Why? Because Elder Holland addressed BYU faculty and staff yesterday and published the transcript at the LDS Newsroom. There are stories on the address at the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News. Social media is ablaze with rebuttals. Honestly, I’m not eager to tackle the topic. There are a lot of things going on in the world at the moment that have a stronger claim on some attention from my weekly soapbox. Thousands of US military are working hard to get US citizens and some lucky Afghan nationals out of Afghanistan. The latest Covid surge threatens all of us, while millions of Americans defiantly refuse to get vaccinated and a couple of idiot governors do their best to block measures that will slow the spread in their state. Doctors and nurses are increasingly overwhelmed by case loads, exacerbated by frustration that much of this surge could have been avoided. I’m a little miffed that I am going to talk about the annual GA pep talk to BYU faculty and staff rather than other more important stuff. It rained (rather than snowed) in central Greenland for the first time in twenty thousand years. For the second year in a row, I’ve had family members around the West evacuate their homes because of threatening wildfires which get worse every year. The list goes on. But okay, let’s talk about BYU. Nothing like a little friendly fire to cheer up your day.
A nice place to go to college. Let’s start on a positive note. For the average LDS kid, BYU is a great place to go to college, and not just because tuition is fairly affordable. There were about a dozen LDS kids at my high school out of mabye 1500 students. Like any good LDS kid, I avoided high school parties (and drugs and drinking and sex) and did early morning seminary and service projects and church basketball. Going to BYU was great. A safe social environment. You could relax and have a good time without the always-be-on-your-guard feeling. In the decades since I was a student, I know some things have changed. The Honor Code (bad name: it’s about conduct and conformity, not honor, but that’s another post) has been tweaked and the Dress Code (at least an accurate name) is still there, but not that much has changed. I am confident that for tens of thousands of LDS students, BYU is still a great place to go to school. I think the hundred million bucks of our tithing money that goes to BYU every year is well spent.
Whatever happend to “the Harvard of the West”? The same Elder Holland who spoke to BYU faculty and staff yesterday was President of BYU from 1980 to 1989. I think it’s fair to say he continued the efforts of his predecessor, Elder Oaks, to beef up the academics at BYU. Here is a paragraph from a 1983 Ensign article on Elder Holland that catches some of his academic emphasis:
Challenged by President Spencer W. Kimball at his inauguration to help BYU become an “educational Mt. Everest,” President Jeffrey Holland has responded enthusiastically. Striving to make BYU the “Harvard of the West” might be a worthy enough goal for some, but President Holland has gone on record as preferring to see Harvard and Yale fighting “to see who can become the BYU of the East!”
My sense from reading Elder Holland’s address yesterday is that LDS leadership is not so much concerned with BYU’s academic success as a university anymore. That’s almost irrelevant to them. The primary focus has shifted to making sure every naive LDS 18-year-old who enters BYU has a carefully insulated college experience suffused with Mormon cultural, moral, and religious values (with no serious discussion of these values allowed) and exits a few years later as a naive LDS 24-year-old with a college degree. Which isn’t really as bad as it sounds. Plenty of college students across the country end up, after a few years of college, with student debt well into the tens of thousands and nothing to show for it except a working knowledge of designer drugs, premium brew, and the latest video games. Like I said, I do honestly think BYU is a good place for an LDS kid to go to college. I just wish there was more emphasis on academic excellence by both students and faculty. Really, that ought to be job one for any university.
He should have talked about Covid shots, not musket shots. Elder Holland appealed to the faculty (remember, he was addressing the faculty, not the students and not the general Church membership in a Conference talk) to be better defenders of the Church. He chose an unfortunate metaphor to emphasize this, quoting Elder Neal A. Maxwell as follows:
“In a way[,] [Latter-day Saint] scholars at BYU and elsewhere are a little bit like the builders of the temple in Nauvoo, who worked with a trowel in one hand and a musket in the other. Today scholars building the temple of learning must also pause on occasion to defend the kingdom. I personally think,” Elder Maxwell went on to say, “this is one of the reasons the Lord established and maintains this university. The dual role of builder and defender is unique and ongoing. I am grateful we have scholars today who can handle, as it were, both trowels and muskets.”
I’d rather have BYU faculty focus on academics and being good researchers and teachers. Yes, they should also be good models of LDS citizenship for the students and say a nice thing or two about the Church and Mormon beliefs here and there in lectures or office visits when the topic comes up. But let’s leave apologetics to FAIR and FARMS and the Religion Department.
Besides, right here, right now, at BYU in August 2021, with thousands of new students returning to BYU from around the country or arriving for their exciting freshman year, the biggest threat to BYU faculty and students isn’t gay marriage or critiques of LDS history — it’s getting a bad case of Covid. I’m sure BYU faculty, like university faculty and teachers of high school, middle school, and elementary students all over the country, are concerned about exposure to Covid because of close contact with their students. They don’t want to get sick and die because they are around students who don’t get vaccinated or who don’t quarantine when they become Covid-postive. Elder Holland should have been talking about Covid shots, not musket shots. He should have supported a BYU policy that strongly encouraged, if not required, all faculty, staff, and students to get vaccinated. (I don’t know exactly what BYU’s Covid policy is at the moment.) Especially given BYU’s location in Utah County, surrounded by thousands of Mormons who think it’s their patriotic duty and personal right to not get vaccinated, regardless of what the First Presidency tells them.
So why are so many people upset by Elder Holland’s remarks? Let me venture a guess. It’s likely because he spent half his address talking about homosexuality and gay marriage and LGBT issues, more or less laying down a directive that hey, we don’t talk about that at BYU, much less march in a protest or put up banners or drop a paragraph into a valedictorian speech showing support or sympathy for anything along those lines. Look, it’s 2021, not 1961. If that’s the message Elder Holland was directed to deliver to BYU faculty, or the message he personally felt compelled to give, at least mellow the tone. At least give some hope to LGBT students that they haven’t made a colossal mistake by enrolling at BYU or continuing with their LDS membership. He just sounded like an old guy on his porch yelling at the gay kids, “Get off my BYU lawn!”
Any reasonable person has to wonder why any LGBT person remains an active LDS or chooses to attend BYU. It’s certainly not the mixed messages they get from LDS leadership. It must be because of the friendships they have with other LDS and the fellowship and good feelings many (if not all) LDS get from participation in their wards and the nice college environment BYU offers. Any LGBT person who remains active in the Church and at BYU deserves our admiration and support. It’s tough enough for the average LDS to stay active.
Yeah, mixed messages. Here’s a quote from Elder Holland’s talk showing the “Get off my BYU lawn!” part of his message:
If a student commandeers a graduation podium intended to represent everyone getting diplomas in order to announce his personal sexual orientation, what might another speaker feel free to announce the next year until eventually anything goes? What might commencement come to mean — or not mean — if we push individual license over institutional dignity for very long? Do we simply end up with more divisiveness in our culture than we already have — and we already have too much everywhere.
And here’s a quote from Elder Holland’s address professing love, concern, and support:
In that spirit, let me go no farther before declaring unequivocally my love and that of my Brethren for those who live with this same-sex challenge and so much complexity that goes with it. Too often the world has been unkind, in many instances crushingly cruel, to these our brothers and sisters. Like many of you, we have spent hours with them, and wept and prayed and wept again in an effort to offer love and hope while keeping the gospel strong and the obedience to commandments evident in every individual life.
Now I blog about a lot of things, but LBGT issues aren’t really my thing. There are many who could write more personally and more eloquently on that topic. But even I can see that “same-sex challenge” is just the wrong term to use and suggests a much deeper problem with LDS leadership thinking on the issue. If you have cancer, that’s a challenge, and God bless you and your family if that’s the challenge you or someone in your family is facing. If you got an arm or leg blown of by an IED while serving in the military, that’s a challenge, and if that’s you or someone you know, that person deserves every veteran’s benefit and educational benefit and job benefit they get. But being gay is not a challenge. That’s just your life. Pretty much everyone — even LDS leadership! — agrees now that if your are gay, that’s just the way it is, that’s just who you are. It’s only a challenge if you are LDS or at BYU. Instead of saying “we want to help you with your same-sex challenge,” it seems like LDS leadership ought to be saying “why is it such a challenge for LGBT within the Church and how can we change that?” The leadership thinks it’s someone else’s problem, when almost everyone else recognizes that, for LDS LGBT, the Church *is* the problem.
The good news is … The good news is that, like every other BYU faculty pep talk, this one will likely be forgotten within a week or two. In rather glaring contrast to Elder Holland’s remarks, BYU itself just opened an Office of Belonging, and no that’s not a joke. Here’s from the announcement at BYU’s own website: “BYU announces the formation of a new Office of Belonging.” The subheading reads: “President Worthen shares BYU’s Statement of Belonging as a guide for addressing the needs of all marginalized individuals on campus.” The post is dated August 23, 2021, the same day as Elder Holland’s address. Mixed messages. I guess the Board and the BYU are just going to have to work out between them who belongs at BYU and who doesn’t. I’ll end my post with three cheers and a silent prayer for President Worthen, who seems to be the right man for the job but who has his work cut out for him.
UPDATE: Here are two additional posts that offer nice discussions of Elder Holland’s talk. Highly recommended.
By Jana Riess at RNS: Elder Holland’s BYU speech is for a university of yesteryear.
By John C. at BCC: Elder Holland’s university address reflects a failure of moral judgment that is endemic to the Church.
Wheat & Tares 
I believe that the sign of an enlightened mind is the ability to change one’s mind. I am saddened that far too few are able to do so on this issue.
I have come to realize that what matters is not sexual orientation, it is the loyalty and commitment that comes with marriage. Those who are married and are faithful to a spouse are productive members of society. It is those who practice wanton, uncontrolled sexuality with anyone and everyone like demented stoats who are the source of societal ills.
I must add that the speech referenced above was terrible in terms of marketing. I cannot imagine students wanting to enroll at BYU when they are told that the university no longer cares about maintaining educational and professional certifications. Presumably, students want their degrees to count for something upon graduation.
Not saying that it is intentional but… President Worthen & Elder Holland seem to be acting out a Good Cop/Bad Cop shtick. I offer my thoughts, prayers, and support to all the BYU LGBTQIA+ students, staff, and their allies. An older generation of LDS members leaders seem to have needed to die away or become infirm before blacks could receive the priesthood. History may be repeating itself…
(1) All of the compelling reasons you didn’t want to have to post this are also compelling reasons why Holland shouldn’t have focused his remarks on that. You’re absolutely right. Covid shots, or good grief, fine – talk about divisiveness in general – but give a *genuine* talk about overcoming divisiveness instead of on the one hand condemning it and on the other putting out just about the most divisive symbol I can imagine (a gun) and blaming division on the existence of gay people and allies at BYU.
(2) Taking aim at a specific BYU student’s speech was a straight-up bully move. How absurd. I’ve loved hearing that student’s response.
(3) Given the violent threats that queer folks face, including at BYU, and especially in light of the DezNat movement, the musket analogy was truly horrific. He really should have put that speech through peer review – surely at least one person would have suggested he not use that metaphor? Is it really such an echo chamber? A friend of mine pointed out that Jesus and his teachings need no such defense:
Matthew 26:51-52
“And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest’s, and smote off his ear.
Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”
(4) His whining about how many tears he’s shed over LGBTQ issues disgusted me. I get that he was trying to express that he really does care about this, but it’s not a good look to complain about how sad it makes you to choose to make decisions that hurt people. How sad for him that gay people exist I guess.
More importantly and insidiously to me, he seems to be saying: “Hey, don’t think about this too much – it’s super sad. We’ve done the thinking and weeping on your behalf, and so you just need to fall into line and move on.” Why is Church leadership SO AFRAID that we will apply our baptismal covenants to LGBTQ folks? They literally do not want us to have empathy for that group or any other group that seems contrary to their worldview. If that’s the case, what are those covenants even for?
This was a big oof for me. I know so many people working (myself included) to make congregations a healthier and more inclusive place, but if that’s not what Church leadership wants I’m not sure it’s worth it.
When I read the talk last night I was so sad.
As Elisa pointed out, the singling out of a convocation address was not cool. I have read Matt Easton’s Twitter response and the school approved his remarks. He should not have been singled out that way. Contrast that to Elder Holland’s remarks which were either not reviewed or reviewed in an echo chamber. Huge missed opportunity.
And again as Elisa pointed out, I cannot believe we are talking about muskets in 2021, even in a figurative sense, given the Jan 6 insurrection, the recent events in Afghanistan, etc. Again, did no one think this metaphor was a bad idea?
Basically everything Elisa said. Thank you.
Third saddest thing is the spin on the Deseret News website. They only included the “we love you” parts of the talk. So members will no go around thinking “Where’s the beef?” when this talk is brought up. That’s not just sad, it’s deceitful.
I really just don’t know how much more Mormonism my mental health can take at this point.
One silver lining: I feel humbled and impressed by JCS comment. Thank you.
I do not think this was an address Elder Holland came up with on his own and decided to give. Learning about the inside baseball of how this works, Hugh B. Brown said was this given to him as his charge as an apostle, to “Always be willing to subjugate his own thoughts and accept the majority opinion not only to vote for it but to act as though it were his own original opinion after it has been approved by the majority of the council of the twelve and the First Presidency.” An Abundant Life (p 126-127). My guess is that he was directed very specifically by the FP to say certain things and tried to add as much counterweight as he possibly could. I also think that there are probably some prominent families and donors who are livid that their children went to BYU and then left the Church and that there are many professors who have more progressive views.
I had a wonderful BYU experience and love the school. The faculty are amazing and helped me learn to think critically, stretch my mind and shaped my development. I think trying to reign in the natural progress toward inclusion and more progressive thought is a losing battle and will ultimately backfire. In the short term, it could potentially harm the BYU brand. I heard an interview with Michael Austin (quoted in the Salt Lake Tribune giving a rebuttal to the talk), who said that a Catholic education is done on the Church’s terms, but is freely given as a gift of an education, with no strings attached and no expectations that it will produce good Catholics. A BYU education has lots of strings attached. I think the faculty want to give a good education, but the powers that be want to produce loyal, successful Mormons. One of the things I didn’t like there was that we were constantly guilted into loyalty with talk of how little tuition we paid, how grateful (loyal) we should be, etc. I think messages like this one and those kind of guilt trips used to work better, but I don’t see Gen Z putting up with it.
Elder Holland is confusing divisiveness with diversity.
Recently I’ve been looking at academic job postings at universities outside of Utah. It was refreshing for me to see that most of these schools held diversity as a core value—like, not just in a lip service sort of way but as a Core Value the way BYU values its honor code. UCLA, for example, requires applicants for faculty positions to provide a statement of past contributions to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion because diversity “enriches our work, fosters community and promotes excellence.” As a Mormon, I fear I may have contributed more to Conformity, Hierarchy, and Exclusion over the course of my life. But that’s exactly what Elder Holland is advocating for here.
Pride flags are only divisive to the extent that all civil rights are divisive—in that they’re threatening to anyone who benefits from the oppression of others. The stupid part is that the church does *not* benefit from oppression. Its growth stagnates, its reputation suffers, and its ability to accomplish its own institutional objectives is increasingly hampered. The opposite of that UCLA quote holds true: antipathy towards Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion will result in the cheapening of our work, the erosion of community, and a headlong tumble into irrelevance.
@felixfabulous I also suspect it was a message he was told to deliver, but at this point I don’t particularly care. (Not saying you are excusing him – but a lot are – and I have no patience for that.)
Weren’t we all taught growing up to do what is right, let the consequence follow? Weren’t we encouraged to stand up to people who wanted us to do wrong – even dear friends, even if it cost us relationships / social capital / status / popularity?
Who is Holland loyal to – Jesus Christ, or Dallin Oaks?
I am also worried about BYU students who will be unable to find jobs. Of course, I am *more* worried about LGBTQ students / people who will self-harm / self-loathe over this, but it’s ironic that his attempt to save the institution is IMO going to hurt its reputation. They will be less able to attract good students and good faculty and their students will have a harder time getting jobs and graduate programs.
If this is really about donors well, good grief, put that $100B to use. The Church has enough money to do the right thing. Why do they only care about *some* people’s letters?
My new bishopric is coming to meet us this evening. They will – as lovingly as I can muster – be getting this message from me:
Yesterday was my birthday. I woke up to a house decorated for me (never had that before) and a centerpiece on the dining room table of a small group of unicorn ducklings swimming under a rainbow archway. The gays boys in my life did all of that – totally made my day.
Then news of Holland’s talk. Watched the video from the newsroom website – you should too. Don’t just read the transcript – watch the video and hear the vehemence in his voice.
I hopped on to an emergency debrief Zoom meeting with 150+ LGBTQ+ students and their allies. They were all frightened. They discussed safety plans. Plans for providing suicide intervention. What actions should be taken in response.
There was no joy.
Holland’s call to action was expressed in violent terms. It was almost a call to arms. And I’m sure that the DezNat folks will take it that way.
1- Watch the talk and wrestle with it
2- Reach out to community members and their families. Let them know you will help and support them in whatever they may need at this time. Don’t let them feel alone. Statistically, you’ve got a dozen or more in the ward.
LGBTQ suicides spike after every general conference, more so when the community get a mention (most often unfavorably). This was an all out attack on the community, delivered with violent overtones (“I want to hear some musket fire”). BYU faculty and staff were put on notice that supporting same sex marriage will not be tolerated (one reason given was that BYU is losing donors) and that the stance will be defended even if it means that BYU loses it’s accreditations.
Set aside beliefs, policies, and doctrines for a moment: The community and their families will need all of our help – no matter what you personally believe about SSM. The parable of the good Samaritan teaches us that comfort and support should always be our response. And let’s try not to play the role of the robbers while we’re at it. They don’t need to be preached to today.
PS I posted this comment on a much earlier OP before for this one was published.
“… who live with this same-sex challenge …”
Isn’t that rather like saying “…who live with this blue eyes challenge…”
I wonder how many of the Brethren have read Greg Prince’s Gay Rights & the Mormon Church – Intended Actions, Unintended Consequences.
Two sad comments:
1. Any good will that BYU earned with its new office of “belonging” just got blown up with one speech
2. The crazies who believe BYU is too liberal just got a major endorsement
Josh H (BYU class of 1990)
Elisa: While I love your recommendation of peer reviewing the talk, when the hallmark of your organization is unquestioned hierarchical fealty, peer review is not possible any more than independent viewpoints are. This is honestly worse than outlawing freedom of thought and speech. It’s literally saying you have to defend things that you personally find reprehensible or face losing your job and your educational investment. Is this the Church or North Korea?
I could not agree more fully with JCS on this one. Nobody going to BYU (or teaching there) will want to be at an institution that no longer cares about losing its accreditation.
I just finished reading Tara Westover’s memoir about being raised in rural Idaho by a mentally ill right wing father who thought that BYU was overrun by godless secular liberals. I laughed about how crazy his ideas were, and then yesterday, saw that Holland sounds a lot like her crazy dad.
Angela C-
If you want a jolt, go read the first half of 1 Nephi now. Lehi and Nephi sound like Tara’s dad, too. At least they did to me when I read them right after Educated.
His speech reminded me so much of a 1970s era apologia on the church’s culturally unpopular stand on race. “It may be a sad situation for black people, but there’s nothing we can do about it, it’s God’s will, so be a good soldier and defend that position.” And I think he was trying to rein in the administration and faculty who he is implicitly accusing of being too lax and worldly on this subject, to the point where he was willing to throw a young kid under the bus to criticize the dean/admin who approved his commencement speech. Disgusting that Holland would stoop to that level.
As a parent of two gay kids (both RMs and BYU grads), I had always appreciated Holland and thought he was an ally, maybe even the right person to someday question the church’s position. He was the GA who was first on the scene in San Francisco after Stuart Mattis ended his life on the stake center steps, and comforted his family. He has corresponded with many families about LGBTQ issues knows intimately the harm the church’s position has caused. I have no doubt he has shed many tears over these issues and with these families. Alas, in the end, he too has yielded his integrity to the church’s conservative base.
@Angela C, oh, I know. Peer review is a total pipe dream. But a girl can dream.
I grew up in Utah County in the 80’s and 90’s. I didn’t know anyone as extreme as Tara Westover’s dad, but I saw the seeds of it – so it was very interesting (chilling) to see the full-blown manifestation. We. did have several families leave our area for Idaho to get ready for the second coming. I guess they’re still waiting. And a lot of Bo Gritz signs during one election cycle. At the time, I had no idea how crazy that was! Just thought he was another third party candidate like Ross Perot. Hahahahaha.
Aside from the abhorrent rhetoric against LGBTQ students and faculty allies, I found the general tone of the talk distasteful. It was ring-knocking at it’s worst, celebrating BYU’s position as a truly anointed institution, all others be damned. I thought all of that “Lord’s University” nonsense was an old trope, but it looks like Elder Holland believes it fully and wants to perpetuate it. This is offensive to those of us who, as faithful Church members, attended secular universities (against the advice of parents and Church leaders), and still had great educational experiences and became functional adults.
Elder Holland stated unequivocally that he would be willing to sacrifice BYU’s accreditation and mainstream academic reputation in order to remain steadfast in their institutional bigotry. That puts the school on the sure path of becoming more like Liberty U. and Bob Jones U. (weird conservative Christian schools that consider themselves above worldly recognition, and as such are no longer taken seriously by the rest of the academia or by future employers) rather than ever approaching the status of “Harvard of the West”.
“Ever learning, but never coming to a knowledge of the truth.” What more needs to be said?
During the Civil Rights era there were many members that questioned the Church’s priesthood ban and the rationale for same. They were essentially proven correct.. Likewise those who questioned authority counsel that heterosexual marriage cures SSA. So far as I can see, we’re all in this together, and the leadership does not have a corner on truth. Humility should extent to the Brethren as well as the members. We learn from each other.
Thanks Dave B for a great post. I like the tone of your post — the world does have some very large problems that we should all be working together to solve.
Pardon the personal reflection here. I am one of many who made the transition out of orthodoxy. After coming to accept not only the gay people in my life but also to celebrate their relationships, my life got better and I am more able to accept and to love others. Of course I am only partway down the path of becoming a genuinely kind and loving person.
I feel sad that the orthodox can’t see what is on the other side of their orthodox positions—more peace and more love. I don’t feel angry at Elder Holland or other orthodox LDS. When I was there I couldn’t see it either. I get it.
How strange it is to know that I was once there.
This is clearly a hill that BYU (and the church itself) is willing to die on, despite their obfuscating rhetoric about shedding tears, etc.. Several people above have noted that this will further taint BYU’s brand and it’s rather shocking that Holland would be so forthright in his proclamation about sticking to “values” at the expense of reputation. The cruelly ironic thing is that Holland’s rhetoric is wounding to both the LGBTQ population AND to the TBM young people who attend BYU with the hopes of obtaining gainful employment. Among the many other negative consequences of Holland’s rhetoric, he devalued significantly the cachet of a BYU degree right before our eyes. And they are also having trouble hiring and retaining faculty that have reputations as actual scholars.
BYU’s reputation is already eroding and will only continue to do so. No serious institution of higher learning and intellectual inquiry would dare to use language like this; certainly no public institution of higher learning could even remotely get away with such language. This is madness. And all because of deeply ingrained institutional prejudices. I attended BYU in the late 8os and early 90s and I learned a great deal and worked with (mostly) wonderful faculty; I have quite a number of very fond memories of those years. However, I also feel that if BYU continues this vein of rhetoric and institutional hubris, it deserves not to be accredited and it deserves to fade into obscurity and irrelevance. And so, BTW, does the church itself.
The musket comment was particularly dense given that a lesbian couple in Moab (I do not know if they are or were Mormon) was recently found shot to death in their home in a case now referred to the FBI. And his “joke” at the expense of Elizabeth Taylor and her multiple marriages seemed in poor taste to me.
Unfortunately Elder Holland’s talk provides us with another confusing data point from top leadership when we try to reconcile it with other announcements in the last few days. Examples:
1. BYU announced the formation of the “Office of Belonging” to address the findings of a report which identified serious racism issues at the school. This seems like a positive sign.
2. The Church News ran an article (https://www.thechurchnews.com/living-faith/2021-08-22/byu-education-week-lgbtq-latter-day-saints-222966) about the church’s “LGBTQ and Life Help” resource. The manager of the department is a person “who identifies as gay and lived most of her adult life with a same-sex partner before marrying her husband who is also gay.” Seems like the right background for the job as well as a positive and encouraging signal from the church.
But how do we reconcile the talk Elder Holland gave yesterday with these other recent developments? Also, I could agree more with the OP that a strong message from Elder Holland about the importance of getting a COVID vaccine would have been more timely and relevant. What a missed opportunity!
@Dave F, cynically I believe that the murk in the message is purely PR & damage control and that every once in a while the Church reminds us of the real message. And it was Holland’s.
A few comments:
* Elder Holland’s comments yesterday were surprising and disappointing. I doubt that anyone who has heard him speak eloquently about mental health challenges or the need to love our brothers and sisters regardless of their personal/moral/religious challenges expected that tone or content from him. And the comment about the commencement address speaker was wholly inappropriate and did not reflect what actually occurred in that (pre-approved by the administration) speech.
* The assertion that BYU’s faculty or any sizable cohort of its student body are actively working against the Church and its doctrines is absurd. In a community of 40,000, there will certainly be some who do so through either action or word, but they remain a miniscule percentage of those on campus. Are there a sizable number of faculty and students who support LGBTQ students/friends/family members in keeping with their baptismal covenants? Absolutely. Are there those who discuss policies and doctrines in a critical way as part of legitimate academic inquiry or in an effort to better understand the Church and its teachings? Yes. Are there those who point out and complain about the more ludicrous aspects of the Honor Code? Sure…and rightly so. But at the end of the day, the vast majority of those at BYU are there because they want to be part of the BYU community–and most of those just want to make it a better place.
* The implication that the Church leadership would accept the loss of accreditation of programs and sacrifice BYU’s academic reputation is troubling to say the least. I can tell you from experience that there is concern among faculty about this–and that concern predates yesterday’s talk–and that there are real potential consequences for students going into the job market with a BYU diploma in that scenario…especially since there are several industries that already express skepticism or outright disdain towards BYU alums.
* I attended BYU for eighteen months and have taught there for eighteen years. When my colleagues at other institutions ask me how I can teach here, I tell them that 90% of the time it is a terrific place to work–great support for research, smart (if not always motivated) students, excellent colleagues, and a nice place to live. The other 10% makes me crazy. For example, the student who dropped my class because I required a film that did not conform to “For the Strength of Youth”….whose father-in-law then contacted the university president to complain. Then there was the student who called me an apostate for questioning the Brethren when I had a discussion of the wisdom of inviting Vice President Richard Cheney to speak on campus (he relented when I asked him if he thought that the Q15 prayed about the invitation in the Salt Lake temple). And, of course, there are the administrators who see themselves as junior general authorities and make our lives miserable. But at the end of the day, the pros far outweigh the cons…especially given the challenges faced at most other institutions of higher learning in the United States.
* I tell my students every semester that college is a time for them to figure out who they are and what they believe (theologically, politically, and otherwise). I urge them to expose themselves to as much information and as many perspectives as possible, to take advantage of the opportunities offered on campus, and then make up their own damn minds. I tell them that it is not my job as a member of the faculty to indoctrinate them in any way; rather, it is to help guide them through the process of learning given my greater experience. If that is apostate to some people, then guilty as charged.
* One of the biggest problems at BYU is the infantilization of the student body (and, to a degree, the faculty). These are adults. Treat them as such.
In the recent past the church has spent more than $10 million (but no apology) trying to repair its relationship with the African American community over a doctrine/policy that was a horrendous mistake from inception. Looking into the future 30-40 years, I expect we’ll see church leaders throwing exponentially more money at the LGBTQ+ community (still no apology) trying repair generations of hurt they’ve caused. Talk about lazy learners.
And not just lazy learners. Ignorant, smug, dangerous ones.
Elisa nailed it, and I appreciated DJ’s insights.
“This was a big oof for me. I know so many people working (myself included) to make congregations a healthier and more inclusive place, but if that’s not what Church leadership wants I’m not sure it’s worth it.”
I’m with Elisa on this. It’s been so painful.
Also, I’m in graduate school at one of the top universities in my field. My hope was after completing my PhD to come back and teach at BYU. But I’m not going to teach somewhere that isn’t accredited. I’m not going to teach somewhere where I’m expected to “fire muskets.” I love the combination of faith and scholarship at BYU. It was an immense blessing in my life. But why can’t I be like those in the past who questioned the priesthood ban and the (faulty, now admittedly racist) teachings behind it by leadership? Where is the sin in thinking for myself and being public about that? I’m not attacking the Church by doing so; I’m saying we’re in need of progress and repentance, as we always are. My heart just truly hurts. At least I’ll have a better university to put on my resume in the future.
If you don’t feel you have enough despair in you life, read the comments on the talk from the church’s Newsroom FB pages.
https://www.facebook.com/search/top?q=newsroom%20of%20the%20church
@BeenThere the BCC comments are bad enough. Stay away from social media!
“scholars at BYU and elsewhere are a little bit like the builders of the temple in Nauvoo, who worked with a trowel in one hand and a musket in the other.” Do church leaders not remember what happened in Nauvoo? People died, the Church was forced to leave, and the temple was abandoned. How is this supposed to be inspirational?
@mary ann not to mention the nauvoo expositor bit.
(1) There goes my Cougar football fandom
(2) JRH is now off the list of Gen Conf speakers I could tolerate.
Their bigotry is a heavy burden for me sitting at my computer in my retirement years. Has been since the Proclamation. All I have to do is be tarred with their bigotry by association as I go on with my straight life. But I can’t even imagine what it’s like for some vulnerable kid not knowing who they can come out to in their families and their student communities so they can live an authentic life. How many hearts will this harden? Can we hope they won’t be the ones these kids have to rely on?
Isn’t the suicide rate of LDS youth high enough already? There have been a lot of supportive messages that might have turned the tide in the last several years. Even if they didn’t come from the church, they came from the members. That change in the climate really encouraged me. Now we’ve taken one huge heavy step backward.
Is that where this church wants to go? Backward? We already have declining conversions, terrible retention rates, growing defections and an aging population of Baby Boomers that will soon be dying off. Isn’t sufficiently sobering? They want the suicides to continue as well?
My remaining hope is that if they can’t be persuaded by basic human compassion maybe the demographics are a language they can understand and take seriously,
The reference to Nauvoo and the need to defend the faith’s definition of marriage wasn’t an accident. Look at the lengths the Church went to to insist that polygamy was God’s definition of marriage. The prophet was imprisoned and murdered, the members were driven out of their city in the dead of winter. The Church left the United States to find sanctuary on the other side of 1200 miles of prairie where polygamy could persist. All that rather than let go of the insistence that faithful Mormons had to accept the revealed definition of marriage at the time – polygamy.
Do we really expect the Church to let go of today’s heterosexual definition of marriage? I know the more liberal Church members like to think things can change, but what precedent do they have for change? To get the Church to abandon polygamy, it took: (1) Congress passing laws against polygamy; (2) the executive branch of govt sending fed marshals to enforce the laws; and (3) the Supreme Court saying there was no constitutional right to polygamy. All three branches of govt combined to fight polygamy. The Church had all its property confiscated; the leaders forced into hiding or fleeing to Hawaii; the Senate refused to seat an elected leader because he was polygamous; disenfranchised everyone who practiced polygamy; Utah’s statehood was at risk. That’s when the revelation came to let go of polygamy. And even then, bits of it persist in our culture and doctrine. People talk like it was just a revelation and so the Church can have another revelation. Did we all forget how drastic the action was that pried polygamy out of the prophet’s hands? Official Declaration 1 lays out the imminent destruction of the Church if it didn’t stop teaching plural marriage. *That’s* what it took. Just public disdain and a string of PR disasters isn’t going to change anything. BYU grads not being able to find jobs isn’t going to change anything.
The Church isn’t going to give up its definition of marriage. The leaders may try to be nice about it, but the fundamentals are never going to change. Elder Holland’s speech is right in line with that.
The anti-LGTBQ stance of the Church is a direct descendant of the doctrine of plural marriage, and the Church will defend it as strongly as it defended polygamy, meaning all the way to the brink of destruction. We’re not even close to that point yet.
I should probably clarify my personal position – I’m divorced, inactive, and queer. I’ve been puzzled for years at the liberal members’ unfounded hope that the Church will someday endorse gay marriage.
I’m not sure whether to ‘like’ or ‘dislike’ Melinda’s comment.
I want an ‘angry”option’! No, I want
a ‘crying’ one.
Would BYU graduates not getting into grad schools, med schools, law schools, dental schools, and business schools change things? If students knew a BYU diploma was going to hurt them in an already cut-throat competition, will they risk it?
No one’s perfect. We all make mistakes. In light of the Jan. 6th insurrection,’ firing muskets’ is not the best way to make one’s point. I’m sure he would regret using that language.
@mez, I don’t see one single person here asking for perfection. Just kindness. Low bar.
All I meant was realize he’s sincerely trying to do his best as an apostle. I heard and felt his emotion.His was not the emotion of unkindness. But as is the case with many unkind conservative members, their comments sound uneducated and mean –which he isn’t. When I hear him I understand his position and reasoning. When I hear them, they are ignorant, fearful and unChristian–which he isn’t. He has clearly cared and shed tears over this. I doubt they have.
They are not him and they don’t speak for him.
-Elder Gong has a gay son who came out at BYU. Being gay isn’t his identity. He is many other things. I wish we could stop focusing on one part of a person. BYU graduation is about graduating–not whether the commencement speaker is gay or straight. I don’t tell people my sexual preference when it has nothing to do with why I’m speaking. Yes, it was courageous of the student to come out that way but not
appropriate. I attended a funeral. The son spoke at his mother’s funeral and said little about his mother. Instead he came out at her funeral giving a speech about why it doesn’t matter who we love. He figured he had a captive audience. It was not an appropriate time to do that.
That was Elder Holland’s point. Every occasion isn’t about being gay or not.People aren’t there to hear whether you are gay or not at a graduation. Imagine a GA giving a GC talk Easter morning on the Resurrection and the next sentence out of his mouth is that he and his wife had sex last night.
@mez, comparing saying that you’re a gay son of God as part of a graduation speech (at a school that is hostile to gay people) in order to tell the audience about your journey and inspire others is not remotely comparable to saying you had sex last night. That’s an offensive comparison and one of the harmful things that people who don’t understand sexual orientation assume (that sexual orientation is all about sex. It’s not.). Also Matt’s speech was not a “coming out” speech. It was a graduation speech that mentioned his identity as part of his graduation journey. Have you read it? Seems like neither you nor Holland has.
People talk about personal experiences in talks and speeches all the time. In fact, Elder Holland talks about personal experiences ALL THE TIME. Like when his car broke down on the way to grad school. Or when he and his son got lost. Or when he’s suffered from deep sorrow. Those are just a few I thought of in two seconds. How inappropriate of him! GC isn’t the place to talk about your car troubles or directional mishaps!
I would imagine other grads also share personal experiences. If a grad mentioned getting married or having a child during undergrad would that be problematic? After all, presumably that suggests they had sex at some point.
There is nothing wrong with sharing personal experiences in a speech to connect with people, to express something you’ve learned or overcome. Most good speeches or take share personal experiences. What else would you do? Just read scriptures at people? Btw those scriptures also share personal experiences of the writers. So there’s really no getting around sharing experiences. That’s what we’re made of. And that’s probably why the administration approved that speech.
You’re way, way off here.
Also strange you bring up Elder Gong’s son – he is not active and he talks about being gay in the Church quite frequently. I really don’t understand where you’re going with that. But I’m sure people would stop talking about being gay so much if the church itself didn’t make such a huge issue of it. If a gay person says “stop making such a big deal out of my sexual orientation” that’s one thing. But generally I only hear straight people say that and it’s not about compassion it’s about shutting down uncomfortable conversations.
(Also, even supposing it was wildly inappropriate for Matt to have done that, the appropriate thing for Church leadership to do would be to go privately to the administration and give them rules about approving speeches. Not trashing a student in a public forum and comparing their speech – which was meaningful to many marginalized people – to announcing sin. Totally unkind and uncalled for, and about a lot more than just a graduation speech.)
Missing the pt, mez. It wasn’t that long ago that the Brethren considered homosexuality a “selfish choice.” Again, read the Prince book. The Brethren’s understanding of “the condition” was, and perhaps still is, just this side of unbelievable. They worried that if normalized, more and more people would chose to be gay and humanity would cease reproducing itself.
“ I attended a funeral. The son spoke at his mother’s funeral and said little about his mother. Instead he came out at her funeral giving a speech about why it doesn’t matter who we love. He figured he had a captive audience. It was not an appropriate time to do that.</i"
Do we know how long that young man held that information inside to spare his mother grief or to spare himself a scathing response? Do you have any idea what the pressure of living a life in forced secrecy is?
Lots of ludicrous things to discuss.
1. BYU is not, never was, and never will be the “Harvard of the West.” There are universities in the Western US comparable to Harvard (Stanford, Berkeley, Caltech); BYU is not one of them.
2. No one is forced to attend to BYU. A lot of people here are whining that they want the Church to generously subsidize their tuition with no strings attached, with no input. This is in the great Mormon traditions of wanting things on the cheap (wedding receptions in the basketball gym, etc.), of keeping up appearances (i.e. getting the BYU seal of orthodoxy without actually being orthodox), and denial (not accepting, despite all evidence, that this is a top-down church where conformity is paramount; not accepting that the mission of BYU is not to educate youth, but to turn youth into lifelong active tithe-payers).
3. Elder Holland deserves blame for being stupid enough to use a musket analogy. He knows that there are people who will intentionally distort and misrepresent what he says (“OMG, now the church is telling people to kill gays with muskets!”); he should have anticipated this and used a different analogy.
4. Let’s be brutally honest: the LGBTQ+ community will not be satisfied with the Church until its doctrine changes, until the church no longer considers homosexuality a sin. No amount of church leaders talking about loving LGBTQ+ people will ever offset this. Nothing any church leader says about LGBTQ issues will ever be wholly satisfactory to the entire LGBTQ+ community until the church capitulates about the practice of homosexuality being sinful. And if the church capitulates, then a majority of the church will view the Church as being in apostasy. There is no real solution here for the Church, at least until a few more generations die off, and the Millennials take charge (whose most firm conviction is to “be nice”). Telling people to be quiet about the issue is just a way to slow down the bleeding that the issue causes. Unfortunately, asking for silence causes a bit of its own kind of bleeding.
5. For a few years now, it’s been ludicrous to believe that God is directing the LDS Church’s approach to homosexuality. The POX was enacted, lied about, and then rescinded all within a few years – all by the Eternal, Unchanging God of the Universe, Who sees the end from the beginning (?) LOL. Give me a break. People have had 5 years to see this. Where have you been? How much have you already swallowed? And now a musket analogy has got you angry?
Thanks again mez for reminding us that the standards for the Mormon LGBTQ community is not the same as for the rest of the Mormon community.
For example, Sacrament Meeting. I literally have an email in my inbox asking me to speak on X topic in a few weeks. Included in the email from my church leaders is that I should begin my talk by sharing something about me and my family. So in a meeting that’s supposed to be about Jesus, I’ve been asked to talk not only about myself, but about my spouse and children. In Elder Hollands talk to the University, he talked about his mother and Elizabeth Taylor. But Matt Easton cannot talk about his personal experience earning the privilege of speaking at convocation. Why is your standard for this marginalized community higher than it is for prophets and apostles? That seems extremely unfair.
As I shared on another Mormon blog, you don’t get to tell me how to read this talk. I get to read this talk through the lens of my personal life experiences. And to me, this talk just was not right. Talking about musket fire in 2021? Talking about a student’s pre-approved convocation speech in a public forum when the scriptures literally tell us to talk personally to our brother if he has offended us? A call to arms and literally not following the teachings of Jesus Christ as found in scripture in a talk by one called of God. And yet, in your mind, it’s the comments that are at fault? Please help me understand. I’m very confused.
Lastly, our sexual orientation is more prominent than you think. Go this next week never mentioning your spouse or kids. I think you’ll find you talk about your sexual orientation a lot more than you think you do.
Elder Packer was so very prophetic in his 1993 Talk to the All-Church Coordinating Council. We are now reaping the whirlwind that has been sown.
Has anyone considered the very real possibility that Elder Holland is quoting President Oaks (irrespective of how unwise and unfortunate the metaphor) in an attempt to curry favor with President Oaks with respect to his (Oaks) gospel hobby horse ? What better way to signal to President Oaks that Elder Holland is deserving of a promotion to the first presidency upon the inevitable demise of President Nelson?
Thanks for the comments and discussion, everyone.
FYI, I added links to two other posts at the bottom of my post. Lots of discussion about this talk online.
Elisa said, “Taking aim at a specific BYU student’s speech was a straight-up bully move.” I suspect that was a way of criticizing BYU officials who approved the talk, and Pres. Worthen who oversees the whole operation, without expressly calling them out. Expect next year’s graduation speech to be titled something like, “Aren’t our LDS leaders wonderful?”
felixfabulous said, “I do not think this was an address Elder Holland came up with on his own …” Yes, I think this was a Big 15 talk.
Kirkstall said, “Elder Holland is confusing divisiveness with diversity.” That is a great point. I think that attitude is found at all levels of the Church. One of the top ten phrases you hear in church is “contention is of the Devil.” Well, so is conformity!
Josh h said, “Any good will that BYU earned with its new office of “belonging” just got blown up with one speech.” That can hardly be unintentional. Gibbs’ Rule No. 39: There is no such thing as a coincidence.
Angela C, endorsing a JCS comment: “Nobody going to BYU (or teaching there) will want to be at an institution that no longer cares about losing its accreditation.” It would be nice if Elder Holland would walk back that particular remark.
Bryce said, “His speech reminded me so much of a 1970s era apologia on the church’s culturally unpopular stand on race.” Some people learn from history, others don’t.
Dave F. said, “Elder Holland’s talk provides us with another confusing data point …” Or maybe they have a strategy of speaking nice words (good PR) but taking tough actions. You can fool a lot of people by just saying one thing while doing something completely different. And it’s not like it’s that tough to fool the average Mormon these days.
Melinda made a really good comment above: “Look at the lengths the Church went to to insist that polygamy was God’s definition of marriage.” She is suggesting things would have to get very very bad in terms of pressure and consequences before LDS leaders would consider a policy change regarding same sex marriage. Up to this point, pretty much 100% of members who have patiently waited for positive change have been disappointed.
Now for my own comment: BYU has been spoiled by its popularity with LDS students, who continue to file many more applications that there are entering spots. What if BYU becomes unappealing not just to accrediting bodies or employers but also to students? What if a lot of young LDS students figure out they’ll do better academically and in the job market by attending a state university instead of BYU? What if they can’t fill the incoming freshman class? Maybe that would impel the leadership to review their approach. Or maybe they’d just turn BYU over to the state of Utah. Or sell it to Mitt Romney and some of his investor friends. He saved the Utah Olympics, he can save BYU.
I agree that we all mishandle situations. I’ve been humiliated in a sacrament meeting by a counselor. I’m just saying have some compassion for Elder Holland. It would have been better not to shame Matt but do let administration know privately. People are doing the best they can. Most are not trying to hurt anyone.I have a close gay LDS gay friend in his 6o’s who is a temple worker. He lives a solitary life filled with serving others. He is a private person and prefers to talk about other things . My spouse is not LDS. I understand feeling excluded. My spouse has attended a few times and is taken aback by the personal things people sometimes share over the pulpit–we’re not trained clergy and nonmembers aren’t always expecting to hear something quite personal because they’re used to hearing a sermon.Right, if you visit a traditional faith’s services, synagogue or Catholic, you will hear scripture and nothing personal. Chadwick–fine, talk about your bathroom habits if it fits in. I’m a bit sensitive after Jan 6th to any call to arms because there are some people who are too literal minded .The young man at the funeral, his parents already knew and had no issue with it. But this was about his mother. You know, it’s okay to feel compassion for gays and Elder Holland. One is not the enemy.
You don’t have to attack one to support the other. Yes, I knew gay theatre dept students at BYU. One fellow, not at BYU.
committed suicide. I didn’t get over that. All members know gay members. Secrecy is too painful to live with. It’s good that people are out about it. I’m just saying we are all well aware without having to hear about it constantly at every and any occasion. My cousin is gay. A restaurant I frequent is owned by a gay couple. The neighbors down the street are a gay couple. My best friend’s sister is gay and someone I happen to like a lot. She’s just a person. I don’t think of her and think ‘gay’ and I’m straight. I get why conservatives are tired of hearing the constant drumbeat. I get why gays keep beating about it. But sometimes it’s just overkill and time to give it a rest. If we can show compassion for one side, we can include the other too. Most of don’t speak for the Lord. Twelve do. It’s on them to get it right and that’s a huge responsibility.
I trust they feel an accountability that the rest of us don’t have. That calls for compassion. Gays have it hard. That calls for compassion. People mean well but their words don’t always translate well. That calls for compassion. We are here on earth with lots of opportunity to learn, feel and show compassion. I think that’s why we have these situations.
mez:
You say people are doing the best they can, but is that true?
For example, look at all the comments about Elder Holland’s talk. Some of which, you seem to agree with (no gun metaphors, discussion of the convocation talk in private). If Elder Holland asked someone to proof read his speech, he could have been provided with this feedback. It’s unclear if Elder Holland’s speech was proofread or not, but if it was, it was not proof read by a member who felt they could be honest with a superior (or was proof read by someone so similar to Elder Holland that they would not see these issues). THIS is why corporate America is now taking diversity seriously. The simplest little thing like getting a diverse group of voices in a room would have fixed this talk before it was given. So can we really say they are trying their best?
Also, I re-read my comment after reading yours. Nowhere in my talk did I discuss “bathroom habits” whatever that is supposed to mean. It’s fascinating to me that you are here advocating for everyone to give Elder Holland, a man of substantial privilege, compassion, while reducing my comment to “bathroom habits”, a phrase I did not use, and don’t understand what it means in the slightest (please enlighten me). Where is the charity toward the rest of us mere mortals?
This speech continues the proverbial and perennial dumpster fire of humans being humans who think they have all the answers and are unwilling to compromise long-held and antiquated beliefs. I am partially glad the church leaders have a forum they feel emboldened to share what they think and believe. We can see what their values and morals are, we can then compare them to our own as well as to Christian or other ideals, and finally, make a judgement call on if they are worthy of following and discipleship. On the other hand, I think the un-veiled use of violent metaphors has the chance to give license to the violent-prone and/or ultra-orthodox Desnat crowd to fulfill their own very real and not-so-proverbial set of violent threats and actions in an effort to “protect the church”. If “protecting the church” means protecting the name of the church, the hundreds of billions of stocks and dividend$, living leader’s reputations, and the like rather than actual people, then [slow clap] job well done! If it is to love and support the marginalized 1 by leaving the 99, if it is to make sure the church remains relevant and viable in the 21st century and beyond as a religious organization and not as Joshua Hershal said: “irrelevant, dull, oppressive, insipid” (outside of being a massive real-estate magnate), and if it is to make sure it is a “living” church able to grow with new data, ideas, and behaviors that will actually bless those who are currently living and suffering, then job poorly done.
I am a fan of J Ruben Clark’s: “If we have truth, [it] cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not truth, it ought to be harmed.” If truth cannot be harmed, it doesn’t need protection, the only information that “needs” protection by muskets, violence, and obfuscation is false information. Truth doesn’t need a salesman, missionary, or a youth battalion, it only needs an open mind and a willingness to challenge and change one’s own beliefs based on new data and information that is closer to the truth than belief.
The commenters here have twisted Elder Holland’s metaphor to mean something entirely different than what he clearly intended. The musket in his metaphor is used for defense against attacks (not for offense). It is a reference to the account in Nehemiah of the ancient Israelites rebuilding the wall of Jerusalem with a trowel in one hand and a sword in the other. Elder Holland clearly means this metaphorically, and the metaphor pertains to defending one’s beliefs against aggressive attacks. It also represents the righteous devoting themselves to building up the kingdom while being impeded and attacked by naysayers (a very apt metaphor for our times).
To correctly (that is, honestly) apply his metaphor to LGBTQA issues and individuals, means that members verbally, openly, and readily defend the Church and its doctrine on sexual morality against attacks from those who are trying to tear it down (such as commentators on this board). Currently, those attacks are coming from those who control the legislative and executive branches of the U.S., media, entertainment, academia, sports, and nearly every large corporation.
I greatly respect opinions that are different than mine. I enjoy hearing counter arguments based on reason and facts. However, in this case, you all are arguing based on a blatant misrepresentation of Holland’s words and clear intentions. You’re not discussing the substance of Holland’s views, but instead focusing on his metaphor and uncharitably and dishonestly twisting it to mean something that you know he didn’t intend.
Ruth said, “Would BYU graduates not getting into grad schools, med schools, law schools, dental schools, and business schools change things?”
It’s hard to believe that the church is just charging full speed ahead in the direction of making BYU irrelevant. It’s like watching a game of chicken. Will they flinch and hit the brakes?
Here’s a hypothetical statement: “It’s a small thing for us, as members of the Lord’s church, to sacrifice a preferred career in science to preserve the standard of marriage and protect the family. We all have covenanted to stand firm and defend the faith! What could come before our doctrine of
the familial order of the eternities?” – Future President of the Church
I can definitely hear something like this being said to the general membership at some future point. To them, to cave would be to shred the Proclamation. I feel like we may be hitting our heads against a brick wall on this one.
Danyal Jamil, I see no difference between what you said, what everybody else has said, and what Elder Holland said.
LGBTQ rights = attacks on the church
Defending the church = the shenanigans we’ve all been witnessing
Danyal, I think the burden of proof is on you. How, exactly, is a waving a pride flag against the Church’s stance on sexual morality? Or stating that they are a gay son of God who loves them? You realize, right, that the Church has supported, many, many initiatives, concerts, etc. in support of LGBTQIA+ youth. But, here’s the rub, that’s what Holland was attacking, because, as he stated, some people (fragile people, as you like to call everyone else) are worried and upset over those things at BYU. Please, you’re the one who’s most misrepresenting the talk. Plenty of comments, including this post, address more than the metaphor, but also about academic learning, etc. Nobody’s talking about Hollywood and government, even Holland.But you are ignoring these points because you really, really want to call everyone to repentance over their accurate interpretation of the metaphor. And violent rhetoric, metaphorical or not, is a serious misstep in this case. And, I would say, always, though I’m not going to argue that point with you.
@Danyal Jamil, I didn’t see anyone here argue that Elder Holland intended to incite violence or to actually encourage people to literally shoot LGBTQ folks and allies. We’re familiar with what a metaphor is. We are arguing that it was a deeply irresponsible and offensive metaphor to use, and I don’t think that’s a stretch. It’s already being weaponized by the right. Weapon metaphors are, as it turns out, easy to weaponize.
Also, if you’ve read the comments, there is a lot of other content in the talk that is incredibly problematic. Many here are engaging with that content and, indeed, “the substance of” his views.
You’re entitled to a different view on the content but the accusation of “dishonesty” unwarranted.
Sidenote, as IMO the Church is made of its members and *not* of Elder Holland or even of its doctrine, I’d say folks here aren’t attacking “the Church” – we are doing our best to defend it (our brothers and sisters in the Body of Christ) from harm, be it spiritual, emotional, or physical. And as our surprising ally JCS noted at the beginning, this is about families and people, not “sexual morality”. In fact, what most BYU protestors wanted was to be held to the same standard of sexual morality as their straight peers. Let’s please stop being so obsessed with who and how people have sex within the bonds of marriage. It’s seriously just weird.
The attacks on Elder Holland are unwarranted.
Imagine how quickly Elder Holland’s world was turned upside-down, and inside-out, by the shocking announcement that the BYU-Golden-Goose just laid a Rainbow Valedictorian Egg! Nobody gave Elder Holland the memo!
That Elder Holland made it to the podium without becoming faint is a miracle we should recognize.
That Elder Holland poked at the brat who almost gave him a heart attack is funny. I see it as being mad at the prank and not the person. (Like a whoopie-cushion).
It was a well-executed announcement by a brilliant Valedictorian. I think Elder Holland concedes the brilliance of timing and execution of the announcement with the admonition that BYU graduation ceremonies not become launchpads for agendas.
Fair enough, superfunny, no foul, play on.
foxinhikingshorts: “to cave would be to shred the Proclamation” From your mouth to god’s ears!
Danyal Jamil: “The commenters here have twisted Elder Holland’s metaphor to mean something entirely different than what he clearly intended.” The commenters here aren’t the ones twisting his metaphor. It’s the right wing gun nut Deznat guys, the ones the Church still refuses to rein in. They literally (like the Proud Boys that Trump told to “stand back and stand by”) took his words as a clarion call to arms and immediately started posting their gun memes and punching the air that they finally have sanction to commit homophobic violence (and also target LGBT allies and other “libs”). Do I think Holland wants that? No, of course not. But he’s a Church leader, they are fully aware that this faction exists in the Church, and he not only did not rein them in (nobody has to date), but he stoked their self-righteous furor with a violent metaphor. That was reckless on his part. If he’s ignorant that they would respond that way, he should not be. His words read like hate speech with some flowery window dressing here and there.
With the Mountain Meadows Massacre in our history, we should be steering far far far away from any use of violent metaphors. President Hinckley expressed a desire to put the MMM behind us, but unfortunately, too many remnants of it are still present. Church members were prominent at the January 6th insurrection and the Bundy standoffs. If they have been recipients of church discipline I’m unaware. I’m not a fan of church discipline the way it’s often carried out, but it speaks volumes to let those behaviors go unaddressed while excommunicating members advocating for needed changes. We won’t be able to put the MMM in the past so long as we continue to make use of violent rhetoric and as long as we let gun-obsessed subgroups fester.
Jeffrey Holland should have condemned the white supremacist homophobic views of the Alaska assistant attorney general BYU law school graduate who recently made international news. Not the insightful talk of a student who shared his story as many good commencement speakers do. We can do better.
Chadwick–you expected to share personal things in your talk. I used hyperbole to make my point: fine. share whatever you like –I won’t be telling you what’s too personal. It’s not my place. I’m sure your talk will be just fine.
I mentioned Elder Gong’s son because on here some seem to think if only the apostles would pray the right way or harder about
the issue it would be resolved by gay people being allowed to marry in the temple for eternity because they feel that’s right and fair. As I said, everyone’s family and friends include gay people–apostles aren’t exempt. And they know how to pray and petition the Lord. When Elder Holland says he shed tears you can imagine Elders Gong and Christofferson’s
prayers because it’s their own family. Does anyone really think that they have not discussed the issue to death with the other apostles and not bent the Lord’s ear enough?? No, it’s personal and up close with them. That the other apostles don’t empathize with them?? We can trust that they have asked the Lord, repeatedly. But it’s His church, not theirs or ours. Would people believe it if they heard God Himself in person tell them ” marriage is between a man and woman only”?? Or would they tell God He’s wrong?? What would it take for people to realize that God answered and they don’t like His answer?? I imagine at least 3 apostles would like this amicably resolved–(as if all of them wouldn’t??)
As if some might enjoy excluding God’s children from all His blessings?? Their mission is to bring people to Christ–all people. They work at it 24/7. They genuinely love and care for all people and want them to have every chance to make it to the Celestial Kingdom. I sin, a lot, certainly enough. I feel like I’m made to sin. I would like God to decide my sins aren’t really sins but I have to accept that they are even though they feel quite normal to me. He won’t. I’ll need the Atonement just like everyone else. This is a fallen world. Unfair and bad things happen. I don’t always understand and am not always okay with it. But I have the faith in Him to know it’s going to make sense and work out someday for those who are found with Charity at the Last Day. Loving one another enough, regardless, should be the focus.
I’m sorry if I offended anyone here. it’s a good place to vent frustration. People make mistakes and I’m a people.
I heard the Holland talk. It came off as a cry for desperation. Leaders don’t like having to call out behavior among their own, for it reveals weakness and division. Holland indirectly revealed that there is a lot of support for LGBTQ+ rights at BYU and among the professors. He and other leaders wanted to avoid shedding light on that for a long time. But with the Y being lit in rainbow colors, support for LGBTQ+ rights is at a point it has never been at before. This spells crisis for the leadership. They are in panic mode.
Mez — “ Would people believe it if they heard God Himself in person tell them ” marriage is between a man and woman only”?? Or would they tell God He’s wrong?? What would it take for people to realize that God answered and they don’t like His answer??”
That’s just it. In all this apostolic heel-digging, this kicking against the pricks, there’s no sign of God. Their appeal to authority for all this homophobia goes back to the Proclamation on the Family—a conspicuously Not Canonized document—and no further. There’s no revelation, no vision, no “thus saith the Lord,” no hint of a plan for God’s LGBTQ+ children, only the empty consolation of professed love while the gates stay locked up tight. Is there a bigger question the church needs answered? Has there ever been a greater need for an actual prophet to do some actual revelating (aside from reversing the priesthood ban and the continuing oppression of women in the church and, you know, the destruction of our planet’s climate)?
The epistle of James says God gives liberally. Jesus said God wouldn’t refuse His children when they asked for help. So if there’s no revelation from SLC, let’s not blame God for it. Lets just blame it on an absence of any actual prophets. Sorry to be blunt but there it is.
A good chunk of the membership has figured this out on their own—if you want to know God’s will for His LGBTQ+ children, there’s no point waiting for the middleman, you’ve gotta go straight to the source. And a lot of them have gotten an answer that would provoke the “musket fire” of men who claim to speak for the Prince of Peace.
@Angela C “The commenters here aren’t the ones twisting his metaphor. It’s the right wing gun nut Deznat guys, the ones the Church still refuses to rein in. They literally (like the Proud Boys that Trump told to “stand back and stand by”) took his words as a clarion call to arms and immediately started posting their gun memes and punching the air that they finally have sanction to commit homophobic violence (and also target LGBT allies and other “libs”). Do I think Holland wants that? No, of course not. But he’s a Church leader, they are fully aware that this faction exists in the Church, and he not only did not rein them in (nobody has to date), but he stoked their self-righteous furor with a violent metaphor.”
So. Well. Stated.
Why doesn’t the church rein them in? I’ve been trying to understand the church’s inaction for too long. I thought when they grew to a certain size the church would rein them in. I thought when they drew the attention of the national press the church would rein them in. I thought when they gained the attention of the international press the church would rein them in.
I truly don’t understand.
I’ve heard whispers that the church doesn’t want to give them oxygen, but clearly they’re coming up with all the oxygen they need on their own (and unfortunately, Holland’s talk gave them even more).
Does anyone have any insight on this? Radical religious groups are responsible for too much violence in the world and to think that we may see one developing within the Mormon community is a huge concern. What is going on? Why isn’t the church using the power that it has to rein them in? Why aren’t church leaders introspectively evaluating ways it is inadvertently fanning dangerous flames? I want to understand. Any help?
I’d say the church’s basic orientation has always been authoritarian so they’ve been perfectly comfortable up to a point with the DezNat and ProudBoy ethos. I’m sure even they have seen, by now, how corrosive and dangerous it is, but it’s too late for them to reign it in. The political authoritarians have gotten a taste of what holding the power rather than answering to it is. They haven’t been able to prevail against government yet but the church is an easier target. They can now able tailor demands to their own preferences. Why would they concede to The Brethren when, clearly, they are the ones who have “the truth” and the influence?
For their part, The Brethren can’t risk alienating the authoritarians. They’re bleeding progressive Mormons and the demographically weighty Baby Boomers will soon begin checking out (I’m one; I’m increasingly aware!). Middle of the road Mormons are no longer having huge families to replace the Boomer generation. Church leaders don’t have the influence, as the resistance to their newest position on vaccines and masking has clearly demonstrated. If they’re not able to exert leadership over the the right they’re probably left just hoping to retain anyone they can. There are probably areas of the country in which the DezNat and ProudBoy contingents are the wards.
So what better demonstration of church structure’s remaining power than to threaten faculty whose jobs and pensions depend on them and vulnerable students who are forced to play by their rules for at least the years they’re enrolled? But it will be interesting to see what happens to the defection rate of graduates going forward.
Dental Jamil,
“It is a reference to the account in Nehemiah of the ancient Israelites rebuilding the wall of Jerusalem with a trowel in one hand and a sword in the other. Elder Holland clearly means this metaphorically, and the metaphor pertains to defending one’s beliefs against aggressive attacks. It also represents the righteous devoting themselves to building up the kingdom while being impeded and attacked by naysayers (a very apt metaphor for our times).” The ancient Israelites were responding to the trauma of having their city decimated and returning from the Babylonian exile. The defensiveness of the Nauvoo residents was in large part because they had been similarly driven from Missouri and were establishing a new city while being hyper-sensitive about the threat of mobs and politicians allowing extradition to Missouri authorities at any moment.
The hyper-sensitivity of the Mormons in Nauvoo ended up *contributing* to the polarization of the environment. They were so terrified of Joseph Smith getting dragged back to Missouri that they pumped up local city laws to protect *every* citizen of Nauvoo from outside law enforcement officers, no matter what crimes they committed. They were so terrified of not having control that they voted in blocs, making it nearly impossible for any other citizen in Hancock County to have a voice in who was elected to represent them. Anytime someone lodged a complaint, the Mormons cried “religious persecution” or (in the case of dissenters, apostasy) rather than admitting to any validity of said complaints.
The defensiveness of Nauvoo Saints and digging in their heels ultimately contributed to making their fears a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The LDS Church is now in a position of power socially, politically, and financially, yet we still consistantly see ourselves as persecuted by the world. Leaders refuse to admit institutional faults out of fear of displaying any sort of weakness. They refuse to give weight to *any* critique, no matter how valid. That’s why they can’t see “friendly fire” or a “loyal opposition” as ever warranted.
Ultimately, I fear that leaders will turn out like the post-martyrdom church leaders of Nauvoo. They’ll decide that the worst Mormon is still better than the best Gentile. They’ll refuse to speak out against right-wing extremist violence, because at least those people will pledge loyalty to church leaders.
@Dave B thank you for the links you added at the end of your post. Two more to add to a likely growing list:
https://www.the-exponent.com/musket-fire/
https://www.the-exponent.com/elder-holland-today-is-the-day-to-turn-swords-and-muskets-into-plowshares/
I agree that we must not disengage from topics such as the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan, but do recognize that we also must speak up at this point in time on this topic.
I agree with the last few comments about why the Church doesn’t rein in Deznat and other right wing extremists: because they crave loyal support, and they have no tolerance for being held to a higher standard or being questioned or for those *under* them to disagree or have different experiences or opinions (they say it’s only an issue when it’s *public,* but we don’t live in a closet. Oh wait, that’s what would work for them).
“There are a lot of things going on in the world at the moment that have a stronger claim on some attention from my weekly soapbox …”
This is one of the more discouraging aspects of this for me: Of ALL the things happening right now, of all the urgent hurts and needs and challenges we’re struggling with, THIS was the message he thought was really needed? Of all the issues he could have chosen to address, “those gay kids at BYU and their liberal teachers” was what he landed on? It’s feeling very hard to trust that church leaders are anything like “watchmen on the tower” when they seem so myopic. The danger on the horizon, or the one already raging all around the tower, goes apparently unnoticed by the watchman, who’s staring obsessively at one particular plank of his platform, and how it’s a little different from the other ones, and it maybe squeaks a little, and he doesn’t like that.
“There are a lot of things going on in the world at the moment that have a stronger claim on some attention from my weekly soapbox …”
This is one of the more discouraging aspects of this for me: Of ALL the things happening right now, of all the urgent hurts and needs and challenges we’re struggling with, THIS was the message he thought was really needed? Of all the issues he could have chosen to address, “those gay kids at BYU and their liberal teachers” was what he landed on? It’s feeling very hard to trust that church leaders are anything like “watchmen on the tower” when they seem so myopic. The danger on the horizon, or the one already raging all around the tower, goes apparently unnoticed by the watchman, who’s staring obsessively at one particular plank of his platform, and how it’s a little different from the other ones, and it maybe squeaks a little, and he doesn’t like that.
To Melinda’s point about polygamy and history: that’s a false analogy. The stakes and the setting are much higher now. And that’s a good thing for progressives in the Church.
Then, the Saints only needed to survive. The institutional standard of living was abysmally low. They were never prosperous or well-connected starting out, and they had very little left to lose. And they survived by literally leaving and starting their own country. The battle over polygamy was fought with a tiny Church that was culturally, economically, and physically isolated and self sufficient. The Church’s exponential growth wouldn’t inflect for nearly another century (in the 1960s).
Now, the Church is a gigantic multinational (non-profit?) corporation. We have precisely $100B+ to lose, all fully invested in “the World.” And that’s just the money. What the Church really wants now is cultural power in peoples’ lives. Most members live dual lives – they are members, but they are also Americans or Japanese or Nigerians. The average Mormon is not a religious fundamentalist – they won’t just give up the other parts of their identities. Nor does the Church ask them to.
And even if the Church wanted to reclaim the provincial life, there’s nowhere left to go. As Brigham Young himself said (quoted by . . . who else? . . . Jeffrey R. Holland in a devotional in 2012), “here we are and here we will stay.” Try finding somewhere to put 16 million people in isolation, or even 16 thousand. Too many people on the planet for that strategy. People aren’t going to flee their homes – they’re going to flee the Church.
With nowhere left to run and so much at stake, the modern corporate Church would rather change than collapse – and so it has. See, e.g., 1978. The internet age has forced a second change, this time not limited to a single issue. You can already see the Church changing, albeit slowly and with regressions (reenter Holland). But there are only two paths forward: Irrelevance, or some amount of adaptation. A secularizing, overpopulated world run by modern administrative governments will simply not support Deseret 2.0.
Billy Possum – You are making the point that Armand Mauss made in his book, “The Angel and the Beehive”. That of the church has ALWAYS worked with the tension between being a “peculiar people”, but not TOO peculiar.
I would just like to add to all the great comments I think Elder Holland owes Matt Easton an apology, first, personally. Then from a pulpit in front of an audience at least as large as the audience where he delivered the offending remarks. Then, the text should be published by the church newsroom.
Also, regarding peer reviewer reading speeches like this, as was noted above, a peer review won’t work when the peers all think the same. An independent review is what’s needed. Seriously pay Jana Riess to read your talk before you deliver
I love Elder Holland. It’s tragic that so many people who read or listened to his talk either lack reading comprehension skills, or are just willfully ignorant about his words.
What y’all don’t seem to understand, is that although the church is trying to embrace and love our LGBTQ members, the doctrine will never change. Acting on homosexual behaviors is now, always has been, and will forever be a sin. It can be extremely misleading to a prospective LGBTQ student who is looking at BYU and seeing rainbows and parades and celebrations of all things LGBTQ.
Our youth are strong, but they’re also extremely vulnerable and many are already confused about what the doctrine of the church concerning the LGBTQ. Imagine being a young gay high schooler, seeing gay couples marching in a pride parade AT BYU. Imagine that same youth hearing the valedictorian announce that he is gay in his commencement speech.
No. This is not an, “Oh the horrors! A gay person might turn another kid gay!” speech. This is a, “Be careful what impression you give because a young gay kid might not understand the doctrine and might make choices they will regret,” speech.
What I read in Elder Holland’s talk, the purpose of all those out of context quotes that so many people are damning him for, was not a condemnation of the LGBTQ people, it was a warning to the faculty that they’re screwing up big time because THEY’RE NOT TEACHING THE DOCTRINE.
Yes, by all means, please love all of the students there, please try harder to let the LGBTQ students understand and know that they are beloved children of our Father in Heaven, but please also let them know that the doctrine remains the same, that it will never change, and that yes, they are expected to live by it.
Perhaps none of you realize that a lot of the youth today firmly believe that they will be there on the day the First Presidency will announce that LGBTQ couples can get married in the temple. They do not understand what it means to be a LGBTQ member of the church.
https://publicsquaremag.org/dialogue/racial-healing/the-elder-holland-i-know/
Elder Holland doesn’t just talk about helping LGBTQ and he doesn’t make random, out of touch speeches… he walks with our LGBTQ brothers and sisters and he loves them unconditionally. He fights for them and wants us to join with him in that fight. THAT is what his words were about.
Guess it’s time to cancel Jesus himself. He talked about stones being hung around peoples neck’s and dropped to the bottom of the ocean as preferable outcome to certain behavior!
This is a well-written article that I truly appreciate. There is one statement with which I disagree: “Any reasonable person has to wonder why any LGBT person remains an active LDS or chooses to attend BYU. … It must be because of the friendships they have with other LDS and the fellowship and good feelings many (if not all) LDS get from participation in their wards and the nice college environment BYU offers.”
This is certainly part of why members of the LGBTQ+ community remain active members of the Church, but I think it’s important to recognize that the most powerful reason that compels people to stay is their faith in the gospel as it is uniquely taught in the Church. Personal experiences in scripture study and prayer, spiritual witness of truth during talks and lessons in the Church, and serious commitment to covenants these people have made with the Lord. I am only an ally, but my heart breaks for those who are LGBTQ+ when things like this happen. I do my best to stand up when I can and show my support for these fellow children of God. But I cannot leave the Church. I just can’t.
It is perhaps ironic that Elder Holland is the one who said, “Except in the case of his only perfect Begotten Son, imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with. That must be terribly frustrating to Him but He deals with it. So should we.” I don’t expect the leaders of the Church to agree with me on everything, but (and I say this with sincerity, not anger) I trust what the Spirit tells me more than what the General Authorities say.