BYU - Call to Arms


mikbone
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Godless said:

 

And like @Jane_Doe, I am curious at what you mean by "marshmallow men" and "omega males". Because I can tell you right now, the type of men that I typically see throwing around terms like "alpha male" and "omega male" couldn't possibly be farther from the type of man I want my son to be.

Amen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Vort said:

He literally just said he was not. If you refuse to take his words at face value, why should you expect to have yours so taken?

I heartily disbelieve this. For the past 25 years, I have raised my family on one unimpressive salary (and sometimes no salary for months at a time) in one of the more expensive markets in the nation. We did not live in a huge house. We had three boys sharing a triple bunk bed. We never ate out. When we took the occasional vacation, it was to someplace within a day's drive. We owned used vehicles.

And despite whatever failures you may assign to my efforts to provide for my family, we were and are happy. On one income. In the Seattle area.

So no, I don't buy the weak excuse of "we HAVE to have two incomes just to make ends meet!" For every family who makes that claim truthfully, I can show you ten who simply live above their income.

 

+1. 

My family lived on my "wonderful" police income and a part time job (8 hours a week) for most of the last 25 years.  We bought a modest house and had one car for most of those 25 years.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

People can listen to the same talk and hear very different messages.  There is an extremely high probability of that being the case for this talk. As I’m specifically interested in how YOU are using the term, my asking you for your own definition in your own words, rather than me imposing my hearing on to you. 

I am not trying to re-define a term that one of my favorite apostles coined.  Once again, this is the word used in context.  I think I understand what he means.

You’re soon going to go out into a world full of marshmallow men. Like the act of putting a finger into a marshmallow, there is no core in these men, there is no center, and when one removes his finger, the marshmallow resumes its former shape. We are in a world of people who want to yield to everything—to every fad and to every fashion.”

This term was used in 1974 by Maxwell and I recognized it’s meaning immediately.  

I could have used a term like Libra Gender Masculine but I didn’t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, mikbone said:

I am not trying to re-define a term that one of my favorite apostles coined.  Once again, this is the word used in context.  I think I understand what he means.

You’re soon going to go out into a world full of marshmallow men. Like the act of putting a finger into a marshmallow, there is no core in these men, there is no center, and when one removes his finger, the marshmallow resumes its former shape. We are in a world of people who want to yield to everything—to every fad and to every fashion.”

This term was used in 1974 by Maxwell and I recognized it’s meaning immediately.  

I could have used a term like Libra Gender Masculine but I didn’t.

Again, that’s not helpful for me to understand what you mean here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mikbone said:

7EB98E0E-5052-41F6-AFDB-5CA187384E86.thumb.jpeg.8079fac5775eb025cd787cb5e8b18c08.jpeg

This is a book written by a couple of Navy Seals.  It is available in audible format.  it is not Christ centered.  But if a man was trying to find his backbone this would be a good self help source.

So, a man can’t have backbone unless he’s a SEAL? Is a man “showing backbone” if he refuses to compromise on an issue that you disagree with? Or is it only “showing backbone” if you agree with him? Curious. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

So, a man can’t have backbone unless he’s a SEAL? Is a man “showing backbone” if he refuses to compromise on an issue that you disagree with? Or is it only “showing backbone” if you agree with him? Curious. 

Read the book.  No, one does not have to be a Seal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Read the book

No thanks.

5 minutes ago, mikbone said:

No, one does not have to be a Seal.

Oh, thank Goodness.

All this talk about what it takes to “be a man” has always been silly to me. A “real man” wouldn’t let someone else's definition of masculinity effect him. But to each their own. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Indeed. You have a “call to arms” and yet cannot explain what your concern is. I am trying to understand.

You are trying to hijack the thread.  You are also a non-combantant.  

I’m not trying to fight you.

The point of this thread is to see if anyone else sees a problem.  Or if they have an idea how to fix BYU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, mikbone said:

if anyone else sees a problem

Yes.

8 minutes ago, mikbone said:

an idea how to fix BYU

BYU is a result, not a cause. The cause is a combination of things. The root of it, of course, is Satan's winning for the time, as we know he will for a time as the end comes. But next level up is probably family and parenting failures. And society's standards and views that naturally bleed into BYU. Mirkwood, I believe, said something about a cancer at BYU. The cancer is much broader than that. The whole world has cancer. Naturally it's filtered into BYU too.

The solution is the gospel. The gospel is sufficient. The gospel teaches men to be as Christ. There is no better role model for men.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, mikbone said:

You are trying to hijack the thread.  You are also a non-combantant.  

I’m not trying to fight you.

The point of this thread is to see if anyone else sees a problem.  Or if they have an idea how to fix BYU.

I am a member of society, former attendee of BYU-I and have many loved ones whom are graduates of BYU Provo, and family members currently attending BYU. 

I find being able to articulate one’s concerns at be an important skill. I can’t help find a solution to a problem that’s not expressed. And no, I don’t find educating women to be a problem or sinful.  Same with women being able to choose to work. Same for folks attracted to members of the same sex. 

I have encountered folks ( both at BYU’s, in the church, and in general) whom have very harmful ideas of “ masculinity “, which frequently involve curtailing the agency of others and limiting thier own growth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a gospel perspective I would say "being a man" is as defined in The Family Proclamation:

"By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families."

This is of course is in addition to the qualities and responsibilities husband's are to share with their wife and those expected from everyone in general. But this is what needs to be taught at BYU. I would go so far as having a test on the Family Proclamation that every student must pass with a 100% grade or they do not graduate. It may not make people change but it will force them to acknowledge the doctrine, then it's on their heads.

Likewise I would require all faculty to sign a pledge to never teach anything contrary to what is found in the proclamation. I imagine they probably have something in place concerning apostate teachings in general but on some things I think they need to be specific and then enforce it. It's a church school. If they have issues with the Church then they shouldn't teach there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, laronius said:

From a gospel perspective I would say "being a man" is as defined in The Family Proclamation:

"By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families."

This is of course is in addition to the qualities and responsibilities husband's are to share with their wife and those expected from everyone in general. But this is what needs to be taught at BYU. I would go so far as having a test on the Family Proclamation that every student must pass with a 100% grade or they do not graduate. It may not make people change but it will force them to acknowledge the doctrine, then it's on their heads.

Likewise I would require all faculty to sign a pledge to never teach anything contrary to what is found in the proclamation. I imagine they probably have something in place concerning apostate teachings in general but on some things I think they need to be specific and then enforce it. It's a church school. If they have issues with the Church then they shouldn't teach there.

I don't know if I fully agree...but something along those lines would be interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mordorbund said:

St. Peter recently made some changes for lawyers so that their lifespans are based on billable hours. It keeps JAG honest.

To the contrary, now I pad my bills more than ever!  (Or was it an inverse relationship that he set up between billable and lifespan?  Fetch, I’d better rethink this—

[JAG drops over, dead . . .]

3 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

I am a member of society, former attendee of BYU-I and have many loved ones whom are graduates of BYU Provo, and family members currently attending BYU. 

I find being able to articulate one’s concerns at be an important skill. I can’t help find a solution to a problem that’s not expressed. And no, I don’t find educating women to be a problem or sinful.  Same with women being able to choose to work. Same for folks attracted to members of the same sex. 

I have encountered folks ( both at BYU’s, in the church, and in general) whom have very harmful ideas of “ masculinity “, which frequently involve curtailing the agency of others and limiting thier own growth. 

I don’t know that Mikbone has said we shouldn’t be givin’ the wimmin’ none o’ that thar fancy book larnin’. ;)  I read him as suggesting that a) women in the gospel have the privilege of not being expected to work outside the home unless they want to, b) women in the gospel have a right to a husband who will make that happen for them, and c) seen through the lens of the Gospel, a woman’s experience at BYU is worthwhile if it makes her a better mother and wife in the new and everlasting covenant marriage, whether or not she actually gets her academic degree.

The book title page that Mikbone offered, seems to provide a useful bullet list of what his view of healthy masculinity entails.  I’d recommend taking another look at it, if you are truly perplexed as to what kind of vision he’s putting forward here.  I don’t know that I agree with (or perhaps, fully understand) his vision in its entirety; but I think I understand the gist of it and I don’t think it’s fair to characterize it as either inherently harmful, spiritually stunting, or restrictive of agency.  (Yes, patriarchy opens the door to those kinds of abuses . . . but so does parenthood, and so does love, and so does institutional education, and so does government, and so does modern medicine, and so do the structures surrounding competitive sports, and so does media; and none of those institutions get the kind of bad rap that “patriarchy” does.  So we should probably ask why this one institution happens to be the only one of the above that is being almost universally pooh-poohed in our modern society; and whether that singular degree of criticism is related to the fact that that that same institution is a core concept of our temple liturgy and the crowning rituals of the church’s “covenant path”.)

People will naturally speak from their own experiences; but for whatever mine is worth—among the active, temple-recommending Church membership, toxic masculinity is less of an issue than outright misandry.  (Maybe toxic masculinity is more of an issue among that uneducated, rural subset of jack-Mormons who go to a cousin’s baby blessing on Sunday and shoot up with meth on Monday—I’ve known plenty of those through my work—but in my experience those aren’t the ones going to the temple and showing up regularly on Sundays and holding callings and generally making the Church work.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Vort said:

. For the past 25 years, I have raised my family on one unimpressive salary (and sometimes no salary for months at a time) in one of the more expensive markets in the nation. We did not live in a huge house. We had three boys sharing a triple bunk bed. We never ate out. When we took the occasional vacation, it was to someplace within a day's drive. We owned used vehicles.

And despite whatever failures you may assign to my efforts to provide for my family, we were and are happy. On one income. In the Seattle area.

So no, I don't buy the weak excuse of "we HAVE to have two incomes just to make ends meet!" For every family who makes that claim truthfully, I can show you ten who simply live above their income.

This is perhaps a side note, but the people that are truly struggling to raise a family on a single income (I don't mean there's a super-tight belt or an unglamorous lifestyle, but are near constantly begging with no end in sight) have generally dropped the ball somewhere in life. 

This may be part of the omeaga-male conversation, though I will happily apply it to women: people who leave high school and fail to find a plan in a timely manner for living life. 

That old folk wisdom about not having kids till marriage and graduating high school and other such things is a very accurate reality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I remember when the idea of being a "rich lawyer" was a thing.

There's a guy in our ward who was a lawyer. He quit to become a school teacher because he could make better money. A SCHOOL TEACHER TO MAKE BETTER MONEY!

To quote a Sondheim lyric: Smoke on your pipe and put that in.

I do not live in a fancy neighborhood. In fact, apparently it has the cheapest home prices and rent in Utah. There's a couple of lawyers and dentists in the neighborhood who just aren't making all that much money.

The joke I hear about law graduates is they can wait tables.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share