Elder Holland: BYU may need to "stand alone"

[CA Steve]

23 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Hah hah.  How true. I think those are words with little meaning used to impress.  Like 'narrative'.   

We use a lot of words and catch phrases within Mormonism to impress that have little meaning or are incredibly vague. 

Eternal, families are forever, marriage, priesthood power, sealing power, pre-existence etc.

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Who were you aiming at when you spoke of "combat?"  Seems like you were aiming at us.  Right?  Right?

So do you feel you have harmed us?

Or is this another one of those "It's not wrong when I do it" kind of things?

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm putting you on ignore, but before I do I just want to say that you have been pretty classless on this thread, purposefully misrepresenting what was said. 

As stated before, which you are purposefully ignoring, there are problems with your criticism of me using "combat" in a post.

1- I was referencing Elder Holland's statements about musket fire as a way to "combat" flag waving, gay pride, LGBTQ acceptance. So your continued criticism of "combat" is really only a criticism of Holland. So please continue. 

2- Even if use of the word wasn't a description/summary of Holland's "combative" remarks, I have also shown, with the definition you supplied, that "combat" is not always militaristic or violent, where as musket fire is.

You are communicating in bad faith on this thread.

You need to grow up. I am now pushing the ignore button  

 

 

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, CA Steve said:

We use a lot of words and catch phrases within Mormonism to impress that have little meaning or are incredibly vague. 

Eternal, families are forever, marriage, priesthood power, sealing power, pre-existence etc.

No, those are neither meaningless nor vague.

Edited August 26, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[CA Steve]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

No, those are not meaningless or vague.

Yes they are.

[Bernard Gui]

5 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Yes they are.

No, they aren’t. They have whatever meaning one wishes to ascribe to them. You may not find them meaningful but that does not make them meaningless.

Vagueness is also subjective.

Edited August 26, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

4. Acronyms

Acronyms are the dark shadows cast by the Three Pillars.

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

If he was saying that, then I'd agree with you. 

But I'm incredibly surprised that you actually think that's what he was implying, especially considering all the talks he has ever given, which I know you've heard most of, if not all.  What has Elder Holland ever said that would lead you to believe that he would ever tell people to use violence?

We'll have to agree to disagree on that.  Elder Holland was using a historical example, which makes sense since he was speaking about the early church members defending something.  Thinking that mentioning the common historical use of weapons for defensive, when speaking about the pioneers, is a call for violence today is overly dramatic.

I have no doubt some of them are.  Like I said previously, it's the misreading (sometimes on purpose) and agenda-driven responses from both sides of the isle that is going to do us in.  

Not if the person acting on it has interpreted those words in a completely unreasonable manner.  

I have no doubt that some will think that--and some of them will think that because of the type of things that you and others have said which will convince them that that's how they should take it--but I don't believe that is a reasonable way to take them.  

Sigh.  Accusing everyone who disagrees with you or reacts to a situation differently than you do, as being immoral (or disgusting), is one of the reasons that things are getting worse.  We don't have to wonder about it.

I think Holland is saying that BYU faculty and staff should defend the faith and uses "musket fire" as an example of how seriously they should take that command. Do whatever it takes to defend the faith, even with musket fire if necessary. He used the example of saints building the temple with a trowel in one hand and a musket in the other to protect themselves. It was a violent allusion he was hearkening to when describing how faculty should also be willing to do whatever is necessary to defend the faith.

My position is pretty simple-

I think Holland showed low class in his speech for a couple of reasons.

1- Violent allusions, even if hyperbole still rile people up and in a gun culture using references of a firearm (even if a musket) is poor taste for a school administrator/board member but even worse for a religious leader.

2- Through a thin veil he is threatening the jobs and livelihood of faculty and staff who won't do anything to defend the faith against LGBTQ acceptance. He then uses the example of the valedictorian but also indirectly the faculty that approved the speech as a bad example of what has been done and what current faculty should fight against.

3- He picked a fight with a former valedictorian over a speech given in 2019. Think about that. An apostle and board member of BYU attacked a student speech from a couple of years ago. Picking a fight with someone of much lower stature is classless. It's like the president of the US calling out a high school principal. He lowered himself to pick a fight and disparage someone who doesn't have his same level of clout. Low class indeed.

The valedictorian has shared online the speech he gave. It is a lovely speech. One line mentions that he is gay and he says it in a broader context of challenges faced and over come and how God loves everyone. And Holland attacks that? I have no respect for a "man of God" acting so juvenile and throwing his weight around to threaten faculty and impugn a former student. My mind boggles at the foolishness of what he said. The "musket fire" is just one reason his speech was so bad, but IMO it is a legitimate reason why anyone in the LGBTQ community, or anyone who would consider themselves an ally, should run as far and as fast away from BYU and the church.

If Holland is the compassionate one...no thanks.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

5. Use of catchwords like "paradigm" and "holistic."

Paradigm, holistic, and other such thingies are the secret passwords of the upholders of the Three Pillars.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Sure. Urging people to take up literal arms in a literal unprovoked fight against the church would be no bueno.

But urging people to take up metaphorical arms in a fight of words and ideas against the church seems perfectly fine. 

 

Excellent! Let's shoot it out and see who's left standing.  

Note: I was going to include a trigger warning about this post containing metaphors relating to firearms, but I couldn't see how I could do so in good conscious seeing as how the "trigger" part of a trigger warning is, itself, a gun reference. 

 

Wrong about what, specifically?

 

I'm good with what, exactly? Urging people to violent action? Assuming we're talking about unjustified violent action, where have I ever said that?

It sounds like you're saying Elder Holland was urging people to violent action. Is that correct? Do you really believe that?

 

What scares me is what different people consider "justified violent action". Armed insurrection at the nation's capital is still fresh in my mind. It seemed unthinkable...yet... The person giving the speech urging people to march up to the capital said he didn't mean it literally, so it's all cool, even though some people did take it literally. (I'm not trying to start a political fight. I'm just trying to give some background as to why I'm viewing things the way I am)

I have a problem with the idea that anyone can say whatever they want, including a call to arms, and then just writing it off as hyperbole or metaphor. It's kind of like me walking up to you and saying "you're ugly"... "just kidding. It was only a joke. Why are you upset?"

Metaphors are chosen for a reason and they do reflect the person using them. I expect more from an apostle than a poorly chosen metaphor or hyperbole calling people to take up arms in defense of the church. I think we all should, but I realize that's just my opinion. Some on this board seem to really like religious leaders using such rhetoric, but I think it's beneath his position and reflects badly on both BYU and the church.

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

It sounds like you're saying Elder Holland was urging people to violent action. Is that correct? Do you really believe that?

Yes, he is well and truly accusing Elder Holland of doing that.

He started out acknowledging that Elder Holland was using the word "musket" metaphorically:

Quote

But the worst part of his talk was the violent metaphor of "musket fire". I can't understand how, in today's culture and climate it is OK to use violent references as a call to action. This is really unacceptable to me. Yes, I understand violence and war metaphors have been used often throughout history, but especially when they are used as a metaphor for how to combat ideas and beliefs of others who have been violently attacked in the past, seems like a very inappropriate and hurtful way for an apostle to speak.

Note here that HJW uses the phrase "a metaphor to combat ideas and beliefs" (emphasis added).  

HJW then immediately shifts into hinting that Elder Holland was intending to encourage actual violence:

Quote

Elder Holland is a very smart man. He should know better and I believe he does. Which makes me question why he actually would choose such a metaphor.

So HJW is justified in purely metaphorical use of the word "combat" relative to defending "ideas and beliefs," but Elder Holland's purely metaphorical use of "musket" relative to defending "ideas and beliefs" is . . . not justified.

HJW then goes into big time "special pleading" mode by denying that his purely metaphorical use of "combat" is materially distinguishable from Elder Holland's purely metaphorical use of "musket."  See here:

Quote

Is this a serious response? Really?

Combat- "to contend with".   Is there something violent in that definition? Holland called people to arms, even if metaphorically, with his musket fire comment.

According to HJW, "{Elder} Holland called people to arms."  

"To arms."  In hindsight, it looks like HJW is here accusing Elder Holland of calling people to literally arm themselves and commit literal violence against other people. 

I had a hard time believing that HJW, a very smart guy, could hint at such a thing.  I thought he was just playing around.  But then he stopped hinting and just flat-out said it (emphases added) :

Quote

The musket metaphor implies that members should be "willing to defend the faith" with violence. Unacceptable. Accepting violence as a way to defend a person's religious views IS a moral issue. I'm surprised you don't agree.

There it is.  And he didn't stop there:

Quote

The US has a strong gun culture and so does the church. Using a gun metaphor within such a culture, and implying it has nothing to do with violence is naïve. At the very least Holland is appealing to people to defend the religion by talking about muskets and musket fire. There have already been online/social media responses championing this call to "grab your muskets". Perhaps you think they are mis-hearing/reading Holland by enthusiastically wanting to defend their religion with violence (even if hyperbolic) but they really aren't. That's what he said. It's somewhat similar to what a recent president did in stoking certain fires prior to a catastrophe and then acting like he was misunderstood. 

I am stating unequivocally that it is immoral to incite people to violence. One can always argue that the person didn't mean it that way, yet a person's words matter and they are culpable if someone listens and acts on it. Hopefully no one will actually grab a musket and defend the church against someone waving a pride flag but it's not the craziest idea I've ever heard. At the very least what should a member of the LGBTQ community or ally think? They should think that Holland has declared them an enemy to the church to the point that Holland urged people to grab a musket.

This is not political correctness run amok. I suppose non-violence could be considered an "agenda" but shouldn't we all want that? This is the denouncing of violence and violent rhetoric. I would fully expect all Christians to get on board with that. Obviously that is not the case and we wonder why things are getting worse.

Holland talking about musket fire is bad enough, but having members bend over backwards to pretend like that shouldn't matter is pretty disgusting.

HappyJackWagon is publicly accusing Jeffrey R. Holland of delaring "member{s} of the LGBTQ community or ally" to be "enem{ies} of the Church, and that he is deliberately inciting members of the Church to use literal violent force against these people.  These accusations are based solely on Elder Holland's reference to BYU faculty taking up metaphorical trowels and "muskets" to defend the Church.

Meanwhile HJW was hoisted with his own petard by using the word "combat" in purely metaphorical sense precisely akin to Elder Holland's sentiments.  And yet he thinks his own reasoning (such as it is) and accusations against Elder Holland are "crazy" when applied to that word.

We're living in strange times.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 26, 2021 by smac97

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Are you aware of any revelation modern or ancient that defines marriage as anything other than between men and women? 

Are you aware that such a revelation is desperately needed?  Thousands believe that God has answered their prayers and are leaving the Church over this issue.  So yes, I am well aware of countless revelations.

Edited August 26, 2021 by california boy

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm putting you on ignore, but before I do I just want to say that you have been pretty classless on this thread, purposefully misrepresenting what was said. 

I have done nothing of the sort.  I have quoted your statements verbatim here.

The only thing "classless" here is your absurd disparagements of Elder Holland, together with the wanton hypocrisy of you using a word like "combat" in a purely metaphorical sense and disclaiming and intention to incite others to literal violence, while in the same breath condemning Elder Holland's purely metaphorical use of the word "musket" and claiming that it is a intention to incite others to violence.

27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

As stated before, which you are purposefully ignoring, there are problems with your criticism of me using "combat" in a post.

I'm holding up a mirror to your reasoning. 

27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

1- I was referencing Elder Holland's statements about musket fire as a way to "combat" flag waving, gay pride, LGBTQ acceptance. So your continued criticism of "combat" is really only a criticism of Holland. So please continue. 

It's your word.  And you are the one setting the rules.  You are decontextualizing and distorting and misrepresenting what Elder Holland said and meant.  I am pointing out the absurdity of that by showing how your use of the word "combat" is susceptible to the same decontextualizing/distorting/misrepresenting.

27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

2- Even if use of the word wasn't a description/summary of Holland's "combative" remarks, I have also shown, with the definition you supplied, that "combat" is not always militaristic or violent, where as musket fire is.

It is not.  Muskets were also used for hunting, sport, competitions, etc.

27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You are communicating in bad faith on this thread.  You need to grow up.

I am applying your reasoning to you.  Physician, heal thyself.

27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I am now pushing the ignore button  

Okey doke.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

As one wag observed, they will need a few F-15s and nukes…..and a whole bunch of Abram tanks, among other things. Oh, and some helicopters, drones, and railroads. 

Seriously?  Do you really think I was referring to a full-on overthrow of the government?  As an educator of 42 years, I should think you would be more sensitive to the chaos and damage that can be created by one well armed wingnut.

49 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Keeping track again? Mental note: refer to this page next time tribe brings out his little black book. 😉

I'm an accountant. Do you want me to go against my very nature?

[Bernard Gui]

33 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think Holland is saying that BYU faculty and staff should defend the faith and uses "musket fire" as an example of how seriously they should take that command. Do whatever it takes to defend the faith, even with musket fire if necessary. He used the example of saints building the temple with a trowel in one hand and a musket in the other to protect themselves. It was a violent allusion he was hearkening to when describing how faculty should also be willing to do whatever is necessary to defend the faith.

My position is pretty simple-

I think Holland showed low class in his speech for a couple of reasons.

1- Violent allusions, even if hyperbole still rile people up and in a gun culture using references of a firearm (even if a musket) is poor taste for a school administrator/board member but even worse for a religious leader.

2- Through a thin veil he is threatening the jobs and livelihood of faculty and staff who won't do anything to defend the faith against LGBTQ acceptance. He then uses the example of the valedictorian but also indirectly the faculty that approved the speech as a bad example of what has been done and what current faculty should fight against.

3- He picked a fight with a former valedictorian over a speech given in 2019. Think about that. An apostle and board member of BYU attacked a student speech from a couple of years ago. Picking a fight with someone of much lower stature is classless. It's like the president of the US calling out a high school principal. He lowered himself to pick a fight and disparage someone who doesn't have his same level of clout. Low class indeed.

The valedictorian has shared online the speech he gave. It is a lovely speech. One line mentions that he is gay and he says it in a broader context of challenges faced and over come and how God loves everyone. And Holland attacks that? I have no respect for a "man of God" acting so juvenile and throwing his weight around to threaten faculty and impugn a former student. My mind boggles at the foolishness of what he said. The "musket fire" is just one reason his speech was so bad, but IMO it is a legitimate reason why anyone in the LGBTQ community, or anyone who would consider themselves an ally, should run as far and as fast away from BYU and the church.

If Holland is the compassionate one...no thanks.

I will be watching the news for the violent expulsion of the “heterodox” from their lofty positions in the BYU Academic Redoubt at the hands of their fellow academians…. muskets, cutlasses, 9 pounders, blunderblusses, carronades, broad swords, daggers, flintlocks….

At most schools that is done through back-stabbing, character assassination, killing tenure applications, innuendo and subterfuge, cancel-culture blitzkriegs, poisoning, sit-in campaigns, containment and elimination crusades, counter-surveillance doxing, and other more subtle means. 

Edited August 26, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[MustardSeed]

Yesterday a man in my ward posted excerpts from the speech.  He and the 4 people who “liked” it are notoriously intolerant of anyone who falls outside the classic stereotype of a good LDS follower. He has decried People who have tattoos (we have many Polynesian members of our ward- this man is so tone deaf) in class and I cringe every time he walks up to the pulpit on fast Sunday- I don’t do well with public tension. At any rate, I can see why people would get behind his “follow the Lord” point of view but I also think that he is missing a significant piece of the puzzle here. Tact, appropriateness, compassion, these things consistently seem to be missing from his deliveries. There’s a part of me that gives Elder Holland leeway because I trust that he is deeply loving And has always shown compassion as far as I’m concerned in his delivery of hard things; However, when my ward mate Takes ownership of the message I roll my eyes.

it’s fairly predictable who here will digging against all things homosexuality. Would it really kill my guy to simply say, this must be very painful for a lot of people.?

Edited August 26, 2021 by MustardSeed

[Vanguard]

57 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think Holland is saying that BYU faculty and staff should defend the faith and uses "musket fire" as an example of how seriously they should take that command. Do whatever it takes to defend the faith, even with musket fire if necessary. He used the example of saints building the temple with a trowel in one hand and a musket in the other to protect themselves. It was a violent allusion he was hearkening to when describing how faculty should also be willing to do whatever is necessary to defend the faith.

I understand your point which is why I probably would not use such metaphors. I have long thought it would be better not to 'go there' in that way and for many reasons we would probably agree on. Regardless, scripture in the Bible, BoM, and restored gospel narrative are replete with militaristic references/metaphors/analogies. We teach our youth these things and even sing about them. To be astounded that a reference would be used in this way strikes me as disingenuous especially coming from someone with your religious background. It's fair game to have an issue with it, but to single Elder Holland out as not being compassionate or juvenile because he did so is quite the reach and especially considering everything else he said about the LGBT community in his talk. Ill-phrased? Perhaps. But anything more than that is a bridge too far...

As far as your commentary about the LGBT community running as far away from BYU as possible, if said community is looking to continue pressing the issue, demonstrating, and even denigrating the church for holding this stance, then indeed perhaps they should look elsewhere. In spite of whatever concessions the church seeks to make on behalf of the LGBT community, it will certainly fall short of the capital demand to honor homosexual unions in the same way as heterosexual.

Edited August 26, 2021 by Vanguard

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think Holland is saying that BYU faculty and staff should defend the faith and uses "musket fire" as an example of how seriously they should take that command. Do whatever it takes to defend the faith, even with musket fire if necessary. He used the example of saints building the temple with a trowel in one hand and a musket in the other to protect themselves. It was a violent allusion he was hearkening to when describing how faculty should also be willing to do whatever is necessary to defend the faith.

My position is pretty simple-

I think Holland showed low class in his speech for a couple of reasons.

1- Violent allusions, even if hyperbole still rile people up and in a gun culture using references of a firearm (even if a musket) is poor taste for a school administrator/board member but even worse for a religious leader.

2- Through a thin veil he is threatening the jobs and livelihood of faculty and staff who won't do anything to defend the faith against LGBTQ acceptance. He then uses the example of the valedictorian but also indirectly the faculty that approved the speech as a bad example of what has been done and what current faculty should fight against.

3- He picked a fight with a former valedictorian over a speech given in 2019. Think about that. An apostle and board member of BYU attacked a student speech from a couple of years ago. Picking a fight with someone of much lower stature is classless. It's like the president of the US calling out a high school principal. He lowered himself to pick a fight and disparage someone who doesn't have his same level of clout. Low class indeed.

The valedictorian has shared online the speech he gave. It is a lovely speech. One line mentions that he is gay and he says it in a broader context of challenges faced and over come and how God loves everyone. And Holland attacks that? I have no respect for a "man of God" acting so juvenile and throwing his weight around to threaten faculty and impugn a former student. My mind boggles at the foolishness of what he said. The "musket fire" is just one reason his speech was so bad, but IMO it is a legitimate reason why anyone in the LGBTQ community, or anyone who would consider themselves an ally, should run as far and as fast away from BYU and the church.

If Holland is the compassionate one...no thanks.

 

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

What scares me is what different people consider "justified violent action". Armed insurrection at the nation's capital is still fresh in my mind. It seemed unthinkable...yet... The person giving the speech urging people to march up to the capital said he didn't mean it literally, so it's all cool, even though some people did take it literally. (I'm not trying to start a political fight. I'm just trying to give some background as to why I'm viewing things the way I am)

I have a problem with the idea that anyone can say whatever they want, including a call to arms, and then just writing it off as hyperbole or metaphor. It's kind of like me walking up to you and saying "you're ugly"... "just kidding. It was only a joke. Why are you upset?"

Metaphors are chosen for a reason and they do reflect the person using them. I expect more from an apostle than a poorly chosen metaphor or hyperbole calling people to take up arms in defense of the church. I think we all should, but I realize that's just my opinion. Some on this board seem to really like religious leaders using such rhetoric, but I think it's beneath his position and reflects badly on both BYU and the church.

Both of your posts are what I was thinking today and hadn't posted yet, glad I didn't because you say it best. Just now read a KSL article, owned by the church still, I believe, and it's excellent. It was posted on the 20th of August of this year so plenty time for Elder Holland to have read it, but sadly, I don't know if he did. Or else how could he have given that devotional to all those BYU students that assuredly had LGBTQ+ in the audience?

https://www.ksl.com/article/50226317/combatting-suicide-in-lgbtq-youth-requires-a-change-of-mind-according-to-utah-mental-health-advocates

A portion of the article below:

"There is nothing inherent to the sexual or gender minority brain or body that is predisposed to mental health issues," she said. Rather, it's the reactions people have to their identity and unwelcoming, hostile environments that increase their chance of mental illness, as well as their chance of engaging in risky behaviors like using illegal drugs.

Giddins explained that these youth are not typically struggling because of their sexuality or attractions. The main issue that affects mental health, she said, isn't an identity crisis; it's a belonging crisis, when people reject those identities and create an unsafe environment, forcing youth to hide and live in fear. Giddins said that LGBTQ youth who are rejected by families are eight times more likely to attempt suicide.

The Family Acceptance Project states that rejecting behaviors often include verbal harassment or physical abuse because of the child's LGBTQ identity, excluding the child from family activities, blocking access to LGBTQ friends and resources, blaming the child for discrimination that occurs because of their identity, pressuring the child to be more feminine or masculine, telling them they are shaming their family and making them keep their identity a secret.

"'LGBTQ+ people are not broken. Our reaction to them is what's broken,'" Giddins said, quoting one of Encircle's therapists.

She pointed out that the good news is that the reverse is also true, and these tragic statistics can be lessened when the rejecting behaviors are replaced by behaviors of love, like listening and asking how you can help.

If LGBTQ youth are welcomed and accepted, they have a much higher chance of not just surviving but thriving, which is Encircle's main purpose. The outcomes the organization strives for are positive emotional experience, social connection, emotional skills and authenticity because "these lead to mental wellness."

"It's not just 'live.' It's not 'survive.' It's not 'get by.' It's not 'breathe.' We really want to emphasize the thriving part of life, the whole integrated wellness of living and to kind of celebrate that," Giddins said.

Edited August 26, 2021 by Tacenda

[HappyJackWagon]

17 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I understand your point which is why I probably would not use such metaphors. I have long thought it would be better not to 'go there' in that way and for many reasons we would probably agree on. Regardless, scripture in the Bible, BoM, and restored gospel narrative are replete with militaristic references/metaphors/analogies. We teach our youth these things and even sing about them. To be astounded that a reference would be used in this way strikes me as disingenuous especially coming from someone with your religious background. It's fair game to have an issue with it, but to single Elder Holland out as not being compassionate or juvenile because he did so is quite the reach and especially considering everything else he said about the LGBT community in his talk. Ill-phrased? Perhaps. But anything more than that is a bridge too far...

As far as your commentary about the LGBT community running as far away from BYU as possible, if said community is looking to continue pressing the issue, demonstrating, and even denigrating the church for holding this stance, then indeed perhaps they should look elsewhere. In spite of whatever concessions the church seeks to make on behalf of the LGBT community, it will certainly fall short of the capital demand to honor homosexual unions in the same way as heterosexual.

I agree. Violent or militaristic references litter the scriptures. I am well aware of that, as I mentioned in my first post on this thread. But you seem to be saying "I understand" why I don't like militaristic/violent metaphors but that I should accept them because they are common in the restored gospel. Perhaps its time to change that tone?

I don't know that "astounded" is the correct word. "Disappointed" would be closer. But as I recognized the presence of military/violent themes and stories and messages throughout scripture and church history, I am not astounded that Holland would use them. For heavens sake, he was quoting another apostle who was quoting another apostle with the musket fire reference. They use violent metaphors but that doesn't mean it's ok or that I should accept it just because it's what they do.

Did someone else speak in the past week where they also used anti-LGBTQ rhetoric whilst employing a metaphor of musket fire? Should I be including someone else in my recent disappointment because I'd be happy to add them to the list if there are some out there. Like I said earlier, perhaps its time to move religious talk away from violence metaphors. I'd hate to see the religion radicalize.

I'm curious what "concessions" the church has made on behalf of the LGBTQ community. Could you share what those concessions are? IMO the church and BYU are a hostile environment for the LGBTQ community but of course each member of that community can and should make their own decision about how they interact with it. Holland's comments in this talk reinforce just how hostile the environment is.

Just because something has been done before (violent metaphors and anti-LGBTQ rhetoric) doesn't mean it should continue or that I shouldn't call it out when I see it. The church and BYU and Holland should do better.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Are you aware that such a revelation is desperately needed?  Thousands believe that God has answered their prayers and are leaving the Church over this issue.  So yes, I am well aware of countless revelations.

All the revelation I have seen (you don’t provide any to the contrary), Old and New Testaments, BoM, D&C, modern revelation since the Restoration began. They are crystal clear. And you want more?

Many leave the Church for a variety of reasons.
They, you, and I will account to God for our choices. 

Edited August 26, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

36 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Yesterday a man in my ward posted excerpts from the speech.  He and the 4 people who “liked” it are notoriously intolerant of anyone who falls outside the classic stereotype of a good LDS follower. He has decried People who have tattoos (we have many Polynesian members of our ward- this man is so tone deaf) in class and I cringe every time he walks up to the pulpit on fast Sunday- I don’t do well with public tension. At any rate, I can see why people would get behind his “follow the Lord” point of view but I also think that he is missing a significant piece of the puzzle here. Tact, appropriateness, compassion, these things consistently seem to be missing from his deliveries. There’s a part of me that gives Elder Holland leeway because I trust that he is deeply loving And has always shown compassion as far as I’m concerned in his delivery of hard things; However, when my ward mate Takes ownership of the message I roll my eyes.

it’s fairly predictable who here will digging against all things homosexuality. Would it really kill my guy to simply say, this must be very painful for a lot of people.?

Should he be censured?

I think you misjudge those you believe “who here will [be] digging against all things homosexuality.”

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

All the revelation I have seen (you don’t provide any to the contrary), Old and New Testaments, BoM, D&C, modern revelation since the Restoration began. They are crystal clear. And you want more?

Many leave the Church for a variety of reasons.
They, you, and I will account to God for our choices. 

I'm assuming those revelations about marriage through the ages have all been 100% consistent with no variability, right?

[Vanguard]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't know that "astounded" is the correct word. "Disappointed" would be closer. But as I recognized the presence of military/violent themes and stories and messages throughout scripture and church history, I am not astounded that Holland would use them. For heavens sake, he was quoting another apostle who was quoting another apostle with the musket fire reference. They use violent metaphors but that doesn't mean it's ok or that I should accept it just because it's what they do.

I'm curious what "concessions" the church has made on behalf of the LGBTQ community. Could you share what those concessions are? IMO the church and BYU are a hostile environment for the LGBTQ community but of course each member of that community can and should make their own decision about how they interact with it. Holland's comments in this talk reinforce just how hostile the environment is.

I'm good with disappointed. Some of your commentary though seems to delve more into disgust.

As for my comment on concessions, I guess we'll have to disagree. I don't believe the church interfaces with the LGBT community the same way it did 40-50 years ago. Shift has happened. The church has evolved. I consider this concession.

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I'm good with disappointed. Some of your commentary though seems to delve more into disgust.

As for my comment on concessions, I guess we'll have to disagree. I don't believe the church interfaces with the LGBT community the same way it did 40-50 years ago. Shift has happened. The church has evolved. I consider this concession.

It was evolving, but feels like they make two steps forward and two back again.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, Vanguard said:

In spite of whatever concessions the church seeks to make

In a church that is allergic to using the word gay (there are no gay members of the church, instead they “struggle” with same sex attraction), in a church that calls out a member for publicly declaring “I am a gay child of God”, in a church that spends more time worrying about parents confused by “flag waiving” than its youth struggling with suicidal thoughts, and in a church that finds it “hard to imagine a more difficult circumstance for a parent to face” than a gay child asking to bring his partner in the home for a visit, I see no compromise. Only homophobia. 

Edited August 26, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding
font size from paste

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I'm good with disappointed. Some of your commentary though seems to delve more into disgust.

As for my comment on concessions, I guess we'll have to disagree. I don't believe the church interfaces with the LGBT community the same way it did 40-50 years ago. Shift has happened. The church has evolved. I consider this concession.

If not being as openly hostile is a concession, then I may agree. But that doesn't mean the church isn't still a hostile environment.

Like you say, we can disagree.