BYU Bans Protests on Y Mountain

[smac97]

49 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

But, you know, pointing out the hypocrisy of justifying such unethical behavior while lecturing people about “sexual ethics” — why, that’s just cancel culture, or something.

Huh?  

49 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It takes a special kind of shamelessness to make such an absurd argument. 

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Some time ago you said, speaking of the Ryan McKnight: "I like life better when I don’t think the worst of people."  You said this while we were discussing his extensive efforts to persuade employees of the Church to secredtly steal the Church's materials and surreptitiously send them to him.  I responded:

Quote

So do I. Unfortunately, we sometimes run across people whose behavior tends to frustrate those efforts.  So when a fellow comes along and brags about how he's devised a plan to induce other people to engage in unethical or immoral behavior for him, and when he brags about how he is going to get away with such things without suffering any consequence to himself, while simultaneously throwing his patsies under the bus, well, the natural consequence is going to be to not think very highly of that sort of person.  That's not cynicism. That's just surveying repellent and unseemly behavior and coming to a grim conclusion about it.

Seems like we are all a bit subjective in terms of when we grant someone the benefit of the doubt.

Does "I like life better when I don’t think the worst of people" apply to historical figures?  Like, say, Joseph Smith?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 3, 2022 by smac97

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, california boy said:

never mind.  I will let you continue to assume the worse of anyone who is gay and the Church can do no wrong.

I won't let you put words into my mouth or impute onto me motives I do not hold.  

I don't "assume the worse {sic} of anyone who is gay," nor do I believe that "the Church can do no wrong."  These are rank falsehoods.  Told by you.  About me.  

-Smac

Edited February 3, 2022 by smac97

[ttribe]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Huh?  

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Some time ago you said, speaking of the Ryan McKnight: "I like life better when I don’t think the worst of people."  You said this while we were discussing his extensive efforts to persuade employees of the Church to secredtly steal the Church's materials and surreptitiously send them to him.  I responded:

Seems like we are all a bit subjective in terms of when we grant someone the benefit of the doubt.

Does "I like life better when I don’t think the worst of people" apply to historical figures?  Like, say, Joseph Smith?

Thanks,

-Smac

He doesn't have to 'think the worst' about Joseph Smith when the facts are so clearly indefensible.

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Not only should someone who is LGBT should be looking for another university to go to.  They should also be looking for another Church to go to.  One that actually. follows the teachings of Christ.

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

You sure work hard to advance this divisive narrative.

It's a textbook attempt at emotional blackmail. Based on the number of times that it has been deployed in this forum, I get the strong impression that it probably works in other contexts. That it doesn't work with most of us appears to be a source of perpetual (and possibly growing?) frustration. 

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

It's a textbook attempt at emotional blackmail. Based on the number of times that it has been deployed in this forum, I get the strong impression that it probably works in other contexts. That it doesn't work with most of us appears to be a source of perpetual (and possibly growing?) frustration. 

Has it ever occurred to you that it is not so much an 'attempt at emotional blackmail' as it is him reporting on his own experience in the Church?

[Hamba Tuhan]

Just now, ttribe said:

Has it ever occurred to you that it is not so much an 'attempt at emotional blackmail' as it is him reporting on his own experience in the Church?

Is that a serious question? Or do you genuinely believe that such things only occur to people like you?

[James 1 5]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

It's a textbook attempt at emotional blackmail. Based on the number of times that it has been deployed in this forum, I get the strong impression that it probably works in other contexts. That it doesn't work with most of us appears to be a source of perpetual (and possibly growing?) frustration. 

Most of us say what we say only because we want other people to know what we think and how we feel, at least a little bit.  It is a type of personal therapy for each of us.  Better to let it out than for us to hold it all in.

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Is that a serious question? Or do you genuinely believe that such things only occur to people like you?

Given your strident accusation, what alternative do I have in this case?  You engage in a mind-reading exercise and hand-waving dismissive because you don't like what he says, but I see no evidence of attempting to understand. Just, defend, defend, defend.

[Hamba Tuhan]

28 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I see no evidence of attempting to understand. Just, defend, defend, defend.

In many cases, people do tend to see what they want/expect to see.

My assessment is based on years of interaction on this forum, accompanied by thoughtful consideration. I've also run my conclusions past a clinical psychologist friend who specialises in helping people recognise and resist emotional blackmail. She agrees with me.

But you've already noted above that, regarding Joseph Smith, 'the facts are ... clearly indefensible'. That means that I must be either ignorant of the facts or dishonest/unethical, so why would you believe me on anything else? 

Edited February 4, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[ttribe]

23 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

In many cases, people do tend to see what they want/expect to see.

My assessment is based on years of interaction on this forum, accompanied by thoughtful consideration. I've also run my conclusions past a clinical psychologist friend who specialises in helping people recognise and resist emotional blackmail. She agrees with me.

But you've already noted above that, regarding Joseph Smith, 'the facts are ... clearly indefensible'. That means that I must be either ignorant of the facts or dishonest/unethical, so why would you believe me on anything else? 

So, you ran by 'a clinical psychologist friend' of yours whether @california boy, in particular, regularly engages in emotional blackmail? And you did so with a representative sample of his posts, to be sure, correct? No sampling bias?

As to the facts comment, it was in direct response to SMac's not-so-thinly-veiled insult directed at @jkwilliams, that he has an inherently jaundiced view on Joseph Smith that isn't trustworthy because he doesn't (allegedly) follow his own advice about not assuming the worst about people.  If you follow the conversation backward, John's comment was specifically about Joseph's dishonestly relative to Emma. My comment was specifically about that; it wasn't generalized.  How about you drop the victim card? It doesn't work for you.

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

So, you ran by 'a clinical psychologist friend' of yours whether @california boy, in particular, regularly engages in emotional blackmail? And you did so with a representative sample of his posts, to be sure, correct? No sampling bias?

Look, let's just accept that there's no response I could give -- including bringing my friend onto the forum -- that would satisfy you.

Quote

How about you drop the victim card? It doesn't work for you.

 The needle on my irony meter just hit the red zone. Thank you!

[ttribe]

29 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Look, let's just accept that there's no response I could give -- including bringing my friend onto the forum -- that would satisfy you.

 The needle on my irony meter just hit the red zone. Thank you!

Yeahhhhh...umm...okay. 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

It's a textbook attempt at emotional blackmail. Based on the number of times that it has been deployed in this forum, I get the strong impression that it probably works in other contexts. That it doesn't work with most of us appears to be a source of perpetual (and possibly growing?) frustration. 

What emotional blackmail am I actually using here?

[Peacefully]

Just now, california boy said:

What emotional blackmail am I actually using here?

I was wondering the same thing. 

[ttribe]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

What emotional blackmail am I actually using here?

I don't know, but it's textbook! Textbook, I tell you!

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

What emotional blackmail am I actually using here?

One of the most common forms identified by Forward and Frazier is the 'sufferer':

Quote

This is the voice of a victim conveying guilt on the partner if they do not do what is demanded. If they don’t comply, there is a suggestion that their suffering will be the others’ fault.

 

[california boy]

14 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

One of the most common forms identified by Forward and Frazier is the 'sufferer':

 

I didn't ask for a definition of Emotional Blackmail.  I asked to point out what I said was emotional blackmail that you accused me of.  So the question still stands.  Where did I use emotional blackmail?  Please point out exactly what I said or withdraw your accusation.

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

Please point out exactly what I said or withdraw your accusation.

No, thanks. I choose not to comply with these kinds of demands/threats.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

No, thanks. I choose not to comply with these kinds of demands/threats.

I believe the word you are looking for is CFR. The failure to provide evidence for an assertion of fact is a violation of board rules. If it was a “textbook” case surely it would be easy to show us your work. 

[Calm]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not at all convinced we are getting a straight recitation of the whole story here. 

I would not be the least bit surprised if he or others were legitimately worried about death threats.  DezNat has had some awful stuff on it and its owner was for a time pushing it as a training ground for young men iirc, training in what would be debated no doubt.  I have known enough former participants I trust who are horrified at what it quickly became that I believe there should be some sort of action taken by the Church, not certain what it should be though.  If church leaders are restraining themselves because they don’t want to lose their ability to positively influence those getting drawn in, I have no way of knowing that isn’t more effective at keeping DezNat numbers down than a strong public condemnation. (I am also not saying every member of DezNat is promoting harassment, but the environment when I looked at in the past appeared to nurture the attitude that it was acceptable.)

I would like to hear from the other side though, if BYU really did nothing about DezNat students and complaints they were harassing other students or offered no options of support or just ones that were unacceptable.  BYU does not have a personal security service, I have never heard of anyone in potential danger (women being stalked, celebrities, activists) getting specialized treatment.  Security people did patrol problem areas more…but I haven’t been on campus for eons and haven’t discuss incidents with any victims lately.  I know of a few cases of stalking at UVU.

I am not sure what BYU could do about nonstudents, but Church leaders might be able to if members were identified and linked with harassing comments and calls for physical harassment.

Edited February 4, 2022 by Calm

[CV75]

12 hours ago, california boy said:

What emotional blackmail am I actually using here?

The tone of your posts is that BYU’s (and by the extension, the Church’s) allegedly un-Christlike – and there’s the fault being assigned -- policies concerning LGBTQ+ behavior and relationships causes these students to unjustly suffer. Also, that barring free access to the Y, including to demonstrate / protest against these policies, compounds their suffering to the point that they should not subject themselves to further suffering, as much as they otherwise want and deserve to be part of the BYU community.

The point of emotional blackmail (or its analogy) is, the advocate for the victims says that unless BYU drops the policy and changes the other policies, this suffering by the victims will continue and they are better off without BYU, who highly values their membership in the community and does not want to lose them.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

46 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The tone of your posts is that BYU’s (and by the extension, the Church’s) allegedly un-Christlike – and there’s the fault being assigned -- policies concerning LGBTQ+ behavior and relationships causes these students to unjustly suffer. Also, that barring free access to the Y, including to demonstrate / protest against these policies, compounds their suffering to the point that they should not subject themselves to further suffering, as much as they otherwise want and deserve to be part of the BYU community.

The point of emotional blackmail (or its analogy) is, the advocate for the victims says that unless BYU drops the policy and changes the other policies, this suffering by the victims will continue and they are better off without BYU, who highly values their membership in the community and does not want to lose them.

Is it emotional blackmail when church leaders call out “unchristlike” behavior, point to the suffering caused by such behavior and ask for change? Or is it a one way street?

Edited February 4, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[CA Steve]

6 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Is it emotional blackmail when church leaders call out “unchristlike” behavior, point to the suffering caused by such behavior and ask for change? Or is it a one way street?

I suppose under the definition given that the Boy Scouts are being emotionally blackmailed.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

The tone of your posts is that BYU’s (and by the extension, the Church’s) allegedly un-Christlike – and there’s the fault being assigned -- policies concerning LGBTQ+ behavior and relationships causes these students to unjustly suffer. Also, that barring free access to the Y, including to demonstrate / protest against these policies, compounds their suffering to the point that they should not subject themselves to further suffering, as much as they otherwise want and deserve to be part of the BYU community.

The point of emotional blackmail (or its analogy) is, the advocate for the victims says that unless BYU drops the policy and changes the other policies, this suffering by the victims will continue and they are better off without BYU, who highly values their membership in the community and does not want to lose them.

We've been seeing this manipulative behavior for years.  From this board in 2013:

Quote

Quote

And, of course, there are the "surprising number of active, faithful members of the church who have SSA" either left the church and/or chosen to end their lives under the crushing weight of our loving and compassionate outreach.

Ah, I was wondering when the unfortunately-frequent "Hey, Mormons! Either change your doctrines or I'll kill myself and blame you for it!" trope would be trotted out.

And here:

Quote

Quote

One of your more callous responses.

Not callous. Mine was an appropriate response to the cynical exploitation of suicides as a guilt-trip tactic against those who believe in and defend the precepts of the Restored Gospel.

I find such exploitation repellant, and I am not shy about expressing my disgust with such exploitation.

Quote

It ceases to be a trope when you are on the other end of the phone in the middle of the night trying to talk one of your former YM out of swallowing a bottle of pills.

It continues to be a trope when people who want to pressure the LDS Church and its members trot it out as an exploitive guilt-trip.

Look, I have no doubt that same-sex attraction can be a tremendous struggle. But rhetorical references to gay suicides in discussions such as this, with the attendant implication that such suicides are to be blamed on people who do not embrace/endorse same-sex behavior, are pretty much the equivalent of calling the other guy a Nazi. It just ain't cool.

Quote

I'll keep discussing this topic if you want but I think that I've made my point and these last two paragraphs are (for me and my heart) the best of your thoughts on the matter.

As you like. Perhaps the next time you and your heart could avoid suggesting that gay suicides are to be blamed on people who disagree with you. "Callous" I can handle, no problemo. But the "We've gotta embrace same-sex behavior 'cuz otherwise homosexuals will kill themselves and it'll be our fault" meme just doesn't work for me. AKAIK, there is no correlation between gay suicides and social opprobrium. In fact, it appears that the correlation is not between "gay suicide" and "social opprobrium," but between "gay" and "suicide."

According to a study in the Netherlands where homosexuality has been accepted and mainstreamed for years, homosexual behavior significantly increases the likelihood of psychiatric, mental and emotional disorders, negating the mindset that society's lack of tolerance of homosexual behavior and lifestyle produces these psychoses. Youth are four times more likely to suffer major depression, almost three times as likely to suffer generalized anxiety disorder, nearly four times as likely to experience conduct disorder, four times as likely to commit suicide, five times as likely to have nicotine dependence, six times as likely to suffer multiple disorders, and more than six times as likely to have attempted suicide. (Study of 5,998 Dutch adults) Theo G.M. Sandforte et al., "Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders: Findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence," Archives of General Psychiatry 58, 10 (2001): 85-91.

Researchers found "an elevated suicide risk for homosexuals" even in tolerant Denmark. Ping Qin, Esben Agerbo, and Preben Bo Mortensen, "Suicide Risk in Relation to Socioeconomic, Demographic, Psychiatric, and Familial Factors: A National Register-Based Study of All Suicides in Denmark, 1981-1997." American Journal of Psychiatry 160 (2003): 765-772.

...

Quote

I realize you believe my position to be "crap" (many fellow Mormons agree with you) so you don't need to say it again.

The "crap" to which I refer is the bad faith or self-centered vapidity of people who perceive a "loving and compassionate response" from Latter-day Saints to be something other than a "loving and compassionate response."

I likewise declare as "crap" the exploitation of suicides amongst homosexuals as a guilt-tripping rhetorical tool to be deployed willy-nilly against people who have rational, reasoned, and spiritual opposition to homosexual behavior (but who harbor no ill will whatsoever against those who struggle with such temptations). It is a well-poisoning gimmick that is repulsive in every way. "Disagree with us and you'll be to blame for gay suicides!"

I am not "callous" for resenting and objecting to being accused of fomenting gay suicide. I find such cheap rhetorical references profane and exploit these tragedies. So if you don't want to be called on such tactics, then don't use 'em.

There was also that 2016 incident in which the execrable "Mama Dragons" fabricated and publicized suicide statistics.  See here: An Outsider's Perspective on the Fabricated/Exaggerated/Unsubstantiated Suicide Statistic Debacle

This story was duplicated dozens of times across various "news" outlets, and to my knowledge the Mama Dragons never retracted, correct or apologized for creating and perpetuating these calumnies.

And then there was the time Dan Reynolds of "Imagine Dragons" fame pulling out the "suicides are your fault" trope.

Just last year a member of this board seemed to use it here:

Quote

Quote

 

Quote

 

Quote

Do you know any trans people? My Aunt, as a young boy dressed in women’s clothing. She struggled her whole life to live according to gospel precepts. Serving a mission, marrying, and raising 6 kids in the church. At some point the depression of it all hit and became overwhelming. She tried to kill herself. At that point she decided it was time to accept who she was and she transitioned. That you somehow think this life long struggle is at all analogous to your lame attempt at a joke is pretty telling. 

I don't think we should joke about such things.  But I also am not sure we should reflexively and automatically go along with such things either.  And I'm really not comfortable with the government punishing us for not reflexively and automatically go along with such things.

I am also not comfortable with your invocation of suicide as a basis for going along with you uncle/aunt.  It seems coercive.  

That you find the simple facts of the matter upsetting isn’t my problem.

I'm not upset.  And it's not the "simple facts of the matter" that are at issue.  It is the - forgive the word - exploitation of suicide that I find troubling.  Manipulative.  Coercive.

I don't want anyone to commit suicide.  But I also don't think it is appropriate for a person to use the threat of suicide as leverage to coerce others to capitulate to his point of view.

And here:

Quote

So here's what you said that precipitated by "presupposes" comment: "My Aunt, as a young boy dressed in women’s clothing. ... She tried to kill herself. At that point she decided it was time to accept who she was and she transitioned."

See, this "time to accept who she was" is not a "fact."  It's a conclusory opinion.  You are presuming that which is in dispute.  That a chromosomal, biological, and even *sociological* male (inasmuch as he spent much of his life dressing as a male, married a woman, fathered children, and so on) is actually a woman trapped in a man's body.  That this is not gender dysphoria.

That is the dispute I was referencing.  You then invoked his/her attempted suicide as if that were some sort of "fact" or justification.  I find that pretty disconcerting.  This is neither fact nor reasoned argument.  "Comply with my declaration that I am a woman trapped in a man's body or else I'll kill myself and it'll be your fault."  That's how it comes across.  That's not a factual argument.  It's emotional and psychological blackmail.  Coercion.  Manipulation.
...
 

Quote

Again, if this is the hill the church wants to die on, so be it.

This is not helpful.  The Church is teaching the Law of Chastity, the Proclamation, and so on.  These principles are not only eminently sound and reasoned, they are also revelatory.  

The Church doesn't want to die on this hill.  The Church doesn't want to be on this hill, or to fight on it.  But some are insistent on bringing the fight to the Church, and demanding that it capitulate to popular trends about sexual identity or else face horrible, and false, accusations (such as insinuations about causing suicide, as you have done here).

This May 2020 article, previously cited on this board, merits some attention:

Quote

IS LATTER-DAY SAINT THEOLOGY RESPONSIBLE FOR LGBT+ SUICIDES?

May 7, 2020

Suicide is tragic—and shouldn’t be leveraged for ideological ends. A superficial reading of LGBT+ suicide stats can cause more harm than good.

As the German army invaded Belgium during World War I, a rumor arose among the Allied Powers that German soldiers had brutally mutilated a Belgian baby. Many people had claimed to have seen the baby, the press reported the event as fact, and it soon became conventional wisdom. 

Historians now recognize this “event” as mythological. 

There is no solid or reliable evidence that there ever was such a baby, but it was a horrendous story that everybody who was already opposed to the Central Powers seemed to want to believe. This is a prime example of a phenomenon seen elsewhere: if a belief fits into a framework or narrative that is strongly held about an emotionally-charged issue, this belief takes on a very sophisticated life of its own.

Sadly, this kind of misinformation has sometimes occurred with regard to suicide, a sensitive area that merits our tireless attention, careful analyses, and continued intervention efforts. 

On occasion, the nexus of interrelated beliefs regarding LGBT+ suicides among members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have been publicly mistreated or exaggerated. 

Certainly, unlike the Belgian case, there are many instances of LGBT+ Latter-day Saints who have tragically taken their own lives. Every suicide is a loss that we should mourn and seek to prevent in the future. 

The complexity of the full picture of suicide is an important starting place for productive public discussion. Mental health experts in partnership with GLAAD—an LGBT+ advocacy group—advise against linking “a specific policy (or its absence)” to suicide or suicide prevention. They further advise against normalizing “suicide by presenting it as the logical consequence of the kinds of bullying, rejection, discrimination, and exclusion that LGBT+ people often experience.”
...

Again, as mental health experts in partnership with GLAAD observe: “The underlying causes of most suicide deaths are complex and not always immediately obvious. Making hasty assumptions about those causes, even when based on comments from family or friends or media reports, can result in statements that are later proven to be inaccurate.” 

It’s difficult to rigorously test claims regarding suicide causality to peer-reviewed standards. But people may be surprised how little evidence there is for related side-claims such as, in the words of one celebrity, Utah has experienced a surge in suicide “because of the shame (LGBT+ teenagers) feel from the Mormon Church.” 

Lamentably, these beliefs have sometimes taken on a life of their own, regardless. 

I have spoken to sophisticated, intelligent colleagues in the social sciences who take the theology-suicide correlation as a fact, even when confronted with conflicting information—including objective, official numbers that do not provide any evidence for the claim. 

Highly visible groups or individuals trying to use suicide numbers to pressure the Church into changing its theology sometimes report shadowy statistics that show suicide rates many times higher than can be confirmed by the official numbers. Finally, the blogosphere and non-peer-reviewed academic articles give voice to individuals trying to tie various statistics—some more reliable than others—together in an attempt to provide support for the narrative that decisions coming from Salt Lake are responsible for the deaths of large numbers of LGBT+ members. 

Not only is this information often inaccurate, but it goes against GLAAD’s own guidelines, and may in fact do more harm than good for some LGBT+ people. 

While there are genuine and understandable emotions and mourning that surround suicide and suicidality in the LGBT+ community and well-beyond, sometimes among advocates there is a self-admitted agenda involved: use suicides to force the Church into a corner in regards to its heteronormative theology of Heavenly Mother and Heavenly Father. 

The entire article is worth a read.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 4, 2022 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

15 hours ago, ttribe said:

So, you ran by 'a clinical psychologist friend' of yours whether @california boy, in particular, regularly engages in emotional blackmail? And you did so with a representative sample of his posts, to be sure, correct? No sampling bias?

As to the facts comment, it was in direct response to SMac's not-so-thinly-veiled insult directed at @jkwilliams, that he has an inherently jaundiced view on Joseph Smith that isn't trustworthy because he doesn't (allegedly) follow his own advice about not assuming the worst about people.  If you follow the conversation backward, John's comment was specifically about Joseph's dishonestly relative to Emma. My comment was specifically about that; it wasn't generalized.  How about you drop the victim card? It doesn't work for you.

It’s not so much an insult as a rhetorical device to deflect from the facts by accusing the other person of bad faith. So, if someone were to say, for example, that Amy Winehouse had problems with substance abuse, that person is obviously guilty of not seeing the best in others and of reducing them to their worst traits. (Dredging up an old quote is just icing on the cake.)

Such stuff doesn’t offend me or hurt my feelings, but it is a reminder of why I don’t post much.