BYU pulls letter to the editor regarding Prop 8

[Matthew0059]

No. I'm alluding to the voters' (and members' of the Church) to vote as they want to.

I'm unsure how a grievous misuse of agency is justified on the grounds that a person has agency to begin with.

That is, I am unsure how the fact that members have agency excuses them from listening to and following direct advice from the prophet.

Perhaps the use of the phrase "true blue" causes some confusion. In using the term I do not mean "those who have a testimony" or "those who believe or know in their hearts"- I mean those who actively do what they are commanded by those they sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators, who ponder divine advice and obey- as did Joseph F. Smith when he proudly proclaimed himself a "true blue" Mormon to the drunk man who swore to kill all Mormons.

"Those who believe" and don't act are letting their faith die very quickly, leaving it alone without action.

[Wingnut]

I'm unsure how a grievous misuse of agency is justified on the grounds that a person has agency to begin with.

I'm unsure how choosing to vote one's conscience constitutes a grievous misuse of agency.

[Matthew0059]

I'm unsure how choosing to vote one's conscience constitutes a grievous misuse of agency.

Because it goes against the direct advice of men they have actively sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators.

Our conscience is often manipulated by evil men and spirits. The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

[GaySaint]

Matthew: I know some TBM's who prayed about the issue and felt direct direction from God to either not vote, or to vote no. While a prophet's counsel may apply to the church as a whole, and without doubt God will reward those who follow the prophet, it is my opinion that it is better to follow God himself when he speaks to you.

I also know people who prayed about it and were told to vote yes. It is not our place to question the Lord as to why he tells people what to do on one issue or another, nor is it our place to question whether or not he is capable of giving different direction to different people.

If you don't think this is possible, I suggest you study the scriptures more. A few examples I could cite quickly include Adam and Eve (Multiply and replenish the earth, but don't eat the fruit), Lehi and Jerehmiah (Stay and preach repentance to the city of Jerusalem, but Lehi take your family and leave), and Nephi (Don't kill, but slay Laban).

I think this quote from Dallin H Oaks is relevant here:

As a General Authority, I have the responsibility to preach general principles. When I do, I don’t try to define all the exceptions. There are exceptions to some rules. For example, we believe the commandment is not violated by killing pursuant to a lawful order in an armed conflict. But don’t ask me to give an opinion on your exception. I only teach the general rules. Whether an exception applies to you is your responsibility. You must work that out individually between you and the Lord.

~Dallin H. Oaks, “Dating versus Hanging Out,” Ensign, Jun 2006, 10–16

[Matthew0059]

If you don't think this is possible, I suggest you study the scriptures more. A few examples I could cite quickly include Adam and Eve (Multiply and replenish the earth, but don't eat the fruit), Lehi and Jerehmiah (Stay and preach repentance to the city of Jerusalem, but Lehi take your family and leave), and Nephi (Don't kill, but slay Laban).

GaySaint, do you take it upon yourself to admonish me in the ways of GOD and quote the scriptures of the church you yourself cannot be a part of? You know not what you do, and I implore you to reconsider.

[GaySaint]

Why do you take it upon yourself to chastize me for not being a member of the church? Are the scriptures for private interpretation? Is prayer and revelation exclusively available to people who are members of the LDS church?

Now that you have that out of your system, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't attack me personally, and address the issue at hand.

[prisonchaplain]

GaySaint, do you take it upon yourself to admonish me in the ways of GOD and quote the scriptures of the church you yourself cannot be a part of? You know not what you do, and I implore you to reconsider.

You are probably aware that there are members here of many degrees of faith, often from different countries around the world. There are, of course, also non-members, who obviously have a measure of curiousity about your faith. So, when questions arise from Gentiles, from former members, or from members who perhaps live in ways that you believe disqualify them from offering you spiritual counsel, it can still be useful to address their inquiries--if only to benefit those like myself. This question of just how beholden members are to the prophets is very intriguing.

[MarginOfError]

GaySaint, do you take it upon yourself to admonish me in the ways of GOD and quote the scriptures of the church you yourself cannot be a part of? You know not what you do, and I implore you to reconsider.

Woah...hold on there, pal. GaySaint absolutely may be a part of this church if he chooses to be. Even if he chooses to make choices that don't align with fundamental doctrines of the Church, that in no way prevents him from developing an understanding of its teachings. Having followed your last few posts in this thread, I'm afraid it is you who knows not what you do.

And I'll put myself on the line here. I've put a lot of thought and effort into trying to understand the Lord's will in the matter of same sex marriage. And then I've taken the Lord's advice to Oliver Cowdery to heart...that I should pray about the issue, knowing that the Lord would tell me in my mind and in my heart what is right. Here's the thing though--I've never felt it in my mind and in my heart that it is right to vote against same sex marriage. Did you hear that? I've never received confirmation in my mind and in my heart that the prophet's counsel is correct.

Now, would you recommend that I act on the current prophet's counsel, or that I act on the canonized word of the Lord?

What you so boldly state is such a simple matter is not really such a simple matter. There is an awful lot of cognitive dissonance for many faithful members of the Church on this matter and for many people that are sincerely and earnestly seeking answers from the Lord. Your statement that not voting the way for which a prophet has expressed a preference (or simply not voting on the matter) makes a member not a true blue mormon, or at least a member misusing his agency is pejorative, condescending, and petulant. Especially in light of the fact that it has been made clear by the Church that voting one's conscience has no bearing on a person's worthiness or spirituality.

The Church took up a political issue, and members are free to disagree with the political stance. What members are not free to disagree on is that marriage was ordained of God between a man and a woman, and that sexual relations are intended to be kept between a man and a woman legally and lawfully married. That is, we don't get to disagree with the core doctrines (at least not publicly). But the Church has no doctrine about how our religious beliefs should translate to civil law.

[GaySaint]

Matthew: In addition to what PC and Moe said, if I am wrong in my way of thinking or how I view how the church views this issue, I would love to hear your opinion. I didn’t mean to imply that you were “understudied” on the scriptures (although I probably did say it harsher than I should have because I think you’ve been pretty rude to Wing – so I apologize for that); I tried to imply that IF you didn’t believe that it were possible for two TBMs to get two different answers to the same question then there are some scriptural examples… and if you did, then you would (should?) appreciate how getting such an answer would personally further the plan God has for THAT person.

Elder Oak’s quote just provides further backing for that ideology. If you disagree, I would like to hear your reasoning. I don’t appreciate being written off as someone who “...cannot be a part of...” the church. I'm sure you didn't mean to insinuate that a gay person can't be a member in full fellowship, but I could easily have taken it to mean that.

Just in case you believe the former, Hinckley said:

As I said from this pulpit one year ago, our hearts reach out to those who refer to themselves as gays and lesbians. We love and honor them as sons and daughters of God. They are welcome in the Church. It is expected, however, that they follow the same God-given rules of conduct that apply to everyone else, whether single or married" (“Why We Do Some of the Things We Do,” Ensign, Nov. 1999, 54). Emphasis mine

EDIT: MOE, thank you!! Of course, this issue may be black and white for Matthew - that may be the understanding the Lord has given him, and if that is the case, I'm totally fine with that. My issue is when he judges others for what the Lord may have told them. If I expect him to understand that the Lord may tell one person one way, I also have to understand myself that it is possible that the Lord told him another. Am I making sense? :)

Edited September 14, 2010 by GaySaint

[Wingnut]

Because it goes against the direct advice of men they have actively sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators.

And what of personal revelation?

GaySaint, do you take it upon yourself to admonish me in the ways of GOD and quote the scriptures of the church you yourself cannot be a part of? You know not what you do, and I implore you to reconsider.

Bad form, and entirely uncalled for.

[Moksha]

I would like to issue a challenge to stick with the topic for the next three posts.

[pam]

GaySaint, do you take it upon yourself to admonish me in the ways of GOD and quote the scriptures of the church you yourself cannot be a part of? You know not what you do, and I implore you to reconsider.

3. Personal attacks, name calling, flaming, and judgments against other members will not be tolerated.

[GaySaint]

Thank you all. It really means a lot to me that I would have so many jump to my defense here, but let's not be too hard on Matthew. I probably deserve a little criticism (and must LOVE punishment for signing up for an LDS website, haha). We're all a bit guilty of getting too passionate about this issue...

For Moksha: I thought the letter was reasonable =)

[Moksha]

Years ago, BYU cancelled the scheduled PG rated movie Bless the Beasts and the Children. The manager of the BYU student center listed the reason as being, "It was too real for our people".

Could this letter have been too honest?

[GaySaint]

Moksha: I think it was honest - that if you remove religion from the discussion the secular reasons for prohibiting gay marriage look more like fear tactics - but I don't think it's wrong for the religious ideals to be discussed as long as they are discussed as religious ideals.

Since the letter addressed the prop 8 case, I think it is fair to say (and on subject) that even the defense witnesses seemed unable to provide a secular reason for banning gay marriage (and whether or not the religious ideals should have been argued is questionable, and one of the points of the letter I think).

My question is: Do you think BYU expected the hailstorm that resulted? Or is the publicity this issue has gotten nothing compared to what they were prepared to handle? Do they owe the secular education world an explanation, simply because they purport to be an educational institution, or does the religious aspect of the school protect them from inquiry (I’m sure this question could be expanded to include many doctrines of the church, but I really am not trying to go there)?

I'm sure the students who agreed with the letter would LIKE an explanation, simply so they know what lines they cannot cross in the future, and it is the students at BYU that I think are owed such an explanation, but not the secular world. BYU can do what they want, in my opinion. I just hate to see religion cited as a reason for censorship without explanation, because it makes religion look like it is incapable of defending itself. While I'm sure on some points religion doesn't care whether or not it is defensible (the "God said so" is good enough), it just seems... unnecessary... to apply that principle here.

[carlimac]

I haven't read all these posts so my opinion might be redundant but I think its appropriate for a school that is funded by the church to censor something like that. In fact I think it was really dumb for them to publish it in the first place. The letter seems to be really challenging the members testimonies of the prophet and that's just inappropriate within the bounds of BYU. A letter like that at the U or USU would be...whatever...just another liberal spouting off. But at BYU- you just don't cross that line. And that's OK with me. That's the way it should be.

Whether I agree with what the letter is saying is another topic for another thread.

[carlimac]

Moksha: I think it was honest - that if you remove religion from the discussion the secular reasons for prohibiting gay marriage look more like fear tactics - but I don't think it's wrong for the religious ideals to be discussed as long as they are discussed as religious ideals.

Since the letter addressed the prop 8 case, I think it is fair to say (and on subject) that even the defense witnesses seemed unable to provide a secular reason for banning gay marriage (and whether or not the religious ideals should have been argued is questionable, and one of the points of the letter I think).

My question is: Do you think BYU expected the hailstorm that resulted? Or is the publicity this issue has gotten nothing compared to what they were prepared to handle? Do they owe the secular education world an explanation, simply because they purport to be an educational institution, or does the religious aspect of the school protect them from inquiry (I’m sure this question could be expanded to include many doctrines of the church, but I really am not trying to go there)?

I'm sure the students who agreed with the letter would LIKE an explanation, simply so they know what lines they cannot cross in the future, and it is the students at BYU that I think are owed such an explanation, but not the secular world. BYU can do what they want, in my opinion. I just hate to see religion cited as a reason for censorship without explanation, because it makes religion look like it is incapable of defending itself. While I'm sure on some points religion doesn't care whether or not it is defensible (the "God said so" is good enough), it just seems... unnecessary... to apply that principle here.

Wish I knew how to just quote parts of a post. But GS- I think every BYU student knows exactly which lines they can cross and which they can't. They don't need an explanation for this one. The tone was very accusatory and suggestive that too many members of the church don't think for themselves. It's a no brainer why it was pulled. The author of the letter knew exactly what he was doing- trying to raise hackles!!

Again, BYU's goal is to keep itself separated from "the world" and that's the way it should be. If people want an education spiced with worldly flavor they should choose to go somewhere else other than BYU. That said, I wonder what kinds of discussions have gone on at BYU law school on the topic of Prop 8. Does anyone on this forum know? My guess is that they keep things pretty neutral or conservative leaning. But I could be wrong.

[Wingnut]

Wish I knew how to just quote parts of a post.

Just delete the text that you don't want quoted.

[carlimac]

Just delete the text that

Like this? Thank you!! Never would have figured that out myself, or if I did it would have been by accident. That's how my computer and I work together.

[GaySaint]

Carli: I can see how the letter might be a suggestion that people don’t think for themselves, but I still don’t see how calling the secular reasons against gay marriage hogwash, and encouraging members of the church to admit that the reason most are against gay marriage is because the prophet said so, is a negative thing.

You, yourself, have said that regardless of secular reasons for or against, it is the commandment of marriage, ordained by God, and taught by prophets that is the most important reason to vote against gay marriage (at least, that is what I have gotten from your posts). I think only people who feel the NEED to justify it secularly (for whatever reason) would be offended by such a statement. I read the letter as saying, “If the prophet said so, and we believe the prophet to speak for God, why do we need to justify it secularly?… especially because if we actually look at the secular arguments and think about them, we can’t.”

[prisonchaplain]

I think its appropriate for a school that is funded by the church to censor something like that. In fact I think it was really dumb for them to publish it in the first place. The letter seems to be really challenging the members testimonies of the prophet and that's just inappropriate within the bounds of BYU. A letter like that at the U or USU would be...whatever...just another liberal spouting off. But at BYU- you just don't cross that line. And that's OK with me. That's the way it should be.

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.

Edited September 15, 2010 by prisonchaplain

[Wingnut]

I read the letter and found nothing rebellious, nor anything that would challenge the core fundamentals of your church--so long as the reader was a thinking individual.

And that's the key. I think that (bolded text) is exactly the point the author was trying to make.

[prisonchaplain]

And that's the key. I think that (bolded text) is exactly the point the author was trying to make.

I actually edited that part. We all think, and I do not want to imply that those who disagree do not think. On the other hand, it just seems that censoring a letter to the editor discourages good analyzing.

[Soulsearcher]

I really don't think the letter was too far off. While i was in Utah this weekend i talked to a few people about it, and the members i talked to, before they said anything else all said " well you know we were counseled by the prophet to support it right?" I know they weren't voting on it but even just talking about it they had to make sure it was known that the matter had pretty much been decided higher up and they didn't have to do much thinking about it. Ask i asked questions and gave facts their eyes opened wide and they tended to be like " really, is that true?" Didn't change many minds, lol though i didn't have much time, but no matter what was said even if it shocked the crap out of them, it all went back to " the prophet said"

[Just_A_Guy]

And that's the key. I think that (bolded text) is exactly the point the author was trying to make.

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". Those portions may have been redacted, but the tone (and the dots the author wanted his readers to connect) are still reasonably clear.

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.

Edited September 15, 2010 by Just_A_Guy