Holland's second "scolding" at BYU

[drumdude]

I saw a young white kid with a "Y" hat on, in line to go through customs/passport check in a Chicago airport.


I was struck at what an embarrassing symbol that "Y" has become. Of all the things Holland could have decided to talk on, to show the world what he thinks that "Y" should represent - he chose to make that "Y" represent the battle between the Mormon Church and their own LGBT kids.


You simply cannot ignore the parallels to the priesthood ban anymore. It's 1978 all over again.

[Philo Sofee]

When I was in the weight room a few years back, there was this gargantuan dude wearing an BYU-Idaho shirt. I walked up to him and said "BYU-Idaho SUCKS! And I really emphasized it. He looked startled at me and said, "Aw come on now...." I started to laugh like crazy and said "Hey I can say that, it's my Alma Mater too, at least when it was Ricks." And he said "Oh I thought you meant it." I said "I did!" We both laughed and I walked away letting him have my last word... We actually became friends somewhat and always asked "How's it goin?" when we ran into each other.

[Res Ipsa]

I'm a little late to the discussion. I only recently learned that this forum even existed. There's already been a lot of excellent discussion, but here are my 2¢:

Holland's whole speech reeks of Orwellian double-speak. It's clear that he's going to hide behind the defense that the "musket fire" is a metaphor. That said, Holland chooses his words carefully. He has many followers who are going to take his words literally. He must know this.

A cynic might argue that he wants to be "misinterpreted" so that he doesn't have to get his hands dirty himself. Plausible deniability and all. At best, I find it difficult to believe that he actually cares about the possibility of physical harm coming to those who oppose the church's current policies. It's all about obedience.

Holland knows full well the weight his words carry. After all, he's no dodo. He needs to be held accountable for the consequences of what he says. Unfortunately, I doubt he ever will.

Welcome! Glad you found us.

[Dr Moore]

Hear you on this. But I think if pressed, both would hold the line and disagree, arguing that the talks were compatible, key points being (a) love and compassion necessary, and (b) obedience to God’s law as revealed by living prophets is also necessary.

That doesn't exactly amount to musket fire. As it stands, Sic et Non will not take up the musket for the cause.

In the past there's been lots of cheap talk at SeN about the New MI not going on the offense for the Proclamation of the Family.

Good point! Holland made it pretty clear that obeisance to the brethren is priority #1, followed by occasional rounds of whatever "musket fire" means. I doubt he wants to define it more than that.

Is "musket fire" just another phrase for that "scholarly hand" in the face of critics? I wonder why Holland won't go so far as to ask BYU faculty to find better answers to the "same-sex challenge" as he puts it. In a way his talk was a defeatist one. There are no answers and the brethren offer none. The most they can do is identify the dividing line and ask people to pick a side. Pick the wrong side, find another job and another church.

[Dr Moore]

Holland's whole speech reeks of Orwellian double-speak. It's clear that he's going to hide behind the defense that the "musket fire" is a metaphor. That said, Holland chooses his words carefully. He has many followers who are going to take his words literally. He must know this.

A cynic might argue that he wants to be "misinterpreted" so that he doesn't have to get his hands dirty himself. Plausible deniability and all.

Welcome.

I'd have to agree. Wanting to have it both ways does a lot more to divide than to unify. Over time it also does tremendous harm to people and families.

[malkie]

I'm a little late to the discussion. I only recently learned that this forum even existed. There's already been a lot of excellent discussion, but here are my 2¢:

Holland's whole speech reeks of Orwellian double-speak. It's clear that he's going to hide behind the defense that the "musket fire" is a metaphor. That said, Holland chooses his words carefully. He has many followers who are going to take his words literally. He must know this.

A cynic might argue that he wants to be "misinterpreted" so that he doesn't have to get his hands dirty himself. Plausible deniability and all. At best, I find it difficult to believe that he actually cares about the possibility of physical harm coming to those who oppose the church's current policies. It's all about obedience.

Holland knows full well the weight his words carry. After all, he's no dodo. He needs to be held accountable for the consequences of what he says. Unfortunately, I doubt he ever will.

Welcome, fellow Ontarion!

And well said!

[toon]

I saw a young white kid with a "Y" hat on, in line to go through customs/passport check in a Chicago airport.


I was struck at what an embarrassing symbol that "Y" has become. Of all the things Holland could have decided to talk on, to show the world what he thinks that "Y" should represent - he chose to make that "Y" represent the battle between the Mormon Church and their own LGBT kids.


You simply cannot ignore the parallels to the priesthood ban anymore. It's 1978 all over again.

It could have been a Yale cap.

[Dr Moore]

Jana Riess weighs in.

https://religionnews.com/2021/08/25/eld ... esteryear/

Her summary is clear enough:

In other words, the meeting actively sought to address the cultural reality that a university is a diverse place with a mission to include everyone. In that context it was ironic the most important speaker of the day was looking backward to a different era. The overt, spoken message of the meeting was that inclusion is important; the unfortunate and unspoken subtext of Holland’s talk was that the voices of nonwhite, nonheterosexual, nonmale members of the church are unimportant.

And over on Facebook, Blake Ostler adds this nonsensical value. It's as if he didn't bother reading the article.

Yeah Jana Riess, expecting folks to obey commandments and to support the gospel is definitely old fashioned. So much the worse for your updated university.

Blake is properly called out by Taylor Petrey.

Blake didn't do the homework.

[Dr Moore]

Over at Patheos, a second article on Holland's address has appeared. This one is better than the first one.

That's a very long way of saying Holland and the Mormon Church he represents are opposed to anything LGBTQ. He opposes their rights, he opposes people who are their allies, and he opposes openly gay people who aren't ashamed of their LGBTQ orientation... even when they aren't violating Church doctrine.

[drumdude]

There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that LGBT would not receive the sealing ordinance in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, "You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Monson or President Rusty or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.... We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more .... It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the LGBT matter before the first day of June of this year."

Elder Uchtdorf, 2031