BYU pulls letter to the editor regarding Prop 8

[Wingnut]

Quite bluntly, if you look at the original text of the letter on the USU website (what BYU printed was a watered-down version), that's not remotely the point he was trying to make. His point was [paraphrasing] "you were trying to take away other people's rights for no better reason than that your prophet told you to do it", and he labeled it [quoting] "dangerous precedent".

The DU's behavior was heavy-handed (and, IMHO, unwarranted); but you've got to hand it to them for seeing through some of the misinformed (or, in some cases, disingenuous) arguments that a few of this kid's apologists are now trying to offer.

I guess we just read it differently. I've read that page already. In fact, I linked to it very early on in this thread.

[GaySaint]

JAG: Why would BYU remove the offending pieces, then post the letter, then remove the letter, instead of just not posting the letter to begin with? That's what I don't get... If they asked him to water it down, and then were satisfied enough with the watered down version to post it, why then take it down?

I can see why BYU would take down the letter had the offending portions been there. After all, if claim were that it is dangerous precident to follow the prophet, I can see their reasoning...

But to change the tone to be "you voted on this not for substatial evidence but because the prophet told you to" rings pretty true to me. I would think most LDS people would respond "If I did, so what?"

If a church member has issues with their religious beliefs not getting respect in the intellectual world I've got news for them - religion doesn't really make a whole lot of scientific sense. But isn't that the point? Is faith still faith if it is able to be scientifically proven?

I don't know if I'm saying what I'm trying to say clearly. It has to do with they type of people who would be offended by the idea that they are following the prophet without evidence. They are the people who need to be validated intellectually - which to me would show a lack of religious faith...

Does that make sense? Sort of? Am I wrong?

[prisonchaplain]

J_A_G, you seem to agree with me that the letter should not have been pulled. I'd further argue that, short of letters directly attacking the church and its leadership, isn't college the place to flesh/flush out our thinking? Even assuming the writer had underlying thoughts of leading an uprising, is it not better to talk those things out in a church-sponsored college setting, rather than years later with some ANTI, when the doubts are there, but the support is not?

[Just_A_Guy]

Sorry 'bout that, Wingers, it's been a while.

GaySaint: I agree BYU's actions here have been bizarre and unhelpful. As for the letter itself: I think it's the difference between "you followed the prophet, and that's honorable" versus "you followed the prophet, and you're schmuck for it".

PC: I agree generally that, having allowed the discussion to begin, BYU should have let it continue in the same forum.

In a broader sense: I don't know where I sit on the whole issue of faith promotion versus academic freedom. I know I worked on the air conditioning crew when I was a student there, and in one day we swapped out about two hundred and fifty air conditioning filters in the Benson Building. The old filters were thrown away. When new, their cost would have been on the order of twelve thousand dollars--and it began to occur to me how horrendously expensive running that kind of an institution must be. Lots of that money comes from tithes. So there is certainly the question of academic freedom and getting people to think for themselves; but there's also the issue of not letting the widow's mite be used to subsidize a forum that creates junior mint apostates.

I don't pretend to know how to strike that kind of a balance.

Edited September 15, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[rubondfan2]

I also do not believe churches should administer social services, because as we've seen in the past, they tend to favor those who align with their beliefs (and would thus administer social services with inequality). In that case, gay people would be completely excluded from all social services. Maybe you would be ok with that, but I find that morally wrong... and what would you do if it were the Catholics that where set up to provide those services, and they decided to exclude Mormons?

I think such a system would cause serious freedom of religion issues.

Really?? I surely hope that your argument is not in favor of government administering social services... the same entity that takes my tax dollars to support programs for which I am opposed to morally, ethically, culturally, and every other "ally" that I can think of?

Of course they (churches) tend to favor those who align with their beliefs... isn't that the point? Your statement "and would thus admister social services with inequality" sounds an awful lot like a purely socialistic and dare I say, communistic rationale coming through. I for one want no part of such a system (and I sure as h-ll am not thrilled with what we have today). Aren't we broken enough as a nation through so-called "equal" administration of services?

If Catholics decided to exclude Mormons, I would be perfectly fine with that. What exactly is wrong with an organization establishing guidelines and ground rules for the distribution of services to those who have their hands outstretched to receive them?

I'm trying to stay with your arguments, GaySaint, but in this one I just can't do it.

[GaySaint]

Rubondfan: I'll PM you so we don't get off topic.

[Moksha]

GaySaint: I agree BYU's actions here have been bizarre and unhelpful. As for the letter itself: I think it's the difference between "you followed the prophet, and that's honorable" versus "you followed the prophet, and you're schmuck for it".

An alternative to this is: "We followed the Prophet and confabulated reasons to persuade others to do so", versus, "We followed the Prophet and this is sufficient reason".

That is what I think the BYU letter writer was saying.

I assume BYU has a stated policy with letters to the editor that only doctrinally approved letters are suitable, so I agree with you J-A-G that once approved the subsequent pulling was unhelpful.

[carlimac]

Carlimac, I wonder if you are correct that church sponsored schools should simply instruct students on the fundamentals of church belief, and allow for no discussion of criticisms or concerns? And perhaps I have misread you. Many parents and "party-line" members may hope that such schools simply reinforce. However, the assertion that BYU is meant to train students along a very narrow religious and political line of thought, and lock-step, unquestioning obedience ... well it flies in the face of what universities are meant to do. When I went to college the Christian professors encouraged us to ask our difficult questions, to examine our doubts. They figured that it is better to do so in a setting where there is support and wise counsel, rather than social pressure and threat.

I went to a denominational flagship seminary. We have our Statement of Faith--our "non-negotiables." Nevertheless, we studied, we asked questions, we examined our faith in the light of criticisms. We dared to operate in the larger academic community, where criticism of our ways was inevitable. Thus, there were some dear saints in our movement praying that the school would dissolve and disband. No need, said they, for "egg-head liberals" to destroy the Spirit. How very sad.

A church-sponsored school ought to embrace "knowledge on fire." I read the letter and found nothing rebellious, nor anything that would challenge the core fundamentals of your church. Of course, those who believe that every utterance spoken by those deemed to be prophets must be embraced without thought, analysis, or context will not appreciate any discussion of these issues. However, for a university to go down that road...well, I hope this was but a single instance, and not standard operating procedure, as you seem to suggest.

It's standard at BYU. Do you think Notre Dame would publish a student opinion saying following the Pope in everything is a "dangerous precedent"? My point is that this is a private university and they can and should run it according to their standards. If people don't like their standards, either buck up or go elsewhere. I think these issues can be discussed in private groups of students. But when something controversial is published (especially by a student) the mothership needs to make clear it's bottom line which is we don't publically question the prophet's judgement. Do that in your own room on your knees.

I disagree that going down this path indicates that "BYU is meant to train students along a very narrow religious and political line of thought, and lock-step, unquestioning obedience..." That makes it sound like boot camp. It's not that tight. There are plenty of other world and secular issues that can be debated and discussed freely and endlessly at BYU. Maybe the actual words of the letter didn't sound "rebellious" but the underlying tone did.

I'm still undecided on how I feel about the topic of the letter. That's a separate issue.

[HEthePrimate]

The letter was pulled because the editors of The Daily Universe (and, I suspect, the wider BYU community) don't believe in the free marketplace of ideas. Whether or not the letter's content was "offensive," or did not accurately represent other people's ideas is irrelevant--in the free marketplace of ideas, that's allowed. Other people are always free to counter a letter they disagree with with their own letters explaining what they believe and/or pointing out what they feel to be the mistakes in the original letter. But... because not offending potential donors to the university, or Church leaders, is more important to the Universe than a free exchange of ideas, they pulled the letter.

HEP

[prisonchaplain]

It's standard at BYU. Do you think Notre Dame would publish a student opinion saying following the Pope in everything is a "dangerous precedent"?

Yes. Catholics schools generally go too far the other way. They are like public universities, except that they also offer Catholic instruction. You are likely aware that many many Catholics, including some of their clergy, are indeed opposed to the socially conservative mores of the Pope and international leadership. So, I would expect them to publish opinions critical of the Pope's stances on most issues.

My point is that this is a private university and they can and should run it according to their standards. If people don't like their standards, either buck up or go elsewhere.

If BYU wants to take that stand, it certainly can. However, go too far in that direction and accreditation and access to public grants and student loans becomes an issue. Then again, we are not discussing what BYU can do, or has a right to do, but rather what would be the wise and godly course for your church's flagship university to take.

I think these issues can be discussed in private groups of students. But when something controversial is published (especially by a student) the mothership needs to make clear it's bottom line which is we don't publically question the prophet's judgement. Do that in your own room on your knees.

Except that quite often the Prophet speaks that which does not become church doctrine. How often have strings on this site boiled down to, "That was the Prophets/Apostle's private opinion, not doctrine." This is especially true when opponents of your church bring up cherry-picked quotes. Most members of the church can guess which party and politics most of your leadership privately embrace. And yet, there are members on both sides of the American political aisle, plus those international members, many of whom live under vastly different political systems.

I could be wrong, but though your leadership made it clear that Prop. 8 was favored, it stopped short of ordering members to vote for it or be deemed rebellious. So, was this letter really an anti-LDS broadside, or was it a minority perspective that the majority found offensive?

I disagree that going down this path indicates that "BYU is meant to train students along a very narrow religious and political line of thought, and lock-step, unquestioning obedience..." That makes it sound like boot camp. It's not that tight. There are plenty of other world and secular issues that can be debated and discussed freely and endlessly at BYU. Maybe the actual words of the letter didn't sound "rebellious" but the underlying tone did.

I'm still undecided on how I feel about the topic of the letter. That's a separate issue.

People often get angry at their churches, or find themselves in oposition to a particular stance. It just seems healthy to me that those struggles work themselves out in a church-sponsored school promoting intelligent inquiry, rather than being whispered about, at the off-campus Starbucks.

[carlimac]

People often get angry at their churches, or find themselves in oposition to a particular stance. It just seems healthy to me that those struggles work themselves out in a church-sponsored school promoting intelligent inquiry, rather than being whispered about, at the off-campus Starbucks.

Well it's going to happen at Starbucks no matter what's printed in the Daily Universe. I personally feel that it's healthier to take up the issue with Heavenly Father than to publish complaints like this in the university paper. Talk about it with religion professors and other freinds at school. Counsel with a bishop or stake president about it. But don't paint a big black X on yourself just because you're feeling like "a little teapot - short and stout". (Not so long since I've had pre-schoolers. )

My guess is that the letter went aginst majority opinion anyway and not many students would change their stance by reading the letter. It probably did nothing to help his cause but did much to defeat his own purposes.

Edited September 16, 2010 by prisonchaplain

[Wingnut]

I disagree, carli. In publishing the letter, then pulling it, BYU gave the author far more recognition and support than if they had either not published in the first place, or not pulled afterward.

[carlimac]

Well it's going to happen at Starbucks no matter what's printed in the Daily Universe. I personally feel that it's healthier and more appropriate to take up the issue with Heavenly Father than to publish complaints like this in the university paper. Talk about it with religion professors and other friends at school. Counsel with a bishop or stake president about it. But don't paint a big black X - or worse- a big bull's eye on yourself just because you're feeling like "a little teapot - short and stout"(not so long since I've had pre-schoolers. ) and can't contain the need to spout off. It's actually counterproductive. And I don't see anything "godly" in seeking to publish a letter like that.

My guess is that the letter went aginst majority opinion anyway and not many students would change their stance by reading the letter. It probably did nothing to help his cause but did much to defeat his own purposes.

[carlimac]

OK, I'm royally messing this up. Can't quite get the hang of quoting just parts of a post. Sorry. I DO know I just repeated myself.

[MarginOfError]

Carli, I'm almost tempted to start a thread on posting tactics, such as how to quote, multiquote, quote only a part, highlight parts in quotes, and edit previous posts. It could be our own little wiki on how to get things done around here!

[Orrinian]

I have read the letter at the beginning of this thread. And I must say that I found it worth to read it and I want to say: yes, this is the only one explanation one who believes in God should give against homosexuality and not fooling around with the law of Germany or the United States or whatever. They will win, as long as we are not honest enough to declare: homosexuality is against the will of God. -ok- let them do their monkey buisiness departed from those ones who don't like it and abuse ist and reject it at all. But don't allow them to become legitimized their doings by the law and the society. Who of us was not a young boy who felt in love with a young girl, but as we were too young we had to forget about it, and the tiny flame of our little love to that girl lapsed, and later we found to our real beloved girl and woman and wife. In that critical pase of uncertainty homosexuality might influence a young man - and he might get desorientated and became near to homosexuality, when others might animate him into this direction.

So, I know this thread is not about talking homosexuality itself, but about the BYU letter. But let me say that why hasn't been homosexuality accepted by our forefathers and their forefathers? Were they quite wrong? Are we more liberal and more "christian" like than they were? Or are we more decadent and more offenders in view of our faith?

Edited September 16, 2010 by Orrinian

[GaySaint]

Orrinian: While I highly disagree with your theory as to the causes of homosexuality, I very much appreciate you view of the BYU letter and your honesty.

[Orrinian]

And there is one story I can tell you: when I was about seven years of age, I just wanted to leave my parent's home. My father was a saylor and not at home . My mother was at home. We lived in the second floor in a house in Hamburg-Altona. As I wanted to get out, there was a kind man who was in the floor of the house and asked me to show him something down the cellar, because he didn't know how to get in there and I should show him how to open the door and all bloody things like that. But I was clever enough not to show him that and not to follow him downstairs to the cellar, and I rapidetly went up to my mother. She went out, ringing at the neighbour's, and I remember within not time all adult men w went out and called others and searched for that bloody guy. God might have saved him not to get found by the men. It was in 1963, when it was a criminal delict in Germany to be homosexual and you couldn't joke around with growing-ups.

This is my story, and it is true. It happend the way I am still remembering it.

Edited September 16, 2010 by Orrinian

[Orrinian]

Orrinian: While I highly disagree with your theory as to the causes of homosexuality, I very much appreciate you view of the BYU letter and your honesty.

You might be obliging, but never your words could blind me. Never.

[GaySaint]

Orrinian: I don't think anyone would make light or disrespect your story, and obviously your story is horrendous; but with all due respect, that man may have been a homosexual, but he was a PEDOPHILE who HAPPENED to be a homosexual...

The homosexuals who wish to get married (which the BYU letter was addressing) wish to do so with other adult, consenting, homosexuals.

I'm not naive enough to believe that homosexuality COULD be caused on occasion by a tramatic childhood experience, but that is not the marority... nor or homosexuals anymore likely to abuse children. To equate the two is just as bad as saying heterosexuality is bad because heterosexual pedophiles exist - and we all know that isn't true.

I am sad that this childhood experience has caused you to view all homosexuals as evil people - but I do understand why you feel the way you do.

[Orrinian]

Orrinian: I don't think anyone would make light or disrespect your story, and obviously your story is horrendous; but with all due respect, that man may have been a homosexual, but he was a PEDOPHILE who HAPPENED to be a homosexual...

The homosexuals who wish to get married (which the BYU letter was addressing) wish to do so with other adult, consenting, homosexuals.

I'm not naive enough to believe that homosexuality COULD be caused on occasion by a tramatic childhood experience, but that is not the marority... nor or homosexuals anymore likely to abuse children. To equate the two is just as bad as saying heterosexuality is bad because heterosexual pedophiles exist - and we all know that isn't true.

I am sad that this childhood experience has caused you to view all homosexuals as evil people - but I do understand why you feel the way you do.

Forget it. I don't let myself get blinded by you. And if my abilities in English even should arrive my speaking level in Geman, I would have tought you a better lesson. And this is why the Lord has brought me to this site. And this is why I have to learn English.

[Wingnut]

Forget it. I don't let myself get blinded by you. And if my abilities in English even should arrive my speaking level in Geman, I would have tought you a better lesson. And this is why the Lord has brought me to this site. And this is why I have to learn English.

If you think you can "teach" someone out of their sexual orientation, you've got more to learn than English.

[Orrinian]

If you think you can "teach" someone out of their sexual orientation, you've got more to learn than English.

That's what you might think. But I won't let me get blinded and I will learn the language of a man was a prophet and who restored the Allmighty's truth. When Elder ... was here, he gave me the BoM in english, as I required for, and I will continue to read each page of it in English as I promised. And you should not behave such arrogant as you're doing. As you're offending me and the Lord. Go ahead with this. Learn German, little one, a language you should take a life time to learn, and don't try offending me in this little way.

[Wingnut]

Excuse me?

[Orrinian]

Excuse me?

You've heard right well what I 've said. I'm not speaking Chinese.