"Y" on Mountain Above BYU Lit Up with Rainbow Colors

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So the answer is . . . no, one ought not conclude what you previously concluded.  There are reasonable grounds for not wanting to be publicly named, and those grounds need not include being "secretly ashamed."

Can you allow that for the protesters?

Thanks,

-Smac

Of course I allow that to protesters.  I never said they should give their full names.  And I never said they didn't have every right to stage a counter protest.

I am just encouraged that protesting against a day set aside to support the LGBT community at BYU where the vast majority of students and faculty are members is a reason to hide your identity.  It means that most members at BYU don't agree with their actions.  

[california boy]

duplicate

Edited March 7, 2021 by california boy

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well this is the most encouraging post I have seen on this issue.  I had no idea that the idea of supporting the LGBT community was so widely accepted in the Church that those who don't, are fearful to give their names. 

People with whom you disagree "are fearful to give their names," and you find that "encouraging?"

Quote

What I can't quite understand is why you are supporting a group that organized a protest against treating LGBT students with respect.  

Perhaps the difficulty in understanding is because I am not doing that.

Perhaps the "counter protest" was not "against treating LGBT students with respect."

Perhaps you persist in viewing people like me in the worst possible light.

Perhaps folks like you have difficulty in allowing for reasoned and principled disagreement on LGBT-related issues.

Quote

Do you think members should support the LGBT community or not???  

I think LGBT folks should be treated with love and respect.

I am not sure what "support the LGBT community" means.  I suspect it means a number of things, some of which I could very much support, about some of which I am ambivalent or indifferent, and some of which I could not support.  "Support the LGBT community" sounds nice, but it's awfully vague.  That vagueness seems intentional.  And it makes me a bit curious.  And uneasy.

And it seems like a package deal.  Sort of like how politicians like to pass omnibus legislative packages because the main objective of the package sounds great.  After all, who could possibly vote against the "Money for Children and Widows Act?"  But what if the Act includes no small number of legislative action items that are problematic, and likely had little or no chance of being enacted on their own, and therefore were tucked into the Act because the larger legislative purpose is good and likely to pass?

In other words, a question like "Do you think members should support the LGBT community or not?" kinda makes me suspicious.  What does that mean?  Does "support the LGBT community" mean capitulating on my religious beliefs?  Does it mean endorsing and celebrating behaviors I find incompatible with my religious beliefs?  Does it mean turning on and acting and speaking against men I believe are prophets and apostles?  Does it mean "bend to the prevailing sociopolitical winds, 'cuz if you don't we'll brand you a bigot and a hater?"

Your question sure seems loaded, CB.  But I answered it.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 7, 2021 by smac97

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Why is a newspaper obligated to treat an immoral position as neutral? 

Are you really upset that journalism has an opinion? Journalism has ALWAYS had opinions, they've just often been the prevailing opinion. 

Because morality is subjective and journalism is supposed to be objective.

But you're right, they rarely are.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Why is a newspaper obligated to treat an immoral position as neutral? Just because some people think it is moral to treat a day that affirms LGBTQIA worth as something to protest doesn't make it so.

Are you really upset that journalism has an opinion? Journalism has ALWAYS had opinions, they've just often been the prevailing opinion. Could it be that you're really just bothered that the prevailing opinion is not your own?

Indeed it shouldn't be that difficult to look back time or elsewhere and find newspapers taking the opposite approach, when/where the prevailing opinion was/is the opposed.

The ultimate question is what is right, it's not a problem if journalism treats what is generally understood to be right as right. So, is it right to affirm the worth of LGBTQIA individuals?

 

The fact that you assert a priori that their position is immoral is sufficient indication that you lack the capacity to judge this matter with any reasonable balance or fairness. 

Edited March 7, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Peacefully]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have been disturbed to read about members of the Church hoping that Elder So-and-So dies so that he can be replaced by a more preferable Elder Such-and-Such, apparently based on notions that Elder Such-and-Such will be more amenable to altering the doctrines of the Church relative to the Law of Chastity.  It's as if these folks think the leadership of the Lord's Church is a matter of chance and expediency, rather than the Lord's will.  And the very idea of members of the Church affirmatively and publicly hoping for the deaths of certain leaders of the Church is disgusting.

I agree

 

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

But here's the thing: If this great change is going to come, it will come to the Brethren through revelation.  I don't believe it is appropriate for those under covenant to resort to pressure tactics, publicity stunts, etc. so as to attempt to bring the Church to heel and coerce it into changing its teachings.  I just don't think that's right.  I don't think that's how the Lord's kingdom is supposed to work.  I think these efforts contravene the Lord's plan for us.  And I think such efforts will ultimately and necessarily fail.

I agree

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

As to our current and ongoing social/doctrinal controversy regarding homosexual behavior and same-sex marrage, I have my own personal views that are informed by social, scientific/biological, cultural and other factors, and by my own experiences.  I am becoming less inclined to listen to the hectoring bullies who advocate for their position by trying to shame and silence other viewpoints by summarily declaring them to be based on bigotry and hate.  The more shrill accusations I see, the less inclined I am to listen to the accusers.  I take such accusations as evidence of weakness.  Their position cannot be sustained by reasoned and principled argument and persuasion, so they go with horrible accusations, shaming, "cancelling," lawfare, anything to silence divergent opinions.

I have to disagree a bit here. Maybe you are seeing something different in your area but I haven’t seen any hectoring or bullying. I just read about a group of people (LGTBQ) who want the same rights as everyone else, and now they have them on a federal level, which is wonderful. There is a smaller subgroup of LGBTQ who are members of our church and members who love someone who is LGBTQ and they look forward to a day when they will be treated equally within the church. I look forward to that day. Will it happen in my lifetime, I don’t know. However, I plan to stay in the church, not to protest, but to be another voice for them and also for women who have felt “less than.” I’m probably not going to be very popular, but that is where I am right now. 
 

Thank you for answering my post. I appreciate getting the smac treatment of breaking it down:)

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, california boy said:

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

CB: It is interesting to me that according to The Daily. Universe article, the people supporting the LGBT community were more than willing to identify both their first and last names.  They were not ashamed for standing up and supporting the LGNT community.  While those doing the counter Proclamation on the Family protest were only willing to give their first names.  Maybe in their hearts they had some shame in what they were doing.  Maybe they questioned whether their position was really a Christ-like approach.

Scott: Can one properly conclude from this that ... California Boy is secretly ashamed of his comments because he doesn’t? 

CB: There is really only ONE reason why I don't use my name.  Things have finally calmed down with my family to the point where they actually include me in family events.  I don't trust them enough to be so open with them in expressing my views in a very public way on what it is like to be gay and the issues that I deal with.  Yeah, us gays still have to deal with a lot of fear and feeling of not trusting people's love.  

Smac: So the answer is . . . no, one ought not conclude what you previously concluded.  There are reasonable grounds for not wanting to be publicly named, and those grounds need not include being "secretly ashamed."

Can you allow that for the protesters?

CB: Of course I allow that to protesters.  

I'm glad to hear that.  Your speculation about the motives of the counter-protesters seemed quite unfounded.  

20 minutes ago, california boy said:

I never said they should give their full names.  

And Scott didn't say you said that.  But you did publicly speculate that "they had some shame in what they were doing" and maybe "questioned whether their position was really a Christ-like approach."  And your speculation was based solely on them not disclosing their names.

Scott then raised a fair point: You don't use your name, so are we justified in speculating that you have "some shame" in what you are doing? 

You took offense.  I get it.  But you seem to not recognize that you gave offense.  The offensive speculation originated with you.

20 minutes ago, california boy said:

And I never said they didn't have every right to stage a counter protest.

Again, Scott didn't say you said that.

Instead, he took your speculation and applied it to you.  And you took offense when what you said about others was applied to you.  And that is understandable.  Perhaps that was Scott's point in the first place. 

20 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am just encouraged that protesting against a day set aside to support the LGBT community at BYU where the vast majority of students and faculty are members is a reason to hide your identity.  

You've said that twice now.  Fear is good?  Feeling obligated to hide one's identity for fear of retribution, cancel culture, etc. is good?

20 minutes ago, california boy said:

It means that most members at BYU don't agree with their actions.  

It may also mean that bullying tactics and threats, designed to suppress and silence divergent points of view, can actually have their intended effect.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, california boy said:

means that most members at BYU don't agree with their actions.  

Not really.  It might be that or it might not.  It only takes a few to stalk or otherwise make a person’s life hell.  And it might be more concern with nonstudents. 

[california boy]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

People with whom you disagree "are fearful to give their names," and you find that "encouraging?"

Perhaps the difficulty in understanding is because I am not doing that.

Perhaps the "counter protest" was not "against treating LGBT students with respect."

Perhaps you persist in viewing people like me in the worst possible light.

Perhaps folks like you have difficulty in allowing for reasoned and principled disagreement on LGBT-related issues.

I think LGBT folks should be treated with love and respect.

I am not sure what "support the LGBT community" means.  I suspect it means a number of things, some of which I could very much support, about some of which I am ambivalent or indifferent, and some of which I could not support.  "Support the LGBT community" sounds nice, but it's awfully vague.  That vagueness seems intentional.  And it makes me a bit curious.  And uneasy.

And it seems like a package deal.  Sort of like how politicians like to pass omnibus legislative packages because the main objective of the package sounds great.  After all, who could possibly vote against the "Money for Children and Widows Act?"  But what if the Act includes no small number of legislative action items that are problematic, and likely had little or no chance of being enacted on their own, and therefore were tucked into the Act because the larger legislative purpose is good and likely to pass?

In other words, a question like "Do you think members should support the LGBT community or not?" kinda makes me suspicious.  What does that mean?  Does "support the LGBT community" mean capitulating on my religious beliefs?  Does it mean endorsing and celebrating behaviors I find incompatible with my religious beliefs?  Does it mean turning on and acting and speaking against men I believe are prophets and apostles?  Does it mean "bend to the prevailing sociopolitical winds, 'cuz if you don't we'll brand you a bigot and a hater?"

Your question sure seems loaded, CB.  But I answered it.  

Thanks,

-Smac

From all that I have read, this event was only about showing love and support to those that identify as LGBT. Since the Prophet has stated several  times that members should show love and support to the LGBT community I can understand in an environment like BYU which upholds the counsel of the prophet they might be ashamed of their counter protest and be fearful of what people will think of them at BYU.

And yes I do question whether it was Christ like behavior.  I would think that the counsel of the prophet would be aligned in Christ like behavior.  

 

Edited March 7, 2021 by california boy

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Did your family have noting to do with you for 13 years because of what you wrote?  Were you not invited to any family reunions?  No baptisms of nieces and nephews because of what you wrote? Were you ever not invited to family missionary farewells because of what you wrote?

There is really only ONE reason why I don't use my name.  Things have finally calmed down with my family to the point where they actually include me in family events.  I don't trust them enough to be so open with them in expressing my views in a very public way on what it is like to be gay and the issues that I deal with.  Yeah, us gays still have to deal with a lot of fear and feeling of not trusting people's love.  

So I take it, then, you do acknowledge there may be reasons why one wishes to remain anonymous in taking public positions OTHER THAN harboring secret shame over those positions. 
 

You see, I’m quite willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have justifiable reasons for not backing your posts with your real-life identity, EVEN IF you don’t want to say what those reasons are. It is quite apparent you are not willing to extend the same consideration to the students at BYU who did not want to give the news reporter their full names. I see some very rich irony in this. If you don’t, well, I’m at a loss as to what else to say to you. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Did your family have noting to do with you for 13 years because of what you wrote?  Were you not invited to any family reunions?  No baptisms of nieces and nephews because of what you wrote? Were you ever not invited to family missionary farewells because of what you wrote?

There is really only ONE reason why I don't use my name.  Things have finally calmed down with my family to the point where they actually include me in family events.  I don't trust them enough to be so open with them in expressing my views in a very public way on what it is like to be gay and the issues that I deal with.  Yeah, us gays still have to deal with a lot of fear and feeling of not trusting people's love.  

And I am sorry to take your example here and I don’t mean to minimize it but that is mild compared to other forms of “cancel culture” propagated against gays like assault and brutal murder. It is another reason I have a hard time getting upset over cake shops and Dr. Seuss books and airhead tortilla makers revealing they are insensitive jerks and suffering economic and social consequences. Where were the “cancel culture” complaints back then with the far more decisive and forcible silencing. Oh, and that is still going on.

I do admit I take a bit of glee in the fact that corporate America is growing more inclusive. I don’t think it (speaking generally) speaks to any kind of conscience. I am cynical enough to believe it is about the money. It suggests that the economic consequences of doing so are largely positive. In other words the tide is turning. I am hoping for some kind of reconciliation or moment of collective sanity or some broader embrace of each other as citizens of the same nation that has so much potential. It might happen. It might not.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Islander said:

Civility? Common sense? Pragmatism? Never. Those opposed to religious orthodoxy rely on acrimonious, verbally aggressive rhetoric and pejorative descriptors to vilify and silence the political opposition. Non-stop crisis mode and socio-political agitation are critical to overturning the social order. 

“Action comes from keeping the heat on. No politician can sit on a hot issue if you make it hot enough.”
― Saul D. Alinsky, Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals

Nothing new, these are tactics utilized by the communists, very successfully, since the 60's the world over. Americans have been, in general, quite ignorant and not very interested in what transpires outside their borders.

Also you have to be careful about driving out the Communists. If you do they might follow Tim Curry.

What an amazing actor. You can see him desperately fighting to keep a straight face in the final part of the line..

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps news journalists should be in the business of essentially purveying the news in a straightforward, accurate, dispassionate way, rather than presuming to pass moral judgments, particularly on matters about which reasonable minds can disagree.

So you'd be okay with a newspaper condemning "LGBTQIA," then?  "Morality" being very much an eye-of-the-beholder thing?  I sure wouldn't.

Or are you only in favor of slanted / partisan "news" reporting when your personal opinions align with the reporter's?  But at that point, we're not really talking about news anymore, are we?  We talking about opinions.

First, I'm not "upset" either way.

Second, that you speak of "journalism" as having "an opinion" is quite illuminating.  I have generally understood "journalism" not as an entity capable of having "an opinion," but rather as "the production and distribution of reports on current events based on facts and supported with proof or evidence."

Third, I have no problem at all with a journalist having "an opinion" about, well, anything.  I likewise don't care if the waitress who served me a lovely bowl of tonkotsu ramen a few hours ago has an opinion.  But it would tend to be mildly irksome if she presumed to pull up a chair, sit down at our table and then lecture me about her personal opinions about a given social or moral issue, and also to tell me how I should think about that issue. 

See, I didn't go to the restaurant to hear a lecture about someone's sociopolitical opinions.  I went there to have a nice lunch with a friend.  So it is with "journalists" who, rather than giving me what I want, which is a fair, dispassionate explanation of events, instead presumes to inject their personal opinions / politics / judgments into the subject matter, and to let those personal opinions/politics/judgments heavily influence what is reported, how it is reported, and so on.  If I wanted "advocacy journalism," I'd ask for it.  As it happens, however, "advocacy journalism" is most of the menu.  Consider the menu from Monty Python's "Spam" sketch:

Replace "spam" with "advocacy journalism" and you'll start to understand my assessment of much of today's "news" outlets.  I sure would like to see a return to at least an attempt at or veneer of or nod to "just the facts, ma'am" journalism.  But I'm not holding my breath.

Fourth, I will admit that I have a different set of expectations for BYU students.  I would have hoped that they would give some measure of even-handed treatment to students and alums who are "protesting" by noting the contents of The Family: A Proclamation to the World.  Instead they, like you, presume to judge their "protest" as - to quote someone - "immoral."

BYU student "journalists" think that talking about The Family proclamation is "immoral."  "Controversial."  

Oh.

No, it could not be.  It could, however, be that I think journalists should produce "reports on current events based on facts and supported with proof or evidence," to do so as objectively and clearly as possible, and to leave the editorializing and lecturing and moralizing to the Editorial Page. 

There used to be a distinction there.  Although never perfectly realized, there was at least an effort by newspapers to differentiate between "news" and "opinion."  See, e.g., here:

"Today, journalistic standards call for reporters to be as objective as possible..."

Oh.  So what "standards" were being used by the student "journalists" at The Daily Universe?  After all, their writing is so obviously slanted that you aren't even bothering to suggest that it was sorta, and are instead going with a of-course-they-aren't-objective-and-you-are-silly-for-expecting-that style of argument.

Here's a bit from the "Journalistic objectivity" article on Wikipedia:

For me, I like these ideas.  I would hope that journalists would purvey factual information to me, and that they would do with with "fairness, disinterestedness, factuality, and nonpartisanship."

Is the "news" coverage from the aspiring "journalists" at The Daily Universe fairly characterized as fair?  Disinterested?  Factual?  Nonpartisan?  Nope.  You and are in agreement on that.  We differ in that you think the lack of these characteristics is just fine and dandy.  I don't.

And part of getting to that "ultimate" question on a given topic is obtaining information about it that is fair / disinterested / factual / nonpartisan.  Then the individual can, if he or she likes, look for editorial opinions and the like, and also turn to religious leaders and other trusted voices.

As it is, however, many of today's "journalists" presume to dictate to the rest of us "what is right," which in the context of LGBT issues is often code for "this is my opinion, and if you vary from it you're a bigot."

If morality was a popularity contest, you'd have a point.  But it's not, so you don't.

So, is it right to affirm the contents of The Family: A Proclamation to the World?

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac, you have made some very solid points in this post. 
 

In addition to being a BYU graduate, I am a former student reporter and editor at the Daily Universe. If it is run like it was during my university days, it is not just a student-run newspaper, but it is a laboratory publication under the supervision of Communications Department faculty. That is to say, students working for it do so to receive academic credit and grades. 
 

The journalistic principles you have so eloquently highlighted in your above post are THE VERY PRINCIPLES I was taught as a BYU student and Daily Universe staffer some 40 years ago. If they are not still being taught there, they certainly ought to be. 
 

I share your disgust with the state of journalism today. The points and criticism of the Universe piece that you have made in your posts ought to be brought to the attention of the current faculty advisor of the newspaper. Unless things have changed, he is a former colleague of mine whom I have known for many years. If you wish, I am quite willing to give you his name and to try to put you in touch with him. Just PM me and say the word, and I’ll do it. 

[california boy]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So I take it, then, you do acknowledge there may be reasons why one wishes to remain anonymous in taking public positions OTHER THAN harboring secret shame over those positions. 
 

You see, I’m quite willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have justifiable reasons for not backing your posts with your real-life identity, EVEN IF you don’t want to say what those reasons are. It is quite apparent you are not willing to extend the same consideration to the students at BYU who did not want to give the news reporter their full names. I see some very rich irony in this. If you don’t, well, I’m at a loss as to what else to say to you. 

It was my opinion that they felt some shame in not following what the Prophet has asked members to show love and support the the LGBT community.  But you might be right.   Maybe they feel no shame.   I never said that it was wrong to not divulge their names.  I obviously have no problem with that.

[california boy]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Smac, you have made some very solid points in this post. 
 

In addition to being a BYU graduate, I am a former student reporter and editor at the Daily Universe. If it is run like it was during my university days, it is not just a student-run newspaper, but it is a laboratory publication under the supervision of Communications Department faculty. That is to say, students working for it do so to receive academic credit and grades. 
 

The journalistic principles you have so eloquently highlighted in your above post are THE VERY PRINCIPLES I was taught as a BYU student and Daily Universe staffer some 40 years ago. If they are not still being taught there, they certainly ought to be. 
 

I share your disgust with the state of journalism today. The points and criticism of the Universe piece that you have made in your posts ought to be brought to the attention of the current faculty advisor of the newspaper. Unless things have changed, he is a former colleague of mine whom I have known for many years. If you wish, I am quite willing to give you his name and to try to put you in touch with him. Just PM me and say the word, and I’ll do it. 

I also worked for the Daily Universe when I was at BYU.  I was in the marketing department.  And yes, it is a laboratory publication.  The Universe actually paid me for every ad I designed.  It wasn't much, but I made way more than minimum wage that most students earned.  The administration pushed back against an incentive based system in favor of an hourly wage.  But the person running the paper told them he wouldn't change the basic principles of running the paper like a laboratory and would continue to structure the wages the way a paper is actually run.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

It was my opinion that they felt some shame in not following what the Prophet has asked members to show love and support the the LGBT community.  But you might be right.   Maybe they feel no shame.   I never said that it was wrong to not divulge their names.  I obviously have no problem with that.

No you didn’t. What you DID do is impugn their character by publicly speculating with no basis in fact that they are ashamed of the positions they take. In doing so, you are assuming without making a persuasive case that they have cause to be ashamed. 
 

The point of my comparison is to show that one could likewise ascribe unsavory motives to your choice not to reveal your identity on this board. If it would be wrong for someone to do that to you, it’s wrong for you to do that to the counter protestors. 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

I also worked for the Daily Universe when I was at BYU.  I was in the marketing department.  And yes, it is a laboratory publication.  The Universe actually paid me for every ad I designed.  It wasn't much, but I made way more than minimum wage that most students earned.  The administration pushed back against an incentive based system in favor of an hourly wage.  But the person running the paper told them he wouldn't change the basic principles of running the paper like a laboratory and would continue to structure the wages the way a paper is actually run.

I was also on the Universe payroll for a while, first as night editor and subsequently as assistant editorial page editor. 

[Meadowchik]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps news journalists should be in the business of essentially purveying the news in a straightforward, accurate, dispassionate way, rather than presuming to pass moral judgments, particularly on matters about which reasonable minds can disagree.

Yes, as much as possible, journalists should try to do that. Tell me, how do reasonable minds disagree with showing love and support for LGBT students and faculty? What is reasonable about protesting that?

Edited March 7, 2021 by Meadowchik

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Yes, as much as possible, journalists should try to do that. Tell me, how do reasonable minds disagree with showing love and support for LGBT students and faculty? What is reasonable about protesting that?

What does “showing love and support” for them entail in your view? Is that another way of saying “love and respect” (which I don’t see anybody here objecting to) or do you mean something different by your use of the word “support” in place of “respect”? 
 

What Smac said to CB a few posts above could apply here:

“... a question like ‘Do you think members should support the LGBT community or not?’ kinda makes me suspicious.  What does that mean?  Does ‘support the LGBT community’ mean capitulating on my religious beliefs?  Does it mean endorsing and celebrating behaviors I find incompatible with my religious beliefs?  Does it mean turning on and acting and speaking against men I believe are prophets and apostles?  Does it mean ‘bend to the prevailing sociopolitical winds, 'cuz if you don't we'll brand you a bigot and a hater’?”

 

Edited March 7, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Meadowchik]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What does “showing love and support” for them entail in your view? 
 

What Smac said to CB a few posts above could apply here:

“... a question like ‘Do you think members should support the LGBT community or not?’ kinda makes me suspicious.  What does that mean?  Does ‘support the LGBT community’ mean capitulating on my religious beliefs?  Does it mean endorsing and celebrating behaviors I find incompatible with my religious beliefs?  Does it mean turning on and acting and speaking against men I believe are prophets and apostles?  Does it mean ‘bend to the prevailing sociopolitical winds, 'cuz if you don't we'll brand you a bigot and a hater’?”

 

Well in the case of Rainbow Day at BYU, it entails wearing rainbow colors on that day:

Quote

 

Rainbow Day is sponsored by Color the Campus, a student-run Instagram account. It is a day for students to wear rainbow clothing to show love and support for LGBT students and faculty at all CES schools, according to the movement’s Instagram.

This will be the fourth Rainbow Day. Founder Bradley Talbot said it is not a protest, as many people have assumed.

“It’s a visual representation showing support,” he said. “It was never a protest.” https://universe.byu.edu/2021/03/03/students-will-celebrate-rainbow-day-on-anniversary-of-honor-code-clarification/

 

 

[Anonymous Mormon]

12 hours ago, california boy said:

From all that I have read, this event was only about showing love and support to those that identify as LGBT. Since the Prophet has stated several  times that members should show love and support to the LGBT community I can understand in an environment like BYU which upholds the counsel of the prophet they might be ashamed of their counter protest and be fearful of what people will think of them at BYU.

And yes I do question whether it was Christ like behavior.  I would think that the counsel of the prophet would be aligned in Christ like behavior.  

 

Although it is couched as "showing love and support to those that identify as LGBT" I think this is actually a passive-aggresive protest against the BYU Honor code and the church's law of chastity.

 

According to KUTV (LINK) in the original invitation Tweet to this event the group planning the "not-protest" said:

Quote

Color The Campus  Feb 19, 2021

On March 4th, 2020 Church Headquarters released a letter clarifying changes to the February 12th, 2020 Honor Code. This act of negligence, betrayal, and discrimination has not been forgotten and still impacts LGBTQ+ individuals one year later.

 

The founder further said:

Quote

On March 4 2020, Church leaders released a statement clarifying that any "same-sex romance" was a violation of the honor code. Talbot says LGBTQ+ student still feel confusion and hurt from the statement.

“There has been silence from BYU since then with no explanation as to why that occurred. It was very harmful and we are still feeling that today,” Talbot told 2News.

 

I personally feel like this is an attack on the honor code, which is a direct reflection to the standards outlined in the new church handbook. I am closely connected to BYU and am a strong supporter of the Proclamation to the Family and would not feel comfortable supporting this group or activity.

 

On the other hand, if the group had said something close to what California Boy says they are saying and if they had actually said:
 

The Prophet has stated several  times that members should show love and support to the LGBT community. We as a BYU community want to show support to those LGBT students and faculty who seek to uphold the church's standards, BYU's honor code (and handbook), and the principles taught in the proclamation on the Family the world. We know it is not easy to be LGBT and to uphold God's standards and that not all who try do it perfectly. But we honor, love and support you all for your efforts to live up to the standards taught by the Prophet, the church, and the commandments of God.

 

Now that kind of statement I could get behind and would support 100%. The current statement is much more of a protest of the BYU Honor code hiding as a message of Love and Support with actual implications that if you support the church's standards you are "hating" those who are "marginalized" "vicitims" of the BYU Honor code:

Quote

 I invite @BYu to choose to be our advocate and not our obstacle. It won't stop us either way. Hate is loud. We are louder."

Quote

We invite the Board of Trustees to meet with LGBTQ+ BYU students to hear their stories, so they understand the effects their actions have on some of most marginalized & victimized students at CES schools.

(in other words, the actions taken by BYU's Board of Trustees [I assume this means enforcing the same honor code rules as they were before the change] are directly affecting marginalized victims)

 

PS - Although I do consider this a protest hidden under the guise of "show us love or you are hateful of those marginzalized and victimized by BYU's honor code" just so it can be allowed on campus, I think it is very effective. I also applaud the impressive lighting of the Y as a form of protest because it was not violent or destructive, but definitely received attention. Even if I don't like the message, I must recognize that the tactic is super impressive and effective. I wish all protests on both sides of the aisle were as creative and didn't resort to name calling, destruction, and illegal activity like this protest did.

[california boy]

33 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

Although it is couched as "showing love and support to those that identify as LGBT" I think this is actually a passive-aggresive protest against the BYU Honor code and the church's law of chastity.

 

According to KUTV (LINK) in the original invitation Tweet to this event the group planning the "not-protest" said:

 

The founder further said:

 

I personally feel like this is an attack on the honor code, which is a direct reflection to the standards outlined in the new church handbook. I am closely connected to BYU and am a strong supporter of the Proclamation to the Family and would not feel comfortable supporting this group or activity.

 

On the other hand, if the group had said something close to what California Boy says they are saying and if they had actually said:
 

The Prophet has stated several  times that members should show love and support to the LGBT community. We as a BYU community want to show support to those LGBT students and faculty who seek to uphold the church's standards, BYU's honor code (and handbook), and the principles taught in the proclamation on the Family the world. We know it is not easy to be LGBT and to uphold God's standards and that not all who try do it perfectly. But we honor, love and support you all for your efforts to live up to the standards taught by the Prophet, the church, and the commandments of God.

 

Now that kind of statement I could get behind and would support 100%. The current statement is much more of a protest of the BYU Honor code hiding as a message of Love and Support with actual implications that if you support the church's standards you are "hating" those who are "marginalized" "vicitims" of the BYU Honor code:

(in other words, the actions taken by BYU's Board of Trustees [I assume this means enforcing the same honor code rules as they were before the change] are directly affecting marginalized victims)

 

PS - Although I do consider this a protest hidden under the guise of "show us love or you are hateful of those marginzalized and victimized by BYU's honor code" just so it can be allowed on campus, I think it is very effective. I also applaud the impressive lighting of the Y as a form of protest because it was not violent or destructive, but definitely received attention. Even if I don't like the message, I must recognize that the tactic is super impressive and effective. I wish all protests on both sides of the aisle were as creative and didn't resort to name calling, destruction, and illegal activity like this protest did.

For the sake of argument, let's just say that you are right.  Tell me, if the honor code dropped its special rules directed only at the LGBT community, how would that be in conflict with the Proclamation on the Family?  Is it immoral and against the Law of Chastity to hold the hand of someone you don't intend to marry?  How about a kiss? Or going to the movies with them?  Is it against the Proclamation to fear letting others know you are gay?  Yet this is the first thing that happened when people thought the Honor Code had changed.  

For a Church that claims to be run by revelation, where is the revelation that states the Proclamation on the Family came from God?  Where is the revelation that the Honor Code came from God? The only time a revelation was claimed was by President Nelson who declared that not baptizing minor children of gay parents was a revelation from God.  A revelation evidently that was changed months later.  This is where the ban on the priesthood is similar.  Neither one have a basis in revelation. Both are the opinion of Church leaders.  And we do know how one of those turned out.

I think for a lot of people in the Church that support the LGBT community, they see an unfairness at the double standard set up just because a person is gay and no basis in revelation.  Perhaps this is why there seems to be a growing schism in the Church over this issue.  People want to believe that God is fair and treats all people equally.  Yet on this issue, the Church has set up a God that does not treat people fairly and equally.  It is the Church that has declared gay marriage as being against God's wishes, yet there is no revelation to support that position.  If you had to live a life of celibacy with no possibility of any romantic connection ever in this life, wouldn't you at lest like a revelation from God confirming that doctrine?

To be clear, i am not advocating that the Church change it's position.  I am only stating the other side of this issue that evidently, many members are supporting.  For me personally, if the Church changed it's position on gay marriage, it would make no difference to me.  

[poptart]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

For the sake of argument, let's just say that you are right.  Tell me, if the honor code dropped its special rules directed only at the LGBT community, how would that be in conflict with the Proclamation on the Family?  Is it immoral and against the Law of Chastity to hold the hand of someone you don't intend to marry?  How about a kiss? Or going to the movies with them?  Is it against the Proclamation to fear letting others know you are gay?  Yet this is the first thing that happened when people thought the Honor Code had changed.  

For a Church that claims to be run by revelation, where is the revelation that states the Proclamation on the Family came from God?  Where is the revelation that the Honor Code came from God? The only time a revelation was claimed was by President Nelson who declared that not baptizing minor children of gay parents was a revelation from God.  A revelation evidently that was changed months later.  This is where the ban on the priesthood is similar.  Neither one have a basis in revelation. Both are the opinion of Church leaders.  And we do know how one of those turned out.

I think for a lot of people in the Church that support the LGBT community, they see an unfairness at the double standard set up just because a person is gay and no basis in revelation.  Perhaps this is why there seems to be a growing schism in the Church over this issue.  People want to believe that God is fair and treats all people equally.  Yet on this issue, the Church has set up a God that does not treat people fairly and equally.  It is the Church that has declared gay marriage as being against God's wishes, yet there is no revelation to support that position.  If you had to live a life of celibacy with no possibility of any romantic connection ever in this life, wouldn't you at lest like a revelation from God confirming that doctrine?

To be clear, i am not advocating that the Church change it's position.  I am only stating the other side of this issue that evidently, many members are supporting.  For me personally, if the Church changed it's position on gay marriage, it would make no difference to me.  

Just tossing this out there, if you want to see how controversial things like this have affected religious bodies, read up on the politics of the episcopal Church during the 60s then the Lutheran Church in the USA, especially the seminex controversy, it was huge.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seminex

I see religion here stateside through a much more political lenses so I don't have the hang ups many others do.  Can argue back and forth about the sanctity of religion all you like, this has been their history and I believe in judging most religious bodies here stateside by the actions of those in power.  I figure when people recoil in anger and rage, I've hit on something relative to what I would consider the truth.  I'll add, in the end I see the LDS faithful ending all this on a generation or two on far more peaceful terms than what I've seen other Christian branches here have done on social/political issues.  At least I hope, despite the politics anymore I hold the LDS Church in a higher regard than other branches here.

 

[smac97]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

For the sake of argument, let's just say that you are right.  Tell me, if the honor code dropped its special rules directed only at the LGBT community,

This really isn't so.  There are no "special rules directed only at the LGBT community."

Quote

how would that be in conflict with the Proclamation on the Family?  

I'm not sure the conflict arises there.

And I'm also not sure why you seem to be feigning ignorance about what the Proclamation says and why it is disliked in some quarters.  Nevertheless, I'll play along.

For example, it states that "{g}ender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."  This seems to contravene some of the ideas being bandied about these days about gender being merely a social construct, being malleable, being a matter of choice, and so on.

"We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."  Again, this seems to contravene sociopolitical trends that trivialize or demean sex, that disregard or even categorically reject the parameters noted here.

"The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan."  It's no secret that the Church does not accept same-sex marriage as being compatible with God's "eternal plan," and that it instead teaches that marriage is "between man and woman."

"Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity."  Same-sex marriage by design deprives a child of either a mother or a father.  Sex outside of marriage can and does result in children being born out of wedlock, elective abortions, children growing up without a mother or a father, and so on.

"We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God.  Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.  We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."  The Proclamation puts the members of the Church on notice.  It's a pretty clear thing.  It's even specifically styled as a "warn{ing}."  

I have had, for some years now, the following scriptural passage in my sig line: ""{T}his is a rebellious people ... which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits..."  (Isaiah 30:9-10.)  I can't help but feel that the visceral dislike of the Proclamation that some members of the Church express is a pretty clear fulfillment of this scripture.  We see members of the Church "say{ing} to the seers, See not."  We see members of the Church saying to the prophets "Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits."

Put another way, "Tell us what we want to hear."

To borrow and slightly re-phrase a quote from the 1960 film Inherit the Wind: "Mr. Brady, it is the duty of a prophet and seer to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."

Quote

I think for a lot of people in the Church that support the LGBT community, they see an unfairness at the double standard set up just because a person is gay and no basis in revelation.  

There is no double standard.  There is one standard that has disparate impacts.  Nobody is allowed to marry someone of the same sex.  This provision has little impact on people who are not attracted to members of the same sex, but it has a markedly different and more significant impact on those who do have such an attraction.  But it's the same standard.

Similarly, the Law of Chastity prohibits adultery.  This provision has little impact on people who are not married, but a big impact on people who are.

Similarly, the Law of Chastity prohibits fornication.  This provision has little impact on people who are married, but a big impact on people who are not.

Quote

Perhaps this is why there seems to be a growing schism in the Church over this issue.  People want to believe that God is fair and treats all people equally.  

He does.

Quote

Yet on this issue, the Church has set up a God that does not treat people fairly and equally.  

That is no so.

Quote

It is the Church that has declared gay marriage as being against God's wishes, yet there is no revelation to support that position.  

Are you sure?

Quote

If you had to live a life of celibacy with no possibility of any romantic connection ever in this life, wouldn't you at least like a revelation from God confirming that doctrine?

I assume here your reference to "revelation" really means canonized revelation, is that correct?

If so, I agree with you.  I would like to see a canonized revelation about it.  But I hardly see the lack of a canonized revelation as a basis for rejecting the Proclamation.

Quote

To be clear, i am not advocating that the Church change it's position.  I am only stating the other side of this issue that evidently, many members are supporting.

I understand.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 7, 2021 by smac97

[Duncan]

"{g}ender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

which doesn't speak to why people are confused to as their gender or why people are asexual-There is a gender and people are figuring out which one they got

"We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."

"sociopolitical trends"-that have been happening for thousands of years, and not just from the gay community

 

"marriage between man and woman"

one man and one woman? that leaves open the door for polygamy does it not? I mean how else to justify Presidents Nelson and Oaks' other sealings? and every other man or woman ever sealed to two people

"Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity."

what should we do with the primary I wonder? isn't the whole church even designed to support the family, especially when people can't or won't honor marital vows