Elder Holland: BYU may need to "stand alone"

[Duncan]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

How many nut jobs do you know of who have heard a lesson on the armor of God?  Probably many, many more than those aware of Elder Holland using an antiquated gun as a metaphor.   A metaphor he even identifies as a metaphor. 

One was the Captain Moroni who was at the Jan 6 event, he even came prepared! I am saying that heaven forbid there are some who misinterpret what Elder Holland said and do something, you just never know who is out there

[Bernard Gui]

On 8/24/2021 at 5:00 PM, smac97 said:

Well, he did say this:

We cannot completely conflate the Church and BYU, of course, but neither can we completely differentiate them, either.

Not sure what you mean here.  As Elder Holland put it:

Colleges are a dime a dozen.  I want BYU to be unique and distinctive.

BYU has been doing that for a very long time.

It looks like some folks want to punish the Church for its doctrines, or coerce it to abandon those doctrines, and so are using threats about BYU's accreditation to achieve those objectives.

I find that both immoral and unamerican.  

Thanks,

-Smac

10 upvotes for this observation.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Duncan said:

One was the Captain Moroni who was at the Jan 6 event, he even came prepared! I am saying that heaven forbid there are some who misinterpret what Elder Holland said and do something, you just never know who is out there

not part of my response:  Is there evidence he attacked anyone?  Was he part of the invasion of the Capitol building?  Serious question, I can’t remember if he was deemed harmless or not.

———

My response:  let us assume there was another man there claiming to be Captain Moroni who was part of the violent crowd and he had a real sword on him and intended to use it if he found his target.  Maybe he even injured police officers doing their job.

Do you believe that we should therefore remove that section of the Book of Mormon to prevent someone else from doing what the imaginary wannabe Captain Moroni did?

How many people have read the Book of Mormon or been taught the title of liberty story?  How many people have dressed up as Capt Moroni and committed violent acts?  How many have used that story in court and elsewhere to justify their acts of violence?  If only a handful in the 200 years it has been in existence, does the fact someone crazy used it as part of their narrative to justify their violence require us to act when millions of others have not become violent and possibly even became more community spirited and helpful through reading the same section.  

Do you believe when we speak or write, we need to keep in mind the violent or potentially violent mentally disturbed and remove anything that might trigger them?  
 

I have a hard time seeing how society could operate with that standard of caution. We should with a standard like that be outlawing all war or action video games or movies, any storyline that suggests someone needs rescuing, anything that refers to God speaking to us just in case that leads someone to have greater confidence the voices they hear are from God, anything that portrays someone as a villain because a mentally ill person may believe the actor is the character they play, etc. etc. 

[Duncan]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

not part of my response:  Is there evidence he attacked anyone?  Was he part of the invasion of the Capitol building?  Serious question, I can’t remember if he was deemed harmless or not.

———

My response:  let us assume there was another man there claiming to be Captain Moroni who was part of the violent crowd and he had a real sword on him and intended to use it if he found his target.  Maybe he even injured police officers doing their job.

Do you believe that we should therefore remove that section of the Book of Mormon to prevent someone else from doing what the imaginary wannabe Captain Moroni did?

How many people have read the Book of Mormon or been taught the title of liberty story?  How many people have dressed up as Capt Moroni and committed violent acts?  How many have used that story in court and elsewhere to justify their acts of violence?  If only a handful in the 200 years it has been in existence, does the fact someone crazy used it as part of their narrative to justify their violence require us to act when millions of others have not become violent and possibly even became more community spirited and helpful through reading the same section.  

Do you believe when we speak or write, we need to keep in mind the violent or potentially violent mentally disturbed and remove anything that might trigger them?  
 

I have a hard time seeing how society could operate with that standard of caution. We should with a standard like that be outlawing all war or action video games or movies, any storyline that suggests someone needs rescuing, anything that refers to God speaking to us just in case that leads someone to have greater confidence the voices they hear are from God, anything that portrays someone as a villain because a mentally ill person may believe the actor is the character they play, etc. etc. 

good thing we have courts of law to figure these things out, in a non mormon setting of course

I doubt that guy attacked anyone but what I am saying is we have some mentally unstable member of the Church dressing up like Captain Moroni and who knows what he could have done or what anyone could do when push comes to shove

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I doubt that guy attacked anyone but what I am saying is we have some mentally unstable member of the Church dressing up like Captain Moroni and who knows what he could have done or what anyone could do when push comes to shove

There are no doubt mentally disturbed people who have used scriptures and other things people have said to justify their reasons for violence. 
 

Does that mean we should remove anything that might hint of justification in a mentally disturbed person’s mind?

Media is encouraged to speak about suicide in a certain way and include resources for suicide hotlines in articles about suicide…but they still speak of suicide. 
 

Murders including detailed descriptions of how they were done are often published in news or in reading material, true crime. 
 

There are many, many explicit references to violence in our world for entertainment purposes, Iow, unnecessary references. Do you believe such should be removed in case someone focuses on them as justification for violence?

Edited August 26, 2021 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

On 8/24/2021 at 3:03 PM, rongo said:

The cover article encouraged structure-free classrooms where students aren't constrained by rules, the clock, requirements, etc. as the way to stop being racist to our BIPOC students A very far cry from my BYU training in the 90s (and, I've tried to envision and imagine how such a free-range classroom would actually function, outside the imagination of the ivory tower. That it is heartily cheered on by academia would be no comfort to a new teacher being eaten alive by a class!). 

I had to chuckle at this. The same stuff was being advocated in teacher training when I received my music education degree in 1970. The school district where I spent most of my career actually built schools based on this model. No walls, free ranging kids, fluid curricula, student-directed learning, etc. That model proved disastrous. I taught elementary orchestra in the library pod with open classrooms all around me! Utter chaos, but some folks sang it’s praises. Some folks alway do. The building was retrofitted later and finally demolished several years ago. 

The Three Pillars of Modern American Education, Doctoral Dissertation by Bernardo Gui.

1. Fear of lawsuits 

2. The quest for federal funding

3. The eternally chaotic search for the perfect program

Edited August 26, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[Duncan]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

There are no doubt mentally disturbed people who have used scriptures and other things people have said to justify their reasons for violence. 
 

Does that mean we should remove anything that might hint of justification in a mentally disturbed person’s mind?

Media is encouraged to speak about suicide in a certain way and include resources for suicide hotlines in articles about suicide…but they still speak of suicide. 
 

Murders including detailed descriptions of how they were done are often published in news or in reading material, true crime. 
 

There are many, many explicit references to violence in our world for entertainment purposes, Iow, unnecessary references. Do you believe such should be removed in case someone focuses on them as justification for violence?

again, courts of law decide that

[USU78]

On 8/23/2021 at 11:05 PM, Ipod Touch said:

Please stop using voice-to-text software and use your keyboard.

Your posts are almost unbearable to read these days and it is very difficult to follow your train of thought.

Who ate your Maypo™?

[bluebell]

41 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I had to chuckle at this. The same stuff was being advocated in teacher training when I received my music education degree in 1970. The school district where I spent most of my career actually built schools based on this model. No walls, free ranging kids, fluid curricula, student-directed learning. It was a disaster, etc. That model proved disastrous. I taught elementary orchestra in the library pod with open classrooms all around me! Utter chaos, but some folks sang it’s praises. Some folks alway do. The building was retrofitted later and finally demolished several years ago. 

My hometown had an elementary school designed this way.  No doors on the classrooms, all the rooms were off of the library (which was in the center) so no hallways.  It was the WORST.  Every teach had to "create" their own door (which was hard because there weren't even door frames, just a big open space about 5 feet wide) in order to function in the environment. 

It was the newest elementary school in the town (built in the 80s I think?) and a few years ago they tore it down and started over.  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

good thing we have courts of law to figure these things out, in a non mormon setting of course

I doubt that guy attacked anyone but what I am saying is we have some mentally unstable member of the Church dressing up like Captain Moroni and who knows what he could have done or what anyone could do when push comes to shove

You're right.  I think what Calm is asking though is what is our responsibility with that? 

Do we have a responsibility to never say anything that anyone could use as justification to do something immoral?   If we do, then how do we handle that?  People have used both the bible and the BOM to justify evil acts, for example.  Is it irresponsible to promote those books of scripture, or quote them, if there is a chance someone could use it to hurt someone else?

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Duncan said:

or a homosexual at a rally, coworker etc.

Sadly, two lesbians were shot in a canyon near Moab recently. They were on their honeymoon. A friend said they'd commented that a creepy guy had been near them acting strangely. 

Edited August 26, 2021 by Tacenda

[jbarm]

I would guess some of you are also advocates of the removal of "Onward Christian Soldiers " and "Army of Helaman" from LDS music curriculum too.  Might incite the Danites to rise up and attack folks. 

Jb

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

They were on their honeymoon.

They had been married four months, are you sure?  They apparently camped a lot and were expected at work.

”Calvert said that friends told the family Schulte and Turner talked about a man creeping them out near their campsite last week. They last met up with friends on the Saturday before they were found, and Calvert said they again brought up the creepy man.

"They said they were going to go move, they were going to go pack up and move their campsite, that he was still creeping them out," she said….

The two turned a van into a camper, sharing photos on Instagram with #vanlife and #wifelife. They called the outdoors around Moab home.

When 24-year-old Schulte and 38-year-old Turner were no-call, no-shows at work two days in a row, friends and family knew something wasn't right.“

I just don’t think it wise to post too much of one’s life online, though what little is known sounds more like someone was in the remote area already; a couple alone,  especially women…let’s hope they capture him. Sounds like a sicko.

https://www.krtv.com/news/national/fbi-joins-investigation-into-killing-of-2-newlywed-women-found-near-utah-campsite

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

10 upvotes for this observation.

And a few to you for upvoting it!

[Duncan]

55 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You're right.  I think what Calm is asking though is what is our responsibility with that? 

Do we have a responsibility to never say anything that anyone could use as justification to do something immoral?   If we do, then how do we handle that?  People have used both the bible and the BOM to justify evil acts, for example.  Is it irresponsible to promote those books of scripture, or quote them, if there is a chance someone could use it to hurt someone else?

I would look at it case by case, generally speaking. I wouldn't allow though someone to say in church I hope we kill all the ................ or something that would ask someone to do anything illegal. That's obviously criminal but sometimes you need to step in to prevent something. We had a teacher in the sunday school years ago who taught the youth how to shoplift and she was removed and the kids were told that it's wrong to shoplift, 9/10 of the kids knew that but there was a girl who was impressionable shall we say and she had to be specifically told it's wrong. You can't always forsee crazy and hindsight is 20/20 but as we all know-especially in missions, someone goes to the bathroom now everyone has to wear a diaper! 

[Tacenda]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

They had been married four months, are you sure?  They apparently camped a lot and were expected at work.

”Calvert said that friends told the family Schulte and Turner talked about a man creeping them out near their campsite last week. They last met up with friends on the Saturday before they were found, and Calvert said they again brought up the creepy man.

"They said they were going to go move, they were going to go pack up and move their campsite, that he was still creeping them out," she said….

The two turned a van into a camper, sharing photos on Instagram with #vanlife and #wifelife. They called the outdoors around Moab home.

When 24-year-old Schulte and 38-year-old Turner were no-call, no-shows at work two days in a row, friends and family knew something wasn't right.“

I just don’t think it wise to post too much of one’s life online, though what little is known sounds more like someone was in the remote area already; a couple alone,  especially women…let’s hope they capture him. Sounds like a sicko.

https://www.krtv.com/news/national/fbi-joins-investigation-into-killing-of-2-newlywed-women-found-near-utah-campsite

Oops, they were newlyweds, sorry.

[Tacenda]

This came to my remembrance today. I wish or hope the LDS leaders knew/know this. https://www.forgeonline.org/blog/2019/3/8/what-about-romans-124-27 But then again if they knew this I would hope they would pray for revelation on how they need to undo the harm caused and go forward never to harm another soul again.

SO THERE IS HISTORICAL TRADITION TO SHOW THAT THESE VERSES AREN’T RELATING TO HOMOSEXUALITY?

Absolutely! Sometimes I’m frustrated when speak with pastors who say, “Well I believe the historical tradition surrounding these verses” and then proceed with a condemnation of LGBTQ individuals. I challenge them to see what was actually traditionally taught. For most of history, most European Bibles taught the tradition that these 4 verses were dealing with pederasty, not homosexuality. I am saddened when I see pastors and theologians cast aside the previous 2000 years of history. This is why I collect very old Bibles, lexicons, theological books and commentaries - most modern biblical commentaries adjusted to accommodate this mistranslation. It’s time for the truth to come out!

Edited August 26, 2021 by Tacenda

[Hamba Tuhan]

20 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

SO THERE IS HISTORICAL TRADITION TO SHOW THAT THESE VERSES AREN’T RELATING TO HOMOSEXUALITY?

Why on earth would anyone expect a text that is thousands of years old to address a late 19th-century social construct? Sheer madness!

Beyond this, did you miss the rather important part of the Restoration that rejects Biblical tradition in favour of living prophets and contemporary revelation???

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Why on earth would anyone expect a text that is thousands of years old to address a late 19th-century social construct? Sheer madness!

Beyond this, did you miss the rather important part of the Restoration that rejects Biblical tradition in favour of living prophets and contemporary revelation???

They are relying on the Bible aren't they? It's what got them in trouble with the Blacks and Priesthood too. The curse of cain? ETA: Oh, and polygamy is what Joseph Smith read in the Bible and restored that. Do you have a reference for the bold?

Edited August 26, 2021 by Tacenda

[california boy]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

It needn't be an either/or.  

What "inflammatory suggestion?"

In about .7 seconds you go from "bad word choice" and "Edler Holland {didn't mean it} literally" to "inflammatory suggestion" and a hint that you feel threatened ("as a gay person").

Good grief.

First, yes, there have been revelations on this issue.

Second, even if there was, you wouldn't believe/accept it anyway, right?

Third, it's kind of hard to take you seriously when, on the one hand, you assert "there has never been a revelation" and, on the other, you preemptively declare anything you dislike as "{a}ssumptions {} made by fallible men."

Fourth, you endlessly declare that you don't care what the Church teaches, and yet on this board you endlessly dispute and complain about and criticize . . . what the Church teaches.

Fifth, your legalistic approach to revelations (apparently you have some sort of "Thus saith the Lord.."-style expectations about them) doesn't really work for us.  And it obviously doesn't work for you.  We don't believe it, and you don't accept it anyway.  So why bring it up over and over?

"People that claim {that smoking meth and injecting heroin violates the Word of Wisdom} should point out that interpretation ... came from Church leaders, not God."

"People that claim {that Jesus Christ is the Son of God} should point out that interpretation ... came from Church leaders, not God."

Man, I could go on all day.

Virtually everything we are given in the Restored Gospel has come to us through prophets and apostles.  We then seek confirmation and ratification of such things through personal revelation.  We also seek personal revelation for specific matters within our stewardship.

That you, a former member of the Church, have spent years trying to poo-poo the role of prophets and apostles on a message board populated by Latter-day Saints who believe in continuing revelation and living prophets and apostles is . . . pretty strange.

The whole "Church leaders, not God" dichotomy is a false one.  For pete's sake, what is the Bible if not a record about and by ancient religious "leaders" who nevertheless spoke for God?

As I said before: "I also understand that you draw a one-to-one correlation between the Church's priesthood ban and, well, pretty much anything you don't like.  For you, it is the smoking gun that the Brethren just make stuff up willy nilly.  For me, however, it's the exception that proves the rule."

What "policy?"

Not much to address here.  Again, no substance.  No evidence.  No argument.  No reasoning.  No attempt to persuade.  Just your unadorned, because-I-say-so personal opinion dressed up as fact.

Thanks,

-Smac

Say what you want.  Dance around the issue all you want.  You can even pretend that it is not an issue at all.  But what is clear and undeniable is that thousands are leaving the church over this issue because they have come to the exact conclusion I have.   They too don't believe this policy/doctrine/or whatever you call it came from God.  And now it looks like there is a real possibility that BYU will loose its accreditation over this issue.  You paint me as some kind of wild-eye radical who should be dismissed with a wave of your hand.  Yet it is a conclusion many are coming to.  I am not alone in believing this is not from God. Just because someone is  gay does not mean they should be banned from a meaningful and fulfilling committed marriage with someone you love. Without the possibility of marriage, there is no Plan of Happiness.

[MorningStar]

In reality, no matter how kindly the subject is addressed, people are going to be outraged every time the church reiterates that marriage is ordained between a man and a woman. The only thing that could possibly make LGBT students happy is if the church's doctrine changed, but then probably not even then. 

[Tacenda]

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

Say what you want.  Dance around the issue all you want.  You can even pretend that it is not an issue at all.  But what is clear and undeniable is that thousands are leaving the church over this issue because they have come to the exact conclusion I have.   They too don't believe this policy/doctrine/or whatever you call it came from God.  And now it looks like there is a real possibility that BYU will loose its accreditation over this issue.  You paint me as some kind of wild-eye radical who should be dismissed with a wave of your hand.  Yet it is a conclusion many are coming to.  I am not alone in believing this is not from God. Just because someone is  gay does not mean they should be banned from a meaningful and fulfilling committed marriage with someone you love. Without the possibility of marriage, there is no Plan of Happiness.

I heard that 20 percent of BYU's students are gay. That means their parents, siblings, cousins, friends, neighbors as well can be added. It spreads far and wide. And people will usually side with their family, I'm hoping. 

I thought of something just now. What about the Catholic schools such as Notre Dame? Are they making the noise that BYU is now making? I don't think so. Which is why I don't get why Elder Holland did what he did. It's handing on a plate to the accreditation office. And it's unnecessary especially when it harms individuals.  Here's this article: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/university-notre-dame-extends-benefits-same-sex-spouses-n222331

Edited August 26, 2021 by Tacenda

[ttribe]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I heard that 20 percent of BYU's students are gay. That means their parents, siblings, cousins, friends, neighbors as well can be added. It spreads far and wide. And people will usually side with their family, I'm hoping. 

I thought of something just now. What about the Catholic schools such as Notre Dame? Are they making the noise that BYU is now making? I don't think so. Which is why I don't get why Elder Holland did what he did. It's handing on a plate to the accreditation office. And it's unnecessary especially when it harms individuals.  Here's this article: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/university-notre-dame-extends-benefits-same-sex-spouses-n222331

20 percent seems very high. I'm not sure that's correct.

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

20 percent seems very high. I'm not sure that's correct.

This article is fairly recent. And I should have said LGBTQ, not gay. https://universe.byu.edu/2021/03/11/recent-survey-finds-nearly-1000-byu-student-survey-respondents-identify-as-lgbtq/

[OGHoosier]

40 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This came to my remembrance today. I wish or hope the LDS leaders knew/know this. https://www.forgeonline.org/blog/2019/3/8/what-about-romans-124-27 But then again if they knew this I would hope they would pray for revelation on how they need to undo the harm caused and go forward never to harm another soul again.

SO THERE IS HISTORICAL TRADITION TO SHOW THAT THESE VERSES AREN’T RELATING TO HOMOSEXUALITY?

Absolutely! Sometimes I’m frustrated when speak with pastors who say, “Well I believe the historical tradition surrounding these verses” and then proceed with a condemnation of LGBTQ individuals. I challenge them to see what was actually traditionally taught. For most of history, most European Bibles taught the tradition that these 4 verses were dealing with pederasty, not homosexuality. I am saddened when I see pastors and theologians cast aside the previous 2000 years of history. This is why I collect very old Bibles, lexicons, theological books and commentaries - most modern biblical commentaries adjusted to accommodate this mistranslation. It’s time for the truth to come out!

As @Hamba Tuhan points out, "homosexuality" as we presently understand it was not a concept in circulation until the 19th century, so its absence in earlier translations of the Bible is unsurprising on any account. 

Regarding the Biblical passages more directly, things get more complicated still. Restricting the biblical condemnation to merely pederasty is, however, untenable. Let's discuss the Greek conglomerate term arsenokoitoi, which seems to be the subject of the  article. Arsenokoitoi is a piece of Hebrew-Greek slang which appears for the first time in Paul's writings. It is derived from the Greek roots arsen (bed) and koite (male). A literal rendition of the word would appear to mean "one who goes to bed with males." The word appears to be derived from the wording of the Septuagint's rendering of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. For instance, take the text of Leviticus 20:13: kai hos an koimēthē meta arsenos koitēn gynaikos bdelygma epoiēsan amphoteroi thanatousthōsan. The use of this particular cognate phrase is a clear callback to the Levitical Holiness Code, which does not constrain its condemnation to pederasty. To isolate the usage of the word from its clear referent in Leviticus would be to commit a grievous hermeneutical error, since Paul's reliance on the Old Testament and familiarity with the Mosaic law are well known. 

Consider also the following, which I found from a useful collection of scholarly sources on the interpretation of this Greek word::

Quote

‘He points out that in all other similar compounds ending in -koites the first half specifies the object of the sleeping, or its scene or sphere. That is, the first part always functions in an adverbial sense.21 This is because koites has a verbal force, in most not all instances, arseno denotes the object.22 Hence, the compound word refers to those who sleep with males, and denotes “‘male homosexual activity’ without qualification.”’, Haas, ‘Hermeneutical Issues In The Use Of The Bible To Justify The Acceptance Of Homosexual Practice’ (1), 1999; other –koitēs/os cognates include doulokoitēs (sexual relations with slaves, doulos), mētrokoitēs (sexual relations with one’s mother, mētēr), and polukoitos (sexual relations with many people, polus).

Quote

[10] ‘The other word used to designate same sex relations in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is malakoi. This word refers to the passive partner sexually, an effeminate male who plays the role of a female.’, Schreiner, ‘A New Testament Perspective on Homosexuality’, Themelios(31.3.70), April 2006.

[11] ‘Paul could have used the more technical term paiderastēs (a pederast) if he had intended to restrict his comments to exploitative sex. Furthermore, if the only problem in view were sex that exploits others, there would be no need for Paul to mention the passive partner as well since he is the one being oppressed, and not the oppressor.’, ibid., p. 71.

If Paul intended to address pederasty, he did so in a most broad and imprecise way, at the expense of more clear and precise word choices. Indeed as one scholar has noted, "‘It is significant that of all the terms available in the Greek language, Paul chose a compound from the Septuagint that in the broadest sense described men lying with men as they would lie with women." (Malick, David ‘The Condemnation of Homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9’, Bibliotheca Sacra (150.600.484), 1996.)

With regard to Paul's opinions on female homoeroticism, see the following. The picture is not much prettier. 

The probative value of the medieval traditions which Dr. Oxford has studied cannot override the textual analysis to which we have access. Perhaps he addresses concerns such as these in his book, but at present I find the article unconvincing.