The Origin of FAIR/MAD

[_Daniel Peterson]

Here, no one does the thinking for us. It's a painful process to learn, but some of us have worked out a pretty good system that works for us most of the time.

Golly. Some day I would like to be able to think for myself, too!

For some of us, at least, that claim was shown to have merit.

I believe that I saw the claim. I don't recall seeing any actual evidence to back it up.

Perhaps you'd personally choose an impossible-to-reach criteria before you'd believe it, based simply on the source itself.

Actually, no. It wouldn't bother me if the Church were keeping tabs on some of the stuff on the web. In fact, I wish they were more aware of it. I've been disappointed that they're not, and that I seem to be the guy who follows it most.

It's possible that some other group at Church headquarters, of whom I'm unaware and with whom I have no contact, is monitoring this and other such boards.

Something happens at church headquarters that is not known in your department in Provo? Hmmmm. You might want to look into that.

My department (Asian and Near Eastern Languages) has absolutely no interest in any of this.

The fact remains that I've been involved off and on with the Public Affairs Department of the Church, and that they plainly don't monitor or know much about such sites as this one; and that the Brethren themselves don't know about such sites as this (so far as I can tell, which is pretty far); and that the two committees that I've sometimes met with about issues where such sites as this might be relevant to the discussion pretty obviously knew nothing about such sites as this.

So who are the people who monitor such sites as this? And to whom do they report?

I propose that it's the Illuminati, or, perhaps, an international cabal of Freemasons.

I'll pass over in silence the latest manifestation of your zeal for judging my character. I've noticed in several of your prior posts that you like to pronounce me a very poor disciple of Christ. I'd say that that is your prerogative -- except that, of course, it's not.

I think it would be best if we didn't interact. I find your arrogance and smug judgmentalism profoundly unappealing. Always have.

[_Nightingale]

harmony:
"Let's see how liberal the BYU leadership really is. Let's say a BYU professor who teaches something like Book of Mormon 101, married for many years, with tenure, realizes after many years of agony that he is gay. He confesses this to his bishop, tells his stake president, assures them he has not engaged in sexual activity outside the bounds of his marriage but he is divorcing his wife and will be dressing as a woman from them on. One day soon after, he dresses in very tasteful professional clothes, dons a wig and makeup, and teaches his classes as a woman. How long will he be allowed in the classroom? He's following the dress code, has not had any sexual encounters, yet is openly blatantly gay. How long will he last?"

Whoa. That's two completely separate things there. Being "openly blatantly gay" or even just "gay" is not synonymous with being transgendered, "cross-dressing" or any other gradation on the scale.

A male prof at an LDS school conducting a lecture while wearing women's clothing is not "following the dress code".

He is also not automatically a "cross-dresser" because he is gay.

I met a young gay male on one of my trips to SLC who lived with his uncle, a bishop. The nephew had "confessed" to his bishop (awkward when it's your uncle with whom you live) and while he could not go to the temple or hold a calling, he could attend church and not be ex'd. My impression was that that was in accordance with SOP; In other words, you can be gay and still be LDS, without all the "privileges", but in and of itself it is not grounds to be excom'd. However, it is possible that the standards are higher for BYU faculty.

That would not be out of line with other religious schools that routinely require teachers to be good role models in both their personal and professional lives; In other words, they must live according to the religious standards set.

While outsiders may decry that standard, it is routine, according to my observations of many different religious schools. I'm not sure why anyone would think LDS/BYU should be different? They run their schools/universities according to their own religious standards. No surprise there.

Newsflash: BYU is not "liberal"!

[_skippy the dead]

harmony:
"Let's see how liberal the BYU leadership really is. Let's say a BYU professor who teaches something like Book of Mormon 101, married for many years, with tenure, realizes after many years of agony that he is gay. He confesses this to his bishop, tells his stake president, assures them he has not engaged in sexual activity outside the bounds of his marriage but he is divorcing his wife and will be dressing as a woman from them on. One day soon after, he dresses in very tasteful professional clothes, dons a wig and makeup, and teaches his classes as a woman. How long will he be allowed in the classroom? He's following the dress code, has not had any sexual encounters, yet is openly blatantly gay. How long will he last?"

Whoa. That's two completely separate things there. Being "openly blatantly gay" or even just "gay" is not synonymous with being transgendered, "cross-dressing" or any other gradation on the scale.

A male prof at an LDS school conducting a lecture while wearing women's clothing is not "following the dress code".

He is also not automatically a "cross-dresser" because he is gay.

I met a young gay male on one of my trips to SLC who lived with his uncle, a bishop. The nephew had "confessed" to his bishop (awkward when it's your uncle with whom you live) and while he could not go to the temple or hold a calling, he could attend church and not be ex'd. My impression was that that was in accordance with SOP; In other words, you can be gay and still be LDS, without all the "privileges", but in and of itself it is not grounds to be excom'd. However, it is possible that the standards are higher for BYU faculty.

That would not be out of line with other religious schools that routinely require teachers to be good role models in both their personal and professional lives; In other words, they must live according to the religious standards set.

While outsiders may decry that standard, it is routine, according to my observations of many different religious schools. I'm not sure why anyone would think LDS/BYU should be different? They run their schools/universities according to their own religious standards. No surprise there.

Newsflash: BYU is not "liberal"!

I'm glad somebody else jumped in here to make the distinction between transgendered behavior and homosexuality - there's a big difference. And the church is very clear on its position regarding transgendered behavior - it would not be accepted by rank and file membership, let alone its professors.

As for being gay and callings and temple attendance - it is, in fact, possible for a gay man or a lesbian to hold a temple recommend and callings. They must, of course, commit to complete celibacy (above and beyond heterosexual celibacy - i.e., no romantic relationships at all with the same sex, regardless of whether sexual acts are involved). In fact, when I was at BYU Law school some years back there was a series of articles in the DesNews highlighting gay temple workers at the Salt Lake Temple. So technically gays can enjoy full faith and fellowship, but it requires a Catholic priest-like level of celibacy. Of course, why anyone would want to live like that is another matter altogether.

[_Tarski]

Your father was a bishop of a ward of BYU professors, one of whom confessed to being gay, and your father still signed his temple recommend and his stake president still signed his temple recommend and the guy passed his ecclesiastical review, and the guy still remained a professor at BYU? Do you not see how far-fetched that is?

I don't see it as even slightly "far-fetched." I know for a fact that that is indeed standard operating procedure.

Sorry, I don't believe that for a second. I'm afraid you're going to have to produce the evidence. I doubt there are any openly gay faculty at BYU, because I doubt that if there were any, they could pass the ecclesiastical review process.

Let's see how liberal the BYU leadership really is. Let's say a BYU professor who teaches something like Book of Mormon 101, married for many years, with tenure, realizes after many years of agony that he is gay. He confesses this to his bishop, tells his stake president, assures them he has not engaged in sexual activity outside the bounds of his marriage but he is divorcing his wife and will be dressing as a woman from them on. One day soon after, he dresses in very tasteful professional clothes, dons a wig and makeup, and teaches his classes as a woman. How long will he be allowed in the classroom? He's following the dress code, has not had any sexual encounters, yet is openly blatantly gay. How long will he last?

I am afraid he might not last long at my secular university either.
But you keep uping the ante.
The idea is that the hypothetical guy is gay but has only told his Bishop and Stake Pres. He does nothing else to draw attention to himself and has no gay sex. In this case he is safe!

[_Daniel Peterson]

Sorry, I don't believe that for a second. I'm afraid you're going to have to produce the evidence. I doubt there are any openly gay faculty at BYU, because I doubt that if there were any, they could pass the ecclesiastical review process.

I didn't, of course, say that there are any "openly gay faculty at BYU." Certainly not in the sense of flamingly homosexual crossdressers.

But I know for a fact that non-practicing gays can serve in Church positions and hold temple recommends -- I know several who do -- and I have no reason to suppose that they cannot teach at BYU, even if their homosexuality is known to their priesthood leaders.

[_Nightingale]

DCP:
"non-practicing gays"

Haha, never heard it called that before. How about the ones who don't need to practice any more?! :)

I was going to say that the guy I talked to about it (not that one is a large sample, obviously) was not allowed to go to the temple - my assumption was because he was gay and had told his bishop/uncle - but your post suddenly reminded me that he was not celibate so that was the reason he couldn't get a recommend. That is not discriminatory against gays - the same standard applied to me. (I did get the recommend, by the way).

PS: I wanted to note that I don't personally agree with the LDS stand on this, although obviously I understand the rationale behind a religion and its educational institutions applying standards in accordance with their beliefs. The Anglican Church (Episcopalian) has been going through the anguish of this debate for years now and the church I was attending, and liked very much, actually schismed off over it (it was more conservative than its own bishop who wanted to ordain gays). I ceased attending as I couldn't take the controversy at the time. I have a gut level antipathy towards leaving people out so I have to start at that point and work out from there, rather than apply what could be arbitrary standards and expectations that result in closing the church door in some people's faces.

If a gay LDS can get a TR, that surprises me. I'm glad to hear that is the case. Of course, there is a long way to go...

[_Doctor Steuss]

Since, according to aaronshaf, the LDS G-d was once a “practicing homosexual drag-queen,” would it really be a problem if one worked at BYU?

[_Bond...James Bond]

Since, according to aaronshaf, the LDS G-d was once a “practicing homosexual drag-queen,” would it really be a problem if one worked at BYU?

Isn't that the same guy who was recently seen in a video slobbering like a rabid mongoose while randomly quoting scripture? I'll take "People's whose opinion I don't care about" for 200 Alex.

[_Doctor Steuss]

Isn't that the same guy who was recently seen in a video slobbering like a rabid mongoose while randomly quoting scripture?

One and the same.

I'll take "People's whose opinion I don't care about" for 200 Alex.

Who is Doctor Steuss?

[_harmony]

harmony:
"Let's see how liberal the BYU leadership really is. Let's say a BYU professor who teaches something like Book of Mormon 101, married for many years, with tenure, realizes after many years of agony that he is gay. He confesses this to his bishop, tells his stake president, assures them he has not engaged in sexual activity outside the bounds of his marriage but he is divorcing his wife and will be dressing as a woman from them on. One day soon after, he dresses in very tasteful professional clothes, dons a wig and makeup, and teaches his classes as a woman. How long will he be allowed in the classroom? He's following the dress code, has not had any sexual encounters, yet is openly blatantly gay. How long will he last?"

Whoa. That's two completely separate things there. Being "openly blatantly gay" or even just "gay" is not synonymous with being transgendered, "cross-dressing" or any other gradation on the scale.

A male prof at an LDS school conducting a lecture while wearing women's clothing is not "following the dress code".

He is also not automatically a "cross-dresser" because he is gay.

Of course not. But why is he not following the dress code? How is he not passing his review? And if he's celibate, why would his clothing worry anyone?

That would not be out of line with other religious schools that routinely require teachers to be good role models in both their personal and professional lives; In other words, they must live according to the religious standards set.

He was professionally dressed, and he was celibate. Why was he not living according to BYU standards?

While outsiders may decry that standard, it is routine, according to my observations of many different religious schools. I'm not sure why anyone would think LDS/BYU should be different? They run their schools/universities according to their own religious standards. No surprise there.

Newsflash: BYU is not "liberal"!

What was your first clue?