- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The graduate who “commandeered” the podium, Matt Easton, responds to Elder Holland: [url]https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/comment … -holland/
“>
https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2021/08/27/matt-easton-elder-holland/
[/url] Quote:Our variety of life experiences is what makes BYU so wonderful. Let me be clear — diversity is not the same as divisiveness. I imagine that is what the administrators who pre-approved my words understood as well.
While some might fear a future where more valedictorians share things like their sexual identity in their speeches, I think we should instead fear a future in which they don’t.
Celebrating our own differences not only fosters belonging but also enables us to more clearly see our similarities. If unity is what we are after, I believe it will come from offering all perspectives a seat at the table. Every voice is needed for the gospel choir.
Sometimes it is helpful to realize that the same types of issues that our frustrate our church (and church owned universities) also frustrate other churches (and their church owned universities). The article above tells us that “85 percent of Catholic young adults stop practicing their faith within ten years of their confirmation, with many of them lapsing during college.” It calls for church owned schools to be safe places for parents to send their kids knowing that they will be surrounded by religious instruction and religiously minded peers.
Quote:To insure against this, some parents and students invest in faith-based education, often at greater cost than other choices. That’s why it is essential that colleges that use their “Catholicism” as a recruiting tool to attract graduating high-school seniors and their families live out their faith and accept the challenges of not only educating students for their future career paths, but also of instructing them in the beliefs the Church holds, preserves, and spreads.
This very much reminds me of the letter that was cited in Elder Hollands address.
Quote:I would hope that BYU professors would be bridging those gaps between faith and intellect and would be sending out students that are ready to do the same in loving, intelligent and articulate ways.
The article then spends a good amount of space arguing for why these Catholic universities should refuse to cover (through their insurance contracts) artificial forms of birth control.
As much as I sympathize with fearing that my children will not continue the traditions that they were raised in. This stuff about birth control seems like a needlessly silly “sky is falling” moment to me. Of course, perhaps my perspective is because our church has moved on from that particular battle ground. The most current advice from LDS church leaders is that family size and child spacing is a matter that is between each married couple and God (no intermediate necessary). How much time, tears, and prayer is our current leadership expending on the birth control question?
I wonder if some others look at our current struggle with LGBTQ+ individuals and feel like it is similarly silly?
DarkJedi wrote:
No, Hawk, I didn’t but I did see the video of the man erasing the rainbow colored chalk drawing on campus and saying faggots go to hell. I also saw BYU’s response:Quote:“We unequivocally condemn behavior and language that is disrespectful and hurtful. There is no place for hateful speech, or prejudice of any kind, on our campus or in our community. The Honor Code explicitly states that each member of the BYU community has the obligation to respect others. The incident seen in a video circulation on social media is now under review. This behavior runs counter to the directives shared by President Worthen in his University Conference address Monday. We are striving to create a community of belonging composed of students, faculty and staff whose hearts are knit together in love. Every student and individual on our campus deserves to feel that belonging.”?
I agree, this is what Worthen said. I’m not sure it’s not what Holland said.
Many students went to the location where the video was filmed and wrote lots of supportive statements of the LGBT+ community in chalk on the sidewalks to more than replace what had been erased. All the messages were washed away come the next morning.
Perhaps the university has no issue with scrubbing messages in support of the LGBT+ community away, perhaps their only issue was the language the young man used or perhaps the only issue was the attention the video received.
Quote:War metaphors give a community a shared foe, a common cause. It feels good to think that the enemy is those bad people over there, while we’re in a place of righteousness over here. By focusing our eye outwards, the war metaphor helps us avoid the difficult work of looking within.
Valerie Hobbs
nibbler wrote:
Perhaps the university has no issue with scrubbing messages in support of the LGBT+ community away,perhaps their only issue was the language the young man used or perhaps the only issue was the attention the video received.
Emphasis added. I do believe the last part of this statement has some merit. The talk was given to faculty and staff at BYU, not a general audience. Perhaps they were surprised the contents became so widely known, especially in a very short period of time. This conference is an annual event, but I’ve never heard anything about what was said or done there before. Likewise, I’m not sure Holland was aware enough of life outside the bubble to realize not everyone was going to be in board, or maybe there’s more pushback than expected. And, more to the point, the video is a bit embarrassing for a university that just created a cabinet post for helping marginalized students feel more welcome but could be seen as directly linked to Holland’s words.
My comment was in reference to the video of the young man that poured water on the rainbow chalk and said, ”
go to hell.”The quote about condemning the behavior and language was from the official BYU twitter and was in response to that video going viral.
After the video went viral the community came together to chalk up that area.
[attachment=1]support.jpg[/attachment] But by the next morning.
[attachment=0]oppose.jpg[/attachment] Which makes me wonder whether BYU officials see any problem whatsoever with the act of washing away messages of support for the LGBT+ community.
This is having a Streisand effect. The act of removing the messages of support is causing more people to come out with messages of support.
I am making a large assumption that the second removal of messages of support was carried out/ordered by officials. The entire area was scrubbed. If that is the case, it’s troubling that the university still lacks the awareness to recognize the message they’re sending. That leads me to believe that they really don’t condemn the behavior, they engaged in it themselves. I’m sure they wouldn’t use the language that the young man used, they’ve found more socially acceptable speech to mask the same sentiment.
So the question is, what exactly did they condemn?
As it turns out, there may be a standing policy or precedent on washing chalk art off sidewalks that predates all this. Still, not a good look. They should probably pump the brakes and evaluate whether policy overrides people in this instance. For those unfamiliar with BYU, the pictures above at the bottom of the stairway are of a public street on the south side of campus. The stairway itself is unquestionably BYU property, the sidewalk is public. There are many off campus housing complexes near this area where most off campus students live and the stairway is how most of those students access campus. In other words, it is a high visibility and high traffic area (foot and vehicle). I agree with Nibbler, it appears likely BYU erased those messages. I asked my current BYU student son about it and he said there are routinely messages there on a variety of subjects but that they are not necessarily cleaned off daily or “during the night.” My take on it again is that BYU sees this as an embarrassment over something that has blown up bigger than expected and wanted. This could especially be the case as the issue has been brought to light as BYU may potentially be invited to join the Big 12 conference for sports and BYU/LDS LGBTQ policies will likely be a discussion topic were that to happen – and may be the reason it doesn’t happen. hawkgrrrl wrote:
Quote:individual license over institutional dignity
How about individual DIGNITY over institutional LICENSE, because that’s what we are really talking about here.
As to the idea that the brethren have wept over this issue, hmmm. I have no doubt whatsoever that they are all really upset at being called bigots and homophobes and that the loss of their power is triggering an emotional response for them. Poor poor them. Crocodile tears, I say. I am not buying it at all, and I suspect none of the parents of LGBT kids are buying it either. When your child is suicidal because of the teachings they hear at Church, afraid to come out because they are convinced they will be kicked out and ostracized, and feeling unsafe because their BYU-I roommates are openly joking about doing violence to gay kids, then you have cause to weep about these issues. When you double down on hate speech, invoke violence among your followers with metaphors of muskets, and state openly your willingness to lose university accreditation rather than back down, rendering your students’ and professors’ investments worthless, you aren’t the victim here.
Yes. This.nibbler wrote:
As it turns out, there may be a standing policy or precedent on washing chalk art off sidewalks that predates all this. Still, not a good look. They should probably pump the brakes and evaluate whether policy overrides people in this instance.
I wonder if someone used chalk to write “Jesus saves” and “we love BYU leaders” and see how long that chalk stays on the sidewalk.
Church leaders and BYU leaders are just not ready to admit they need to adopt a change. So these will continue. I am glad people are speaking out about it and not ignoring it. If they aren’t going to change and open up to accept individuals over policy, but feel the need to double down on policy to protect their beliefs, then to protests should continue regardless of whether leaders are weeping over it or not…change needs to happen and it will eventually. It is sad it is taking too long. But I think change will come because right is right. Bigotry and hatred come out of wrong or outdated policy, and eventually become untenable.
Sometimes clinging to faith in the conservative rules and teachings of the past blind leaders from the courage to love as needed in the present or future.
I hope for change. I hope leaders can help young people know how to be better and let go of hate they don’t understand.
Heber13 wrote:
nibbler wrote:
As it turns out, there may be a standing policy or precedent on washing chalk art off sidewalks that predates all this. Still, not a good look. They should probably pump the brakes and evaluate whether policy overrides people in this instance.
I wonder if someone used chalk to write “Jesus saves” and “we love BYU leaders” and see how long that chalk stays on the sidewalk.
Yes, I’d wager if the chalk drawings said “Go Elder Holland!” they would have lasted longer.
Quote:Church leaders and BYU leaders are just not ready to admit they need to adopt a change. So these will continue. I am glad people are speaking out about it and not ignoring it. If they aren’t going to change and open up to accept individuals over policy, but feel the need to double down on policy to protect their beliefs, then to protests should continue regardless of whether leaders are weeping over it or not…change needs to happen and it will eventually. It is sad it is taking too long. But I think change will come because right is right. Bigotry and hatred come out of wrong or outdated policy, and eventually become untenable.
Sometimes clinging to faith in the conservative rules and teachings of the past blind leaders from the courage to love as needed in the present or future.
I hope for change. I hope leaders can help young people know how to be better and let go of hate they don’t understand.
While at the same time these same leaders and members of the Old Guard wring their hands and wonder why 40-50% of returned missionaries are inactive after 3 years and why so many teens don’t make it to 18 to even get that far.
DarkJedi wrote:
While at the same time these same leaders and members of the Old Guard wring their hands and wonder why 40-50% of returned missionaries are inactive after 3 years and why so many teens don’t make it to 18 to even get that far.
I’m sure it’s because they weren’t being good enough at participating in some church program or other.
Studies show that kids that graduate from seminary have a higher percentage of staying active and marrying in the temple. Better start kids on seminary in middle school.
(sarcastic post is sarcastic)
DarkJedi wrote:
While at the same time these same leaders and members of the Old Guard wring their hands and wonder why 40-50% of returned missionaries are inactive after 3 years and why so many teens don’t make it to 18 to even get that far.
wow. Is it that high now? 40-50%?Hm.
Quote:When you love someone, you love the person as they are, and not as you’d like them to be.
-Leo Tolstoy
Heber13 wrote:
DarkJedi wrote:
While at the same time these same leaders and members of the Old Guard wring their hands and wonder why 40-50% of returned missionaries are inactive after 3 years and why so many teens don’t make it to 18 to even get that far.
wow. Is it that high now? 40-50%?Hm.
Admittedly, stats are hard to find and if the church actually knows they’re not saying (no surprise there). The Next Mormons Survey found that about 30% of Millennials are “active.” That study also found that about a third of Millennial missionaries returned early, and about a third of those are not active. So 40-50% may be high, but it doesn’t appear 30% would be – still significant. I brought that up partly because of a previous unkind statement I had heard from JRH regarding returned missionaries who go inactive/leave the church (this via my son whose mission was visited by JRH).
Speaking of sons, anecdotally the one-third stat more or less fits. Of the three, one (married) does not attend church or wear garments but does have some belief. Another (married) attends irregularly, does not have a calling by his request, and does not pay tithing. The third (unmarried, student at BYU) also attends irregularly and lies to keep his ecclesiastical endorsement (apparently not unusual by the way). They each have issues with the church, but not necessarily the gospel. The non-tithe payer, for example, has issues that the church requires the very poor to pay tithing that they can’t afford to pay while having a $100 billion investment account. The BYU student has concerns with treatment of LGBTQ+ and other social issues (including the ever present judgementalism).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.