https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2023/3/20/23649680/elder-holland-deserves-to-be-heard-at-southern-utah-university

“We’ve witnessed campus cancellation campaigns. Elder Holland deserves to be heard at Southern Utah University.
By making space for a diversity of perspectives on college campuses, we are walking the talk of inclusion and belonging.
….. But intention really does matter. In the case of Elder Holland, his full remarks make clear that his intent was to call for more robust efforts to “defend” his faith tradition and teachings — not to attack a particular community, and certainly not to justify physical violence…..”

Really?

https://slate.com/human-interest/2021/09/mormon-lds-church-gay-rights-controversy-byu-speech.html

“Jeffrey R. Holland, Brigham Young University’s former president and a senior apostle in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, gave an inflammatory speech to BYU faculty and staff. In it, he urged faculty to take up metaphorical muskets to defend the faith. He called on them to be both builders of knowledge and defenders of the institution—the church—that determines whether the university exists and the faculty get funding to do their jobs, a fact he reminded them of multiple times in the speech. His words were unmistakably a call to arms: Holland used the word “fire” 10 times, “musket” eight times, and made multiple references to “friendly fire,” “wounds,” and “scarring.” In particular, he called for “more musket fire” from BYU’s faculty to defend Mormonism’s official position on the inferiority and social dangers of same-sex relationships and marriages.”



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/22/2023 08:50PM by schrodingerscat.

I believe it will be a much more memorable event if J. Roy Holland brings the gospel to those SUU savages (one hopes they are savages!).

Pity the situation for anyone who would dare to take his place!!  He or she could kiss their Second Annoying goodbye!

I hope he does give his speech. He can’t help but go on a Super MORmON tirade against the three greatest threats to Joseph’s Myth, gays, women and ‘so-called intellectuals’ (anyone capable of reason).

I would like to think that in the history of the church, there have been many a woman who, by herself, became all three, and left the church.

If they use "cancel" instead of "consequence" I can guess why.

Hate speech is always hateful. I could say that I need to defend myself in the most explicit terms and if I tied my belief to my self defense it would seem murderous.

Holland should not speak at a state university if he has to defend himself that way. Acceptance is nice but tolerance is what people do who get along. Holland and ilk are not tolerant or tolerable.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2023 04:53PM by Elder Berry.

ChurchCo doesn’t speak, hasn’t heard of Irony, odds are they never will.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2023 10:39AM by GNPE.

In my view, there is nothing objectionable about the first linked article, which only advocates for mutual tolerance when it comes to free expression on college campuses. Your second link reflects a rather emotional and unfair expansion of Holland's BYU speech where he simply asks BYU professors to reconsider their public criticisms of the Church.

What is ironic here, is that you use the approved cancelation mentality of the second link as an attempt to legitimize the cancellation mentality of the first. As such, you get it wrong in both instances.

Consider: The authors in the first link state:

"These kinds of cancellations and petitions have increased markedly in the last decade against professors and other speakers on campus, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and its work to compile episodes where somebody tries to block or prevent a speaker from being featured on a college or university campus. Their “Disinvitation Database” also confirms a pressure to cancel coming from both the left and the right, with 28% of commencement disinvitations in the last two decades coming from pressure on the right and 63% from pressure on the left (with another 9% from unspecified sources)."

"Among other examples, intimidation from the political right led to cancellations against Michael Moore, Jeremiah Wright, Richard Dawkins, and Chelsea Manning — while intimidation from the political left led to cancellations of Ann Coulter, Ben Carson, Ben Shapiro and Ivanka Trump."

The bottom line (I would suggest) is that an approved university speaker should be competent to provide a relevant cultural perspective, or point of view, in good faith, but without being a radical ideologue, and without promoting violence and/or intolerance. It seems to me that Holland meets this rather low bar. People can attend, or not attend, or silently walk out in protest. They can respond by inviting another speaker with a different point of view. But the "cancelation" mentality has got to stop.

I *do* have to add one thing here. The lead-in with the famous John Quincy Adams story is rather humorous, where the authors conclude:
___________________________

"'“You may certainly say anything you please; but I must reserve the right of adding a word or two, if I judge best. I promise to speak of you in the most respectful manner.”'

"What strikes us about this story is Joseph Smith’s willingness to allow for the expression of differing opinions — even potentially hostile opinions — in an environment of respect."
___________________________

So, does that mean that current GAs should allow contrary speakers at general conference--or more to the point here at BYU--as long as they can then add "a word or two" at the end?

Maybe, the best approach would be to allow Holland to speak, but only if Bill Mahre is allowed to speak at BYU in rebuttal. At least we know who would be the most entertaining!

Now that should settle the matter.