Elder Holland: BYU may need to "stand alone"

[secondclasscitizen]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

The Church heavily subsidizes BYU and the students’ tuition who attend it. As a “business”, I believe the Church puts in more than it gets out. That would be comparable to requiring the hotel guests to cover less than half their bill iirc.

The church gets lifetime tithe payers. I went to a university not byu and paid full freight other than about $10k worth of GI bill. The church has received the tuition amount from me in tithing many times over. Byu is a bargain for the church even if they fully paid it for Mormon students. 

Edited August 25, 2021 by secondclasscitizen

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Malarky.  Not having faculty members at BYU actively working against the tenets of the Church, actively working to destroy the faith of students there, is far from "having absolute control."

Who's doing that?  There is a significant gulf between "actively working to destroy the faith of students there" and the academic freedom which may reveal uncomfortable truths.

[Canadiandude]

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I invite you to review my posts about DezNat.

~

I also question the legitimacy of equating the Church's Priesthood Ban (which lacked any revelatory provenance) with the Law of Chastity.  But that's probably a topic for another thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

Sure- once you stop being facile and read my mere three posts as a connected argument instead of chopping them up as if they were intended to be disconnected.

You questioned whether history will look kindly on Latter-Day Saint intellectuals such as Dr. Park who express principled disagreement with current doctrines and policies, whereas I see them as the Dr. Lowry’s of our day.

No, thank-you.

- From Canada, with love.

 

[OGHoosier]

3 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

Also, regardless as to the venue are you seriously suggesting that the valedictorian’s discourse is more dangerous and harmful to the church and BYU than Cicotte’s??

Hardly.

I'm also wondering why Cicotte is relevant to this, or why you would try to pin @smac97 in what appears to me to be a false dilemma between Easton and Cicotte. 

Edited August 25, 2021 by OGHoosier

[Canadiandude]

35 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

Hardly.

I'm also wondering why Cicotte is relevant to this, or why you would try to pin @smac97 in what appears to me to be a false dilemma between Easton and Cicotte. 

If you actually read what I said, then you’d realize that my issue was that Elder Holland took personal issue with Easton, not Cicotte.

@Smac97 appeared to challenge my assessment that Cicotte was more deserving of the call-out, not Easton.

Boy, y’all love to really dice up people’s arguments so as to forget how they naturally come to proceed don’t ya?

My “pinning” wouldn’t have been issued had the user not taken umbrage at my problematizing who got the call-out.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I would be astounded if church leaders have not done an return on investment analysis of its universities. I works be equally astounded if the return in increased faithfulness and hence increased tithing funds didn’t show a net positive return. 

I would agree, at least about the faithfulness aspect…I don’t believe they would keep the BYUs open without a cost-benefits analysis.
 

I was, however, thinking in the context of BYU as a typical university business, where income comes from tuition, sports, grants for research, fundraising among alumni, etc…not the side of it that is a religious community and the benefits, many less tangible but some very tangible, that come to the Church because of that, which is why Imo the Church is the primary source of funding for the BYUs. 

Edited August 25, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

not the ex-assistant attorney general for Alaska

Probably not as well known to the community he was speaking to, plus Elder Holland was speaking in the context of the college environment. Speaking at graduation is being directly involved in campus life while making comments on Twitter may have an impact on a small group of college kids who happen to pay attention to Deznat, but such would blend in with numerous other Twitter and social media sources. 

[Canadiandude]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Probably not as well known to the community he was speaking to, plus Elder Holland was speaking in the context of the college environment. Speaking at graduation is being directly involved in campus life while making comments on Twitter may have an impact on a small group of college kids who happen to pay attention to Deznat, but such would blend in with numerous other Twitter and social media sources. 

Okay, but what was the harm of Easton’s coming out in his valedictory speech, particularly when it was vetted and we already know that according church policy to that it’s not a sin to publicly identify as 2SLGBTQ+?

I also think that you might be downplaying the real harm and threatening nature of Deznat and its instigators (like Cicotte) are to heterodox students and believers in general in encouraging hateful attitudes and possibly violence.

Wasn’t a lesbian couple mysteriously killed by gunshot recently in Utah?

This is meant to be a counter argument, not an attack. I appreciate your calm and measured attitude and your taking myself seriously here.

I just don’t see heterodox intellectuals, students and my fellow 2SLGBTQ+ members/post-members as being nearly as dangerous to BYU and church compared to radicals such as Deznat and Cicotte.

[smac97]

38 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

If you actually read what I said, then you’d realize that my issue was that Elder Holland took personal issue with Easton, not Cicotte.

@Smac97 appeared to challenge my assessment that Cicotte was more deserving of the call-out, not Easton.

What's next?  Are you going to criticize Elder Holland because he didn't "call out" Jason Derek Brown?  Aaron Shamo?  Jodi Arias?  Mark Hacking?  Chad Daybell?  Josh Powell?

You could play this came all day long.

38 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

Boy, y’all love to really dice up people’s arguments so as to forget how they naturally come to proceed don’t ya?

My “pinning” wouldn’t have been issued had the user not taken umbrage at my problematizing who got the call-out.

Elder Holland was speaking at BYU.  He was speaking about BYU.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Canadiandude]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What's next?  Are you going to criticize Elder Holland because he didn't "call out" Jason Derek Brown?  Aaron Shamo?  Jodi Arias?  Mark Hacking?  Chad Daybell?  Josh Powell?

You could play this came all day long.

Elder Holland was speaking at BYU.  He was speaking about BYU.

Thanks,

-Smac

Cicotte is a BYU alumni and a social actor within the church that targeted BYU faculty and students. Easton is also an alumni, but unlike Cicotte does not advocate violence, and merely came out of the closet.

Please stop treating me like a fool, I know darn well that Elder Holland’s addressment was regarding BYU, and the argument is null, as either both are relevant to the campus culture and life or neither of em are.

Its also not as if these addresses on BYU even always ignore wider church and world events and culture(s) anyway as they often seek to incorporate these meta-themes.

Nobody’s so far convinced me why Easton is the scary boogeyman here, who’s influence upon BYU is more dangerous.

 

But I think I’ve figured you out now Smac.

Unlike some of the other users on here you don’t engage in good faith or reciprocity.
 

This kinda behaviour is trollish, but I’m guessing it’s also ignored as it wears progressive members and nonmembers down which I guess is good for a forum concerned over orthodoxy.

Lucky I’m here to stay for while, and I have a feeling that that the number of heterodox users on here will only continue to grow.

[Tacenda]

45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What's next?  Are you going to criticize Elder Holland because he didn't "call out" Jason Derek Brown?  Aaron Shamo?  Jodi Arias?  Mark Hacking?  Chad Daybell?  Josh Powell?

You could play this came all day long.

Elder Holland was speaking at BYU.  He was speaking about BYU.

Thanks,

-Smac

Now those are the people that he and the leaders could speak out against, at another time. Of course that would be out of place at the opening of the new school year devotional, but what he did say felt out of place as well. I kind of think he's regretting what he said about Easton, along with other things. Sometimes the LDS leaders can be out of touch, IMO. 

Edited August 25, 2021 by Tacenda

[Canadiandude]

Cicotte and others like him goaded ?Dr. Hank Smith to accuse an 🏳️‍🌈 student of being “the anti-Christ” and lash out critics rather than just leaving things at a principals disagreement over the uniqueness of Latter-Day Saint doctrine and legitimacy of post-members still retaining what good they still treasure re: the faith.

Deznat have literally been targeting and have encouraged the targeting of heterodox and already marginalized students/faculty.

 

[california boy]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

From Elder Holland's remarks:

My sense is that there is often a significant issue with subtext in the traditional "coming out" narrative as to members of the Church.

The apparent subtext is, I think, something like "I am announcing I am gay, and that by this announcement I intend to let that status define me and my sexual behavior, which will now include same-sex behavior that violates the Law of Chastity."

Could you see how this subtext might be construed as problematic for a valedictory speech at a deeply religious institution?

Did you read Elder Holland's talk?  See, e.g., this part:

Faithful Latter-day Saint parents send their kids to BYU with the expectation that the students will receive an education that is informed by, and generally congruent with, the doctrines and beliefs espoused by the Church.

Can you appreciate the feelings of betrayal that may arise if and when faculty at BYU use their position at the Church's stool to be "not supportive of the Church's doctrines and policies and choose to criticize them publicly," to do and say things that facilitate the destruction of faith?

Oh, brother.

Oh, brother, again.

Malarky.  Not having faculty members at BYU actively working against the tenets of the Church, actively working to destroy the faith of students there, is far from "having absolute control."

Thanks,

-Smac

I was tempted to do the SMAC thing and cut up your post into single sentences so that the context of what you are saying gets reduced to refutable points.  But honestly, I really don't care what the Church does or what you think about LGBT issues.  If they are willing to blow up the accreditation of BYU over this issue, then hey, I say let them.  It is just a string of the kinds of musket shots the Church has been taking for years on their skirmishes against the LGBT community.  The way I look at it, the more clear the Church is about its intolerance for anyone who dares to come out the more clear it becomes for that person to seriously consider just what kind of Church they belong to.  This is one of the major issues that are breaking the shelves of members of the Church.  The Church just made that item on the shelf a bit more heavy.

I personally know what it is like to hide my sexual orientation in order to please the Church.  It is very destructive.  Every day feels like a lie.  Every day you feel like you are deceiving everyone around you including those that you love the most as they automatically assume you are "one of them", straight and can be "normal".  I have navigated that road. There was a time in my life where I was not willing to speak up when people assume I am straight.  Every time that happened, a little bit of me died within myself.  I knew it was a lie of omission.  And hey, evidently just correcting that misconception is a declaration against church doctrine that needs to be stomped out.   It is not a healthy way to live for anyone who values honesty and integrity in their lives.  That is actually the real reason why people, at some point, feel the need to "come outt".

The Church and you build this fortress around a doctrine that has never actually been attributed to God.  Assumptions have been made by fallible men that God would never sanction any marriage between couples of the same gender.  Assumptions have been made that the Law of Chastity which clearly state that sex within a marriage is sanctified of God means.  Those fallible men have decided for themselves, that gay marriages don't count as real marriages.  It is a declaration that marriage is not all that good of idea if you are gay.  So what value is it to those that are straight if it is so disposable.  No revelation from God has ever been claimed on whether God agrees with this assumption.  Yet this is the sword the Church is willing to die on.  

I used to hate that I was gay.  I thought of it as a curse from God.  A burden that I never wanted to carry.  A burden that for years I pleaded, and fasted and prayed God would take from me.  In hignsight and with wisdom that comes from time, I realize that perhaps it is the greatest blessing God has ever given me.  It has given me courage to rely on my own relationship with God.  To trust Him rather than fallible men to guide me through this life.  It has given me a man that I love with every fiber of my body who loves me and supports me.  It is a love I could have never experienced in any other way.  A partner that has made me a better person.  It has helped me and my family to be less judgmental of others and more loving and kind.  I would not be the same person I am today without going through all of this.  I am a better person because I am gay.  Something I never thought I would say during those years of pleading with God to take this burden from me.  I realize now that God did answer my prayers and pleadings in a way that I couldn't even imagine.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Elder Holland was speaking at BYU.  He was speaking about BYU.

Elder Holland’s talk is consequential. There are people teaching at BYU who will no longer be teaching there by the end of the year because of this. Lines have been drawn in the sand of what behavior on campus is now unacceptable. Specific and concrete. An amazing and also mostly mundane commencement address was called out specifically as inappropriate. 
 

The church speaks in platitudes about “love” and how horrible it is when gay and black people are mistreated (by “the world”) but it’s lack of specifics is telling. Can you think of an example where an individual was called out like Matt Easton for say racism or homophobia? Because I sure can’t and that asymmetry is very telling. 

[Canadiandude]

19 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I kind of think he's regretting what he said about Easton, along with other things. Sometimes the LDS leaders can be out of touch, IMO. I read elsewhere that it's already been detrimental to someone's feelings about how the church is handling the LGBTQ.

Yeah, I imagine that he’s gotten a lot of feedback and I hope that there’s some regret there. It just seems like the talk undercut the the new Office of Belonging and its mission, as well as unnecessarily alienated a lot people.

I’d be curious to know how the Brethren (and their family) with close 2SLGBTQ+ family have reacted, though I understand and accept that such is not really my business.

 

 

[Tacenda]

17 minutes ago, california boy said:

I was tempted to do the SMAC thing and cut up your post into single sentences so that the context of what you are saying gets reduced to refutable points.  But honestly, I really don't care what the Church does or what you think about LGBT issues.  If they are willing to blow up the accreditation of BYU over this issue, then hey, I say let them.  It is just a string of the kinds of musket shots the Church has been taking for years on their skirmishes against the LGBT community.  The way I look at it, the more clear the Church is about its intolerance for anyone who dares to come out the more clear it becomes for that person to seriously consider just what kind of Church they belong to.  This is one of the major issues that are breaking the shelves of members of the Church.  The Church just made that item on the shelf a bit more heavy.

I personally know what it is like to hide my sexual orientation in order to please the Church.  It is very destructive.  Every day feels like a lie.  Every day you feel like you are deceiving everyone around you including those that you love the most as they automatically assume you are "one of them", straight and can be "normal".  I have navigated that road. There was a time in my life where I was not willing to speak up when people assume I am straight.  Every time that happened, a little bit of me died within myself.  I knew it was a lie of omission.  And hey, evidently just correcting that misconception is a declaration against church doctrine that needs to be stomped out.   It is not a healthy way to live for anyone who values honesty and integrity in their lives.  That is actually the real reason why people, at some point, feel the need to "come outt".

The Church and you build this fortress around a doctrine that has never actually been attributed to God.  Assumptions have been made by fallible men that God would never sanction any marriage between couples of the same gender.  Assumptions have been made that the Law of Chastity which clearly state that sex within a marriage is sanctified of God means.  Those fallible men have decided for themselves, that gay marriages don't count as real marriages.  It is a declaration that marriage is not all that good of idea if you are gay.  So what value is it to those that are straight if it is so disposable.  No revelation from God has ever been claimed on whether God agrees with this assumption.  Yet this is the sword the Church is willing to die on.  

I used to hate that I was gay.  I thought of it as a curse from God.  A burden that I never wanted to carry.  A burden that for years I pleaded, and fasted and prayed God would take from me.  In hignsight and with wisdom that comes from time, I realize that perhaps it is the greatest blessing God has ever given me.  It has given me courage to rely on my own relationship with God.  To trust Him rather than fallible men to guide me through this life.  It has given me a man that I love with every fiber of my body who loves me and supports me.  It is a love I could have never experienced in any other way.  A partner that has made me a better person.  It has helped me and my family to be less judgmental of others and more loving and kind.  I would not be the same person I am today without going through all of this.  I am a better person because I am gay.  Something I never thought I would say during those years of pleading with God to take this burden from me.  I realize now that God did answer my prayers and pleadings in a way that I couldn't even imagine.

🤗

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

Yeah, I imagine that he’s gotten a lot of feedback and I hope that there’s some regret there. It just seems like the talk undercut the the new Office of Belonging and its mission, as well as unnecessarily alienated a lot people.

I’d be curious to know how the Brethren (and their family) with close 2SLGBTQ+ family have reacted, though I understand and accept that such is not really my business.

 

 

I had to look up 2SLGBTQ+ , is this how you'd like it to mean? Curious how it's connected to Native Americans, of course when I read "two-spirited" that sure reminds me of the wonderful way they think. Then I looked up two-spirited and found the below:

“Two-spirit” refers to a person who identifies as having both a masculine and a feminine spirit, and is used by some Indigenous people to describe their sexual, gender and/or spiritual identity.

And this is new to me as well:

2SLGBTQ+ is an acronym used to identify two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning as a community of people whose sexual and gender identities can create shared political and social concerns. ... 2S stands for “two-spirited” and must be contextualized within a Native American framework.

[Canadiandude]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I had to look up 2SLGBTQ+ , is this how you'd like it to mean? Curious how it's connected to Native Americans, of course when I read "two-spirited" that sure reminds me of the wonderful way they think. Then I looked up two-spirited and found the below:

“Two-spirit” refers to a person who identifies as having both a masculine and a feminine spirit, and is used by some Indigenous people to describe their sexual, gender and/or spiritual identity.

And this is new to me as well:

2SLGBTQ+ is an acronym used to identify two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning as a community of people whose sexual and gender identities can create shared political and social concerns. ... 2S stands for “two-spirited” and must be contextualized within a Native American framework.

Yes. It’s exactly that.

In Canada there’s been a real big push to better recognize Indigenous People’s frameworks for sex, sexuality and gender. I’ve been trying to change my language to give that recognition though I often fall short.

I’m not Two-Spirited myself but was once kindly informed that while it may be impossible to include in a single acronym all gender and sexual minorities, I should aim to explicitly recognize those of Indigenous Peoples since I live on their lands.

I can only be perfect in trying. 

Edit: I myself identify as gay.

Edited August 25, 2021 by Canadiandude
Further explanation.

[esodije]

I remember being told by multiple BYU administrators when I was a freshman there (1977-78) that BYU would never have a medical school or very many government contracts for graduate-level research, simply because the church didn't want the feds dictating standards or policies concerning student/faculty conduct and holding funding over its head.  I don't think too many people in that era considered it likely either (a) that the feds would have their hooks into all levels of higher education to such an extent that it could use basic accreditation as the ransom for compliance, or (b) that compliance would entail acceptance of what were then considered deviant traits (or, especially, behaviors) by society at large, to the utter disregard of traditional religious belief (or dogma, as you will). What option will the church have but to do what most other "church" schools have done (cf. the WCC or the Big 12) and all but abandon the idea of a faith-based education?

I realize that the 9th Article of Faith states plainly that we believe that God will "yet reveal" many "great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God," but the recent emphasis on the Gospel's still being in the process of "restoration" seems to suggest that big changes are in the offing.  Is Elder Holland, as a former BYU president, in some denial about the trajectory the school and church are on?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

Okay, but what was the harm of Easton’s coming out in his valedictory speech, particularly when it was vetted and we already know that according church policy to that it’s not a sin to publicly identify as 2SLGBTQ+?

I couldn’t say, I don’t see harm in sharing personal experiences and feelings to convey ideas…as anyone can see by my posts which often have a personal dimension to them. 
 

So do Elder Holland’s talks so I am unsure exactly what is going on. I need to read both talks when brain fog is less and maybe I will make a connection then. 
 

Quote

also think that you might be downplaying the real harm and threatening nature of Deznat and its instigators (like Cicotte) are to heterodox students and believers in general in encouraging hateful attitudes and possibly violence.

No, I think Deznat is very dangerous (at the very least in terms of providing a place that justifies very malicious treatments of others) and I hope the Church will come out more forcefully against such things. Iirc there was a statement early on when the white supremacist woman’s blog gained notoriety in part because she was Latter-day Saint. It was highly disturbing at the time reading how there appeared to be some courting going on of Latter-day Saints by white supremacist groups. 
 

It just feels more of an American faith community issue (I really hope it has little effect internationally) and less like a BYU issue for me. The only reason I pay attention to devotionals and speeches coming out of BYU generally is because it gets brought up here. Otoh, I pay close attention to emails sent out to church membership and press statements. 
 

Quote

 

Deznat have literally been targeting and have encouraged the targeting of heterodox and already marginalized students/faculty.

Good point

Edited August 25, 2021 by Calm

[secondclasscitizen]

9 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I would be astounded if church leaders have not done an return on investment analysis of its universities. I works be equally astounded if the return in increased faithfulness and hence increased tithing funds didn’t show a net positive return. 

They have done it for returned missionaries (what they are worth). I’m betting the math has been done for byu. 

[OGHoosier]

4 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

If you actually read what I said, then you’d realize that my issue was that Elder Holland took personal issue with Easton, not Cicotte.

@Smac97 appeared to challenge my assessment that Cicotte was more deserving of the call-out, not Easton.

Boy, y’all love to really dice up people’s arguments so as to forget how they naturally come to proceed don’t ya?

My “pinning” wouldn’t have been issued had the user not taken umbrage at my problematizing who got the call-out.

I did actually read what you said, and I still don't see how Cicotte is relevant to a talk focused on BYU administration. @smac97 is right, you could play this game all day.

 

Edited August 25, 2021 by OGHoosier

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Elder Holland’s talk is consequential. There are people teaching at BYU who will no longer be teaching there by the end of the year because of this.

Perhaps some will go. I suspect some will stay.

When I was pursuing my master's degree in the American Midwest, I had a flatmate whose elder brother was a lecturer at BYU and fighting a losing battle over dismissal. In talking to A---, it became clear that his brother completely rejected the truth claims of the Church. At first I couldn't figure out why anyone would want to work at BYU if that was the case, but as became clear in further discussions, it was his brother's desire to help steer students in a more 'progressive', less believing direction, and he was angry that his plan was being foiled. There will be others like him, no doubt.

Personally, I have zero investment in BYU. It made perfect sense to me when my mission president said that Pres Hinckley had told him that they would get rid of it if they could figure out how. Considering how many bitter apostates it seems to pump out, I have a hard time seeing it as a reasonable return on investment.

At the same time, it seems dystopian/totalitarian to me that an educational institution owned and operated by a faith community may not be allowed to train people in say, mechanical engineering, unless it submits to a competing orthodoxy.

Edited August 25, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[Amulek]

9 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Can you think of an example where an individual was called out like Matt Easton for say racism or homophobia? Because I sure can’t and that asymmetry is very telling. 

Can you find an example where an individual 'came out' as a racist or homophobe during their valedictorian speech at BYU any time in the last decade? Because if not, I'm not certain there's really any asymmetry.

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

56 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Can you find an example where an individual 'came out' as a racist or homophobe during their valedictorian speech at BYU any time in the last decade? Because if not, I'm not certain there's really any asymmetry.

 

So in your mind saying I’m a gay Latter-day Saint is the same as saying I’m a racist Latter-day Saint. Got it. 
 

Further I was not limiting it to BYU, but if we did, instead of blaming the world, Holland certainly could have called out the guy who oversaw the conversion therapy that occurred there. You know where people had electrodes hooked up to there genitals, and were forced to vomit while watching p*rn. That certainly seems at least as bad as saying “I’m a gay Latter-day Saint” Oh wait that was Elder Oaks. 

Edited August 25, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding