to the newsstand.  I'm not sure why you and Scott feel a need to come to the defense of (presumably) one or more BYU students by deeming rational statements describing those acts to be "overwrought".  These are students who broke campus policy and were seemingly protesting and article that did not take a position contrary to church teachings or doctrine.

 

So far, I think everyone here has agreed that what was done does not constitute hate speech.  It is sad to me that we also all cannot rally around this being inappropriate behavior from students at the Lord's University.

Edited November 12, 2019 by rockpond
Edited in an effort to not misrepresent @klindley or @scott lloyd

[kllindley]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That the church in the past has held anti-gay positions is a matter of fact.  We've moved away from many of those and sought to correct some, which is all commendable, but we can't pretend that past statements and teachings are not what they are.

No. That is not a matter of fact. It is a matter of narrative rooted in a specific sociopolitical worldview that you seem to have bought so completely that you can't see any other perspective.  

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Deface, by definition, is an accurate description of what was done to the newsstand.  I'm not sure why you and Scott feel a need to come to the defense of (presumably) one or more BYU students who broke campus policy and were seemingly protesting and article that did not take a position contrary to church teachings or doctrine.

You have completely misrepresented my position to claim that I'm defending the student in any way. 

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, kllindley said:

No. That is not a matter of fact. It is a matter of narrative rooted in a specific sociopolitical worldview that you seem to have bought so completely that you can't see any other perspective. 

What guides my position on this is my faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ and the plan of salvation.  That and that alone.  It has nothing to do with any sociopolitical worldview.

13 minutes ago, kllindley said:

You have completely misrepresented my position to claim that I'm defending the student in any way. 

I edited my post in an effort to better represent your responses.

[sunstoned]

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Good to know that @Scott Lloyd wouldn’t view someone taping CES letter signs  to the Christus statue at temple square as defacement. 

Yes, or CES signs taped to a Desert news paper stand.  

Personally, I would be bummed out if I saw this or what was done at BYU.

Edited November 12, 2019 by sunstoned

[kllindley]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

nothing to do with any sociopolitical worldview.

I get that you need to tell yourself that. But I'm not talking about US politics. I'm saying the very idea that an individual's sexual attraction or behaviors constitute a categorical identity is a sociopolitical worldview that is recent and held by a minority of the Earth's population. 

[kllindley]

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I edited my post in an effort to better represent your responses.

I looked up overwrought and I retract it. My intent was exaggerated or overstated. 

For the record, I still deeply doubt that it was someone actually protesting the article. 

[rockpond]

18 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I get that you need to tell yourself that. But I'm not talking about US politics.

It isn't something I tell myself.  What I described is an important part of my testimony.

18 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I'm saying the very idea that an individual's sexual attraction or behaviors constitute a categorical identity is a sociopolitical worldview that is recent and held by a minority of the Earth's population. 

I don't even know what you're talking about here.  And it certainly isn't an important part of my belief system.

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I looked up overwrought and I retract it. My intent was exaggerated or overstated. 

For the record, I still deeply doubt that it was someone actually protesting the article. 

What do you think they were protesting?

The newsstand was promoting the article and they chose to tape signs onto it.  Seems like they are protesting either the article or the entire publication.  But, given the messages typed on the pages that were taped there, it seems like they were protesting that particular article and/or other similar articles.

[kllindley]

23 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It isn't something I tell myself.  What I described is an important part of my testimony.

I don't even know what you're talking about here.  And it certainly isn't an important part of my belief system.

If you believe that some people are innately "gay," you have bought into a worldview that I believe is incompatible with the Gospel. If that isn't an important part of your belief system, great. I don't know how you can have anti-gay positions without also accepting that "gay" is a thing. 

[kllindley]

37 minutes ago, rockpond said:

What do you think they were protesting?

The newsstand was promoting the article and they chose to tape signs onto it.  Seems like they are protesting either the article or the entire publication.  But, given the messages typed on the pages that were taped there, it seems like they were protesting that particular article and/or other similar articles.

I have expressed previously that I find it more likely that this was the work of someone opposed to the Church's teachings trying to make BYU and the Church look hateful. 

Edited November 12, 2019 by kllindley

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I have expressed previously that I find it more likely that this was the work of someone opposed to the Church's teachings trying to make BYU and the Church look hateful. 

Given what they posted, that doesn't make sense to me.

[kllindley]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Given what they posted, that doesn't make sense to me.

Ok. 

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, kllindley said:

If you believe that some people are innately "gay," you have bought into a worldview that I believe is incompatible with the Gospel. If that isn't an important part of your belief system, great. I don't know how you can have anti-gay positions without also accepting that "gay" is a thing. 

I don't believe that being innately gay is incompatible with the Gospel.  And it isn't a "worldview" that I have "bought into".  Kindly stop referring to my spiritual beliefs that way after I've told you that is not the source.

[kllindley]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't believe that being innately gay is incompatible with the Gospel. 

That isn't what I said. 

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And it isn't a "worldview"

It isn't a "particular conception of the world" or "the way you see the world?" Ok. 

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

that I have "bought into".  Kindly stop referring to my spiritual beliefs that way after I've told you that is not the source.

I'll kindly stop referring to you in any way whatsoever as you refuse to engage in an honest discussion. ✌️