Jump to content

Elder Holland: BYU may need to "stand alone"


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

Then obviously we agree.

That is my subjective analysis of the words you are using.

Edited by CA Steve
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, california boy said:

Or are you just assuming that God doesn't recognize gay marriages

God doesn't recognize any marriages which have not been contracted through means which He recognizes. 

D&C 132:8-10

Quote

8 Behold, mine house is a house of aorder, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion.

9 Will I aaccept of an offering, saith the Lord, that is not made in my name?

10 Or will I receive at your hands that which I have not aappointed?

The answer to both of the above is no. The terms of covenants are not ours to set. 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

God doesn't recognize any marriages which have not been contracted through means which He recognizes. 

D&C 132:8-10

8 Behold, mine house is a house of aorder, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion.

9 Will I aaccept of an offering, saith the Lord, that is not made in my name?

10 Or will I receive at your hands that which I have not aappointed?

The answer to both of the above is no. The terms of covenants are not ours to set. 

Seriously?  You think this prohibits gay marriage?

 

Well this explains a lot of the posts on this thread.

Link to comment
Just now, california boy said:

Seriously?  You think this prohibits gay marriage?

 

Well this explains a lot of the posts on this thread.

Glad to have enlightened you. 

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, california boy said:

Crystal Clear on what? Whether the Law of Chastity that requires sex only in marriage applies to only straight couples and forbids same sex marriages?

Or are you just assuming that God doesn't recognize gay marriages

I've sure never seen any revelation about SSM. I'd challenge anyone who says they have.

We do have plenty of revelations on marriage but they haven't been consistent over time. I sure wonder why there isn't a revelation on such an important topic. Instead the church seems content with comments from general authorities.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Adding onto @Bernard Gui and @Bob Crockett's list of educational jargon:

I have a Word doc I add to from time to time with education buzzwords. Here are some others:

 

skill set

authentic assessment

STEM/STEAM

engagement

cross-curricular

project-based

big ideas

essential questions

power standards

synergy

proactive

best practices

data-driven

rigor

stakeholders

narrative

dialogue (used as a verb; e.g., "We're going to dialogue with the other departments about this next week")

accomodations/modifications

paradigm

21st Century skills

walk the walk/ talk the talk

buy-in

lifelong learners

growth mindset

piece (e.g., “accountability piece,” "the professionalism piece")

executive function

evaluation instrument

Kagan structures

metacognition

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

We do have plenty of revelations on marriage but they haven't been consistent over time.

I'd like to evaluate these inconsistencies you attest, if you don't mind. Would you mind laying out a few?

Link to comment
4 hours 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.

We'll have to agree to disagree. 

I think you are completely misreading him because you don't like his beliefs about homosexuality.  If he said the exact same thing (including a musket metaphor), only in support of those who believe it's moral to live a homosexual lifestyle (for lack of a better term), I don't think we'd be having this conversation.  

I think this is your bias talking.  Maybe my bias is too.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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

May I ask you what final evolved form do you hope/want to see in the Church's continuance over the coming years and decades? 

I've seen the concept mentioned in many places about steps forward and backwards, but I'm curious about the destination and the end thereof. I think there's something beneath the surface for many wherein they don't come right out and state the final result they want: complete spiritual/divine equality in the Church between traditional marriage and gay marriage. 

If this is the end thereof that people have in mind, and I know many that do, I believe that they are primed for a very emotional let down. The Apostles continually teach, unitedly and with one voice, that this outcome is contrary to the nature of what God has revealed about the heavenly life He wants to give us. There are other lives we can all have, and He will truly give us what we we can handle, a place our own where we'll be happiest in eternity, but I think we do a disservice if we build up false hope.

I personally mourn for my brothers and sisters who hope for things that, as we understand the Plan and have living oracles, cannot be. I've witnessed our culture growing and changing for the good. The children of Zion are being refined, and you can identify them by their fruits of gentleness and compassion, but also by their unwavering loyalty in who the Lord has chosen to lead the Church.

Satan is the worst offender here, I think, and the pain gets attributed to the Apostles. The pain the community feels, I believe, is at least partially because they are blinded by many things.

Blinded by their holding onto false hope in an eternal paradox, blinded by their frustration that they can't keep telling themselves the doctrine will change if they just hold on, and even blinded by the growing realization that the middle ground they were standing on is becoming increasingly unstable.

In short: they don't have the Holy Ghost to help them see the light that would make all things more clear, and help them see Elder Holland's words in their proper spirit. I'm absolutely certain of this because the Spirit has enlightened many members who, with ears to hear, can understand the message, and those who can't are left to sort it out on their own, being left to themselves.

From 2 Nephi 32, I think these verses apply well.

4 Wherefore, now after I have spoken these words, if ye cannot understand them it will be because ye ask not, neither do ye knock; wherefore, ye are not brought into the light, but must perish in the dark.
5 For behold, again I say unto you that if ye will enter in by the way, and receive the Holy Ghost, it will show unto you all things what ye should do.

The biggest realization for me out of this speech by Elder Holland is, in my opinion, how widespread the spiritual blindness and deafness appear to be among so many.

If you were to ask me about why the Spirit wouldn't restrain Elder Holland in his use of the musket analogy, God knowing the divisions that would result, I'd say this: it is we who divide ourselves by giving in to dark emotions, painful flames fanned by Satan and his angels, and the Lord insists that the wheat and the tares both be allowed to mature completely before the harvest. 

The pain and heartbreak are a result of their own worldview being founded on principles of expressive individualism and not in the worldview of Christian discipleship. The interpretation they choose hurts them, and the Spirit can't enlighten us unless we purify ourselves and seek Him. See this article for more insights into this phenomenon. 

 

Edited by Gillebre
Link to comment
19 minutes ago, rongo said:

Adding onto @Bernard Gui and @Bob Crockett's list of educational jargon:

I have a Word doc I add to from time to time with education buzzwords. Here are some others:

 

skill set

authentic assessment

STEM/STEAM

engagement

cross-curricular

project-based

big ideas

essential questions

power standards

synergy

proactive

best practices

data-driven

rigor

stakeholders

narrative

dialogue (used as a verb; e.g., "We're going to dialogue with the other departments about this next week")

accomodations/modifications

paradigm

21st Century skills

walk the walk/ talk the talk

buy-in

lifelong learners

growth mindset

piece (e.g., “accountability piece,” "the professionalism piece")

executive function

evaluation instrument

Kagan structures

metacognition

Game changer

Disrupt (from Clayton Christensen)

Think outside the box

Moving the goal posts

Don't put words in my mouth

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Bob Crockett
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We'll have to agree to disagree. 

I think you are completely misreading him because you don't like his beliefs about homosexuality.  If he said the exact same thing (including a musket metaphor), only in support of those who believe it's moral to live a homosexual lifestyle (for lack of a better term), I don't think we'd be having this conversation.  

I think this is your bias talking.  Maybe my bias is too.

Agreed. Again, it is ultimately about the fact that thus far it does not appear the church's position on gay marriage is going to change. How can the brethren do anything that would make the advocate LGBT community happy to be at BYU and in the church if these individuals are not able to marry in the eyes of the church? It puts all of this into perspective. Yes, perhaps Elder Holland used a not-so-great metaphor, and yes, here we are several pages into robust disagreement on it, and yet no one acknowledges it would not make one bit of difference had he used a more politically-correct metaphor. LGBT advocacy will continue unabated against the church until the brethren change policy - bottom line. In the mean time we can continue round and round on these types of offenses as if it made a difference. It reminds me of the almost proverbial exchange between parent and adolescent where the adolescent is enraged about not getting the keys to the car for the wknd so s/he spends bandwidth arguing with parent about how they must not love him, don't trust him, and how in-artfully the parent makes the case about why the adolescent can't have the keys. In other words, the argument will take on myriad different forms, will shape-shift, but despite the parents' efforts to find any common ground, it will not stop until the keys are given over - bottom line.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Game changer

Disrupt (from Clayton Christensen)

Think outside the box

Moving the goal posts

Don't put words in my mouth

 

 

 

 

 

"Get on board".

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, Fred said:

Critics breed and teach others by example how and what to criticize.  Good people breed too but based on what I see in this world today and what I saw 20 and 40 years ago, I would say there are more critics of good people than there were before.

OK.

Why is that?

Link to comment

Just a pause to remember the 12 service men & women who lost their lives today in Afghanistan at the hands of a suicide bomber. : ( Though we can differ on many things on this board, I think we can all agree the travesty this is. God bless their families and our fracturing America.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Maybe the problem is just selective outrage. I have a feeling the negative interpretations of his comments would be quite different if Elder Holland had used the the same musket imagery as a call to defend homosexual behavior from criticism. In that case, I've no doubt that those who are now accusing him of fomenting violence would be gushing over how the metaphor was exactly what was needed to motivate people to defend--metaphorically, of course--this marginalized community from criticism. 

 

Late edit: I didn't realize that @bluebell made almost this same point to another poster (just a few posts back). Our similar lines of thought were generated independently. 

No offense, but I don't really care about your "feeling" about this. You are discounting what was said because you have a "feeling" I would have an inconsistent view if the tables were turned. I wouldn't.

As I've stated before, I'm generally opposed to the war metaphors throughout scripture and talks. For example, I don't like "Onward Christian Soldiers" because IMO it militarizes religion which is a bad thing in my estimation. The crusades-bad. Radicalized Islam-bad. Danites-bad. etc. etc. Those notions of enforcing some level of religiosity on others may well start somewhere and I don't find metaphors about battle, or waging war against infidels to have a place in religion.

 

 

Link to comment
55 minutes ago, rongo said:

Adding onto @Bernard Gui and @Bob Crockett's list of educational jargon:

I have a Word doc I add to from time to time with education buzzwords. Here are some others:

 

skill set

authentic assessment

STEM/STEAM

engagement

cross-curricular

project-based

big ideas

essential questions

power standards

synergy

proactive

best practices

data-driven

rigor

stakeholders

narrative

dialogue (used as a verb; e.g., "We're going to dialogue with the other departments about this next week")

accomodations/modifications

paradigm

21st Century skills

walk the walk/ talk the talk

buy-in

lifelong learners

growth mindset

piece (e.g., “accountability piece,” "the professionalism piece")

executive function

evaluation instrument

Kagan structures

metacognition

We had an assistant principal at my former school who was the only one I went to for anything. Even if it "wasn't her department," she could and would get it done. She was the only competent administrator. The interim principal (following an ouster because of a lesbian affair during school at school between the former principal and one of the assistant principals) was close to retirement and didn't want to be a principal again, and the heir-apparent was being groomed for the job the following year. This competent assistant principal was summoned to the district office to meet with the outgoing superintendent and the heir-apparent. She was informed that she was being let go, and she had three options: 1) resign immediately, 2) accept reassignment for the remainder of her contract at the district office, doing whatever menial tasks they gave her, or 3) be fired for cause. She was stunned and asked why, and was told that they didn't have to tell her anything. She asked for copies of her evaluations (performance reviews), and was escorted out. 

I had known her since I started teaching in 2002, and she was actually renting from a member of our ward. We were stunned and outraged. Several of us teachers emailed the members of the school board. One of them responded that there were things none of us were aware of that they couldn't get into (the professional response should have been that they can't comment on personnel matters). After two weeks of outraged input from the community, she was suddenly reinstated without comment, as if nothing had happened. She is still there to this day (this was in 2018).

The outgoing superintendent (an empty suit, but better than the activist liberal superintendent who replaced him) called a meeting to address the high school faculty to explain the decision (in very general and vague terms) and to answer questions. The setting and mood was definitely peasants at the gates with pitchforks and torches. Right before the meeting, the economics teacher passed out a bingo sheet he had made, titled "cover up bingo." It was hilarious! The squares had:

smooth transition

private matter

leadership

moving forward

we don't know

fake empathy

welcome concerns

confidential

we hear you

fresh start

nothing's been decided

student success

blame shifting

becoming an A district

highest priority

trust

awkward silence

hope

we'll look into that

professionalism

nervous laughter

mission/vision

difficult decision

deny responsibility

---

The meeting went as you can imagine, and her sudden and silent full reinstatement happened a couple of days after the stonewalling meeting. I've always thought of the "cover up bingo" sheet whenever there is a PR damage control press conference for something (church, political, school, etc.). These types of boilerplate also belong to the canon of jargon and buzzwords. 

I found out later from her that it was simply a matter of the new principal (who hadn't assumed office yet, and wouldn't for six months) not wanting her on his team, and not wanting to wait until her contract was up and not renewed. That was it. There was no wrongdoing or malfeasance on her part. And then he was "saddled" with her for two years after that, after it blew up on him/the district. :) 

Edited by rongo
Link to comment
36 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Game changer

Disrupt (from Clayton Christensen)

Think outside the box

Moving the goal posts

Don't put words in my mouth

Yes, these are good ones, too. 

"It is what it is" and "agree to disagree" are others, but they are everywhere, not just education. Actually, a lot of these form "empty calories" outside of education and academia. 

Link to comment
49 minutes ago, Gillebre said:

May I ask you what final evolved form do you hope/want to see in the Church's continuance over the coming years and decades? 

I've seen the concept mentioned in many places about steps forward and backwards, but I'm curious about the destination and the end thereof. I think there's something beneath the surface for many wherein they don't come right out and state the final result they want: complete spiritual/divine equality in the Church between traditional marriage and gay marriage. 

If this is the end thereof that people have in mind, and I know many that do, I believe that they are primed for a very emotional let down. The Apostles continually teach, unitedly and with one voice, that this outcome is contrary to the nature of what God has revealed about the heavenly life He wants to give us. There are other lives we can all have, and He will truly give us what we we can handle, a place our own where we'll be happiest in eternity, but I think we do a disservice if we build up false hope.

I personally mourn for my brothers and sisters who hope for things that, as we understand the Plan and have living oracles, cannot be. I've witnessed our culture growing and changing for the good. The children of Zion are being refined, and you can identify them by their fruits of gentleness and compassion, but also by their unwavering loyalty in who the Lord has chosen to lead the Church.

Satan is the worst offender here, I think, and the pain gets attributed to the Apostles. The pain the community feels, I believe, is at least partially because they are blinded by many things.

Blinded by their holding onto false hope in an eternal paradox, blinded by their frustration that they can't keep telling themselves the doctrine will change if they just hold on, and even blinded by the growing realization that the middle ground they were standing on is becoming increasingly unstable.

In short: they don't have the Holy Ghost to help them see the light that would make all things more clear, and help them see Elder Holland's words in their proper spirit. I'm absolutely certain of this because the Spirit has enlightened many members who, with ears to hear, can understand the message, and those who can't are left to sort it out on their own, being left to themselves.

From 2 Nephi 32, I think these verses apply well.

4 Wherefore, now after I have spoken these words, if ye cannot understand them it will be because ye ask not, neither do ye knock; wherefore, ye are not brought into the light, but must perish in the dark.
5 For behold, again I say unto you that if ye will enter in by the way, and receive the Holy Ghost, it will show unto you all things what ye should do.

The biggest realization for me out of this speech by Elder Holland is, in my opinion, how widespread the spiritual blindness and deafness appear to be among so many.

If you were to ask me about why the Spirit wouldn't restrain Elder Holland in his use of the musket analogy, God knowing the divisions that would result, I'd say this: it is we who divide ourselves by giving in to dark emotions, painful flames fanned by Satan and his angels, and the Lord insists that the wheat and the tares both be allowed to mature completely before the harvest. 

The pain and heartbreak are a result of their own worldview being founded on principles of expressive individualism and not in the worldview of Christian discipleship. The interpretation they choose hurts them, and the Spirit can't enlighten us unless we purify ourselves and seek Him. See this article for more insights into this phenomenon. 

 

Whoa, self-righteous much? What if I told you I have ears to hear and I am hearing something different than you are? Who decides which of us has more of the Holy Spirit? Go ahead, I’ll wait, 

Edited by Peacefully
Link to comment
34 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Maybe the problem is just selective outrage. I have a feeling the negative interpretations of his comments would be quite different if Elder Holland had used the the same musket imagery as a call to defend homosexual behavior from criticism. In that case, I've no doubt that those who are now accusing him of fomenting violence would be gushing over how the metaphor was exactly what was needed to motivate people to defend--metaphorically, of course--this marginalized community from criticism. 

 

Late edit: I didn't realize that @bluebell made almost this same point to HJW (just a few posts back). Our similar lines of thought were generated independently. 

Nope, I would not approve of it either way. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

I'd like to evaluate these inconsistencies you attest, if you don't mind. Would you mind laying out a few?

Quote
Matthew 22:30 | 
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
Mark 12:25 | 
For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.
Quote

Deuteronomy 25:5-9

 
King James Version
 
 

If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.

And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.

And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother.

Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her;

Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house.

Man- I was going to put this together but I think you can do your own research. I don't have the time. IF you really think marriage law hasn't changed throughout the Old Testament, New Testament, D&C and today then you are living in La La land.

Look up Levite Marriage, Concubines, Polygamy, polyandry, divorce, eternal nature of marriage etc. and tell me there are no contradictions. Don't worry. I won't expect any response.

Edited by HappyJackWagon
Link to comment
1 hour ago, provoman said:


I do not know, but it sure seems of making God in our image  rather than the other way around. 

If we accept that the Bible represents the word of God, and that the words attributed to Jesus are the words of the Son of God, does Matthew 20:1 - 16 fit into your perception of equality?

Yes, because to me that parable is about a person who is an adult convert like myself not being penalized for coming late to the party. I can receive the same blessings as someone who is bic. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Vanguard said:

other words, the argument will take on myriad different forms, will shape-shift, but despite the parents' efforts to find any common ground, it will not stop until the keys are given over - bottom line.

While I think you make good points in other ways, trivializing the pain good people are going through as a youth throwing a snit because they can’t get the keys for the weekend won’t help.  We are, after all, talking about what the Church presents as the highest and best blessing God will give to the faithful, exaltation which includes the eternal companionship of God as well as the blessing of eternal companionship of our beloveds.  Those of us who can accept this by aligning our hearts and minds with God are welcomed at an eternal feast of joy and glory; those who do not will be on the outside, hopefully with their own happy ever after, but not the happy ever after we in the Church are telling everyone is the best thing ever and more than worth any pain or suffering or sacrifice we go through here.  
 

It is not the eternal equivalent of a set of car keys and a car for a weekend that we are telling people homosexual romantic companionship will prevent them from having, but all that the Lord has, his kingdoms without end, and most important to many people, the forever family, an eternal companionship in the company of our children and the Lord and rest of his family.

 

The desire for the Church to change doctrine comes most often IMO from a very good place, a place of compassion and love and wanting the best for others as much as we want the best for ourselves.  It is an expression of the second greatest commandment in my view.
 

The problem is if they are wrong, if the Church is right that a homosexual sexual and familial companionship is not part of God’s plan for us, but the Church goes ahead anyway and changes teachings out of mistaken compassion, it will actually prevent more from receiving the ultimate blessings of God…at least until  we can better align our will with him and repent and start over.  In the end, if the Church is currently right, we only will help and be truly compassionate by standing with the true doctrine.

 

Those who believe the Church is wrong about gay marriage and homosexual sexual/romantic companionship are thinking the reverse, that the Church’s insistence on what they believe is false doctrine see the Church as impeding progression.  Both positions, IMO, are compassionate and loving, wanting the best for others, the conflict arises not out of hate and rejection, but because they both can’t be right.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...