https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2024/03/15/byu-will-require-incoming-students/

"Starting next fall, Brigham Young University will require all incoming students to read Latter-day Saint apostle Jeffrey R. Holland’s controversial “musket fire” speech"

Wow. That's awful.

I think maybe the shield of being so rich enables them to feel emboldened to come out and say how they really feel.

They clearly don't care about (or want) anyone but the willingly obedient cookie cutter students.

I hope this gets more attention so people can see that the LGBTQ communities are not overreacting.

Maybe they can open a gun shop on campus.

Is any caliber the wrong caliber?

Only if you're a human cannonball. No point in getting stuck.

Somebody please tell CBS News. This at a time when militias are forming to eliminate democracy in America. Because Jesus.

From a strictly neutral point of view, isn't it a given that everybody loves their own version of "propaganda"?

From ABC4News:
A BYU spokesperson said:”At BYU, we want all our students, including our LGBTQ students to feel both the love of the Savior and the joy associated with living His commandments as part of a covenant-keeping community.” We welcome LGBTQ students.

Wow. That’s some welcome!

The church is trying to say that the LGBTQ community is their biggest threat.

Actually, those who have woke up from the TSCC present the formidable front, including those who have dared to sue them.

How dare Holland say that kind of ?!#*! Especially in these very troubled times. With his puppet jaw, I don’t know how he manages to speak at all.

At BYU, we welcome them so we can demonize them and make their lives miserable!

And that's as far as the reporter took it. Once again, we see that the media are geldings when it comes to investigating churches.

Do they test you to confirm that you read it?

I'm wondering how ball and musket works with the Law of Chastity.

Right?

I would not hire a BYU graduate. BYU students are not taught to think critically.

You say to this group who has a lot of byu graduates who are reasonably adept at critical thinking. What other groups do you pre-judge?

I'm mixed on this.

I am just now getting around to reading the most recent BYU Alum magazine and also the BYU College of Life Sciences magazine sent to alum.

On the BYU magazine, one of the feature articles is "Finding God in a Near Tragedy." Another is "Our Policy, Our Aim," which is about BYU being in the process over time of becoming the fully anointed university of the Lord and "A school where every subject is taught by the Spirit of God and bathed in the light and color of the restored gospel." It goes on, "...unequivocally loyal to the gospel of Jesus Christ." Another article is titled, "Daughters of God." This is a university magazine for cripes sakes.

If that wasn't bad enough, the feature article in the College of Life Sciences magazine is "Six Spiritual Lessons from the Natural World." It is peppered throughout with phrases and ideas that attempt to combine religion with science. This is their life sciences magazine for cripes sakes. I can't imagine actual science magazines including that kind of drivel.

When I left BYU, I slowly learned the hard way exactly what BYU conveniently left out and blurred when I got my actual science related jobs. I did not have the level of exposure to evolution as my coworkers. I actually thought faith and prayer were part of my work tools.

I learned critical thinking skills, but I would argue that they came with mixed messages until a decade later when I started studying on my own. I suspect a lot of the people here were going to learn to be independent skeptical thinkers with or without BYU's influence.

Gallup Polling says that more than 1 in 5 Gen Z adults identify as LGBTQ+. I wonder if the Church will ever change its stance about gay marriage when social pressures to do so increase.

If they ever think about how much they could make charging extra for admitting LGBTQ+ students, then there's a possibility!

If there’s One Thing that ChurchCo is consistent on, it’s a steady stream of indoctrination & focus on PR.

Anyone got a link to this talk? Never heard of it.

Better yet, anyone want to give a two sentence summary?

"We love LBGTQ people, but not really." Holland stated that LBGTQ people need to live by the church's rules.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/08/23/byu-teachers-are-expected/


A transcript

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/08/23/we-must-have-will-stand/

If those are paywalled

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

A brief summary (from the first link)

"BYU faculty and staff should take up their intellectual “muskets” to defend The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, especially “the doctrine of the family and...marriage as the union of a man and a woman,” the apostle said, but some choose to aim “‘friendly fire’ — and from time to time the church, its leaders and some of our colleagues within the university community have taken such fire on this campus. And sometimes it isn’t friendly — wounding students and the parents of students who are confused about what so much recent flag-waving and parade-holding on this issue means.”

    "Look, I'm not prejudiced!  I'm just telling you how ghawd wants things to run.  Would I lie about being a direct conduit between ghawd and all of you, my blessed brothers and sisters?  If you do and say as I teach you, you will be blessed.  Why on Earth would I lie to you?!!?"

      --Holland and every other
         religious wackjob ever...
         Except for the ones who  
         had to admit to being
         prejudiced in order to
         connect with their fans.

"BYU faculty and staff should take up their intellectual “muskets”"

And shoot themselves in the foot

The reality is students will read or skim over it and sign said documents that they have read it and it will not change a da__ thing and probably make things worst (sounds familiar, to be somewhat or quietly shelved later on). Welcome to the machine. It was probably pushed by influential TBM's who are alumni or their children attend there or are going to attend, so they get thrown a bone. Where is the heavenly guidance, instead it's like a uncaring machine that chews up people and produces robots

  
  

Son of Paleface Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The reality is students will read or skim over it
> and sign said documents that they have read it and
> it will not change a da__ thing and probably make
> things worst (sounds familiar, to be somewhat or
> quietly shelved later on). Welcome to the machine.
> It was probably pushed by influential TBM's who
> are alumni or their children attend there or are
> going to attend, so they get thrown a bone. Where
> is the heavenly guidance, instead it's like a
> uncaring machine that chews up people and produces
> robots

These are my thoughts. I strongly suspect some of the top donors have reached out to Bulldog Holland to put a clamp on BYU's perceived gay problems. I think there's pressure on church leaders to "actively" do something about BYU or the donors are going withhold their financial support. Even though the church has more than enough $$$ to privately operate BYU, the church is beyond greedy. They still want private donations. I don't think it's 50 or more people complaining about this. I think this may be 5 older grumpy people who are friends with GA's and therefore have access to Holland.

Can we mostly agree that the church would love to return to life before the internet and when gays/lesbians stayed in the closet?

They had greater control over its members 30 years ago.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/2024 11:13PM by messygoop.

Will there be a quiz or test after?

Reading does not mean agreement with anything written.

Seems silly, but it is their school.

From the original article

"Now, a lightly edited version of Holland’s address that includes the musket reference will be assigned in a class known as “BYU Foundations for Student Success,” which is meant to help new students understand the “unique mission and purpose of BYU.”

Since it will be part of a class, I would expect it probably will
have some sort of test unless it is a no-credit class.

just when we think ChurchCo hit a New Low, they out-do themselves.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2024 01:15AM by GNPE.

The only thing worse than having to read the speech would be to have to watch a video of it. Seems like wealthy donors and members with connections to the admin are getting their way.

Families were supposed to have this hate document posted. In my area, the church organized this giant regional conference for the men (priesthood only). This was in CA and it was all about keeping gay marriage out of society. I didn't attend because I had to work that Saturday. Somehow my goofy dad attended with the help of a carpool- he wasn't the best driver in heavy traffic.

Knowing how cheap and stingy the church is/was, each attendee received a manila folder with a cardstock certificate with this pile of manure printed out. My dad was so giddy because whoever took him to this "nip it in the bud" anti-gay conference was VIP enough to shake old Gordo's hand afterwards. So my dad the church jokester met Hinckley the church's grump.

So this Proclamation of the Family was supposed to be posted in every LDS home. My dad was so pushy over it that he had my mom pick up a 20 dollar frame for it. It was displayed in the hallway and was in the perfect place to be ignored. My gay/lesbian siblings had many of their friends visit the Goop homestead. It wasn't an issue despite what the church demanded.

When I knew that my dad was not going to recover from a major stroke, I tossed the whole thing into a raging fire. It finally received the honor that it deserved.

I think that church officials are running scared. They know they are losing the battle against acceptance of gay relationships and gay marriage. Gay Mormons see the attitude of their church vs. the wider culture, and they see the gap. Most people know or have known at least one gay person. Many family groups have at least one gay person.

I was chafing at the notion of defending TSCC "intellectually," because that really can't be done, but then I considered the metaphor: "intellectual muskets." Muskets were made obsolete at about the same TSCC moved west. The west wasn't won with muskets. It was won with rifles and pistols. Intellectual muskets will lose to intellectual rifles (e.g. the truth) and intellectual machine guns (the internet), etc. He's not genuinely telling anyone to fight to win. He's telling them, "prepare to lose; blame the weapons."

Gordon B. Stinky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was chafing at the notion of defending TSCC
> "intellectually," because that really can't be
> done, but then I considered the metaphor:
> "intellectual muskets." Muskets were made obsolete
> at about the same TSCC moved west. The west wasn't
> won with muskets. It was won with rifles and
> pistols. Intellectual muskets will lose to
> intellectual rifles (e.g. the truth) and
> intellectual machine guns (the internet), etc.
> He's not genuinely telling anyone to fight to win.
> He's telling them, "prepare to lose; blame the
> weapons."

"We got a kinder, gentler machine gun hand"- Neil Young song Rockin'in the free world. "The more things change, the more they stay the same"- Snake Plissken.

I am sure the little homophobes will lap it up.

One trend that is very clear among teenagers today is wide acceptance of LGBTQ+ people and support for gay marriage. I think the LDS Church will eventually allow same sex temple marriages but it will take several generations since the Church always lags societal trends.

Too many people these days use violent language and then deny they mean harm.

Here's an article from NBC News (March 18, 2024) that clearly shows the mindbendingly way Mormon leadership talks: we love you/we don't want you here; we have to look like we welcome you but we really don't unless you change and convert, so of course you're welcome but really go away, type of double-talk stuff.


From NBC News (March 18, 2024)

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/byu-freshmen-controversial-musket-fire-speech-mormon-lgbtq-utah-rcna143891

Excerpts:

“In the speech titled "The Second Half of the Second Century of Brigham Young University," Holland condemned criticisms of the Mormon faith, calling on members of the church to defend its teachings with "musket fire." One such teaching, Holland said, includes "the doctrine of the family and defending marriage as the union of a man and a woman."


“He also spoke about the issue of homosexuality as it relates to the Mormon church — "We have to be careful that love and empathy do not get interpreted as condoning and advocacy," he said — and addressed the potential "friendly fire" that could occur as a result of defending the faith.


"Sometimes it isn’t friendly, wounding students and the parents of students — so many who are confused about what so much recent flag-waving and parade-holding on this issue means," Holland said.


“BYU spokesperson Carri Jenkins told NBC News that the class has been "well received by our students" and the materials for the course "involve several important and significant addresses that have been given at BYU.”


"We believe that we have a shared primary identity as sons and daughters of God. We welcome LGBTQ students and are grateful for all those who choose BYU because of its environment of covenant belonging," Jenkins said.


“Gracee Purcell, president of the collective, told NBC News that the 2021 speech is a painful memory for the university's LGBTQ community and that she was "shocked" to learn that this speech in particular was chosen for the first-year curriculum.


“The rhetoric of Holland's address, Purcell said, has been used against the queer community at BYU and fostered an environment in which LGBTQ students and faculty do not feel safe.


"In the most extreme cases, we're seeing what the use of violent language does and how it empowers people," Purcell said. "We've gotten a lot of death threats that are directly connected to this language of 'musket fire.'"

-----

Doublespeak on steroids:

"[Parents and students] are confused about what so much recent flag-waving and parade-holding on this issue means," Holland said."

"We believe that we have a shared primary identity as sons and daughters of God. We welcome LGBTQ students..."

Flag-waving and parade-holding on a university campus about a major issue that affects students is confusing?

"We have a shared identity. We welcome LGBTQ students"

But.

Not really.

Hate speech? Death threats? Weapons?

The Lord's University has some work to do.

Won't ever happen I don't think. The malignancy is too deep and widespread.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/19/2024 11:39AM by Nightingale.

What are the lessons in all of this?

First, Mormon doctrines and policies as related to the LGBTQ community are negative, out-of-touch, hurtful, discriminatory, disingenuous, unpopular, and politically and socially incorrect. In other words, they are inherently offensive in a modern, progressive, society regardless of repeated attempts at a sugar-coating with "love" talk.

Second, in the current social climate, you cannot use a firearms metaphor in any controversial context, without the opposing side dogmatically and falsely attributing some hidden suggestion or directive toward violence. People will enthusiastically jump all over it (as here), decrying a supposed "call to violence" that simply does not exist, explicitly or implicitly.

As exMormons, or members of the LGBTQ community, or its sympathizers, it might be well not to expand our legitimate anger over the first observation into a false hysteria of the second.

>Second, in the current social climate, you cannot use a firearms metaphor in any controversial context, without the opposing side dogmatically and falsely attributing some hidden suggestion or directive toward violence. People will enthusiastically jump all over it (as here), decrying a supposed "call to violence" that simply does not exist, explicitly or implicitly.

Oh baloney. The threat at least implicitly exists, and by including the speech in a required course for incoming freshmen, the university is doubling down.

I predict the speech will be dropped from the course within 5 years. It is right up there with the refusal to baptize the children of same-sex couples. It's just wrong on several levels, the musket being one of them.

I'm just glad they gave the imagery of a musket instead of an automatic rifle. I guess they are a bit behind the times. ;-/

I see the musket holder's good woman bringing him soup and crusty bread, clad in four layers of muslin, cotton, and wool, keeping her eyes cast down as she serves him...

Oh baloney. The threat at least implicitly exists, and by including the speech in a required course for incoming freshmen, the university is doubling down.

COMMENT: For this speech to be an 'implicit' threat, or call to violence, one would have to be able to 'reasonably' infer such an intent from the language of the speech taken as a whole.

So, is it reasonable to infer from this speech that Holland intended that BYU professors take up arms against the LBGTQ community, and refrain from shooting the Church leaders themselves with their firearms. Now, that sounds like a reasonable "implicit" interpretation. Let's run with that!

Nonsense.

In a society in which firearms are used for massacres constantly, the call to action with those weapons does not stay in a hermetically sealed gun closet.


[Snip, as the Sword of Damocles falls. . .]


Apparently instances of political leaders using inflammatory rhetoric to incite violence are now verboten in this, the best of all possible worlds. That must mean that Putin's, Hamas's, Israel's, and Kim Jung Un's atrocities are sacrosanct too.

I wonder if Brigham Young's doing the same thing during the Mormon Reformation and thereby inciting the castration of a young man who was courting a girl on whom his bishop had designs as well as the massacre at Mountain Meadows is still subject to critique. Perhaps it comes down to whether dear Brigham was acting in his role as prophet or as political leader.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2024 03:15AM by Lot's Wife.

I'm not the type to use "legitimate anger" as a tool, but I'm all for "illegitimate babies" if that's found to be useful.

Specifically:

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As exMormons, or members of the LGBTQ community,
> or its sympathizers, it might be well not to
> expand our legitimate anger over the first
> observation into a false hysteria of the second.

From the article:

"In the most extreme cases, we're seeing what the use of violent language does and how it empowers people," Purcell said. "We've gotten a lot of death threats that are directly connected to this language of 'musket fire.'"

Far from concern being "false hysteria" the language *is* or could be taken literally by some listeners, as is evident by Purcell's statement above.

First comes what is at least perceived to be threatening language. Next could be violent actions that could well be predicted or anticipated and ultimately potentially carried out.

The potential impact on an audience should be considered by speakers before they string their words together. It's just the sad reality of where this world is at in 2024 and beyond.

And, if someone says to you I love you but... Beware the but part. It hardly ever augers well.

"In the most extreme cases, we're seeing what the use of violent language does and how it empowers people," Purcell said. "We've gotten a lot of death threats that are directly connected to this language of 'musket fire.'"

Far from concern being "false hysteria" the language *is* or could be taken literally by some listeners, as is evident by Purcell's statement above.

COMMENT: See my comments to BoJ. The question is not whether *anyone* might take such comments as a threat, but whether such an interpretation is *reasonable.* I suggest that no reasonable person, including LBGTQ person, could *reasonably* take such "musket" language, in its context, as a threat of violence. That is not to say that threats of violence do not exist, or that the LBGTQ community should not be sensitive to such threats. It is only to insist that in this case, there is no such threat, express or implied. It is just that using such a metaphor is an unfortunate, 'tone-deaf' judgment, regardless of an innocent intent.
_________________________________________________

First comes what is at least perceived to be threatening language. Next could be violent actions that could well be predicted or anticipated and ultimately potentially carried out.

COMMENT: It is possible, I suppose, that someone might use this talk as a justification for violent conduct. But, again, that would not be a reasonable interpretation of the talk because in the talk itself, there is no call to violence, express or implied, against the LBTGQ community.
_________________________________________________

The potential impact on an audience should be considered by speakers before they string their words together. It's just the sad reality of where this world is at in 2024 and beyond.

COMMENT: Totally agree. It is not enough to be morally innocent of intending a threat when the climate makes it clear that even an innocent metaphor can motivate unreasonable people to violent actions. But this alone does is not enough to ascribe the intention of a threat to the speaker; stupidity, yes. After all, Holland could have simply stated the Mormon view of LBTGQ without any reference to muskets, and that alone might motivate some to violence. But that is a problem of the doctrine, not a problem with the "musket" metaphor.
______________________________________

And, if someone says to you I love you but... Beware the but part. It hardly ever augers well.

COMMENT: It should be clear that I am not defending the Church's LGTBQ position here, or even the musket metaphor. I am only saying that there is no threat reasonably attributable to the "musket" reference.

I don't see that decrying violent language is being hysterical. Precisely because there is so much violence authorities should choose their words wisely. In this case Mormon reps get an easy pass because muskets seem so archaic and therefore relatively benign. But people who protest while bearing modern arms seem threatening indeed to those on the other side.

Perhaps the speaker has benign intent but their words can be taken as a rallying cry to more extremist listeners.

At the very least, using language like that shows they are extremely tone deaf to what is happening in the world.
At worst, it is a subtle message to associate violence with untraditional families. They know full well how nuance and suggestion works.

At the very least, using language like that shows they are extremely tone deaf to what is happening in the world.

COMMENT: Totally agree.
____________________________________

At worst, it is a subtle message to associate violence with untraditional families. They know full well how nuance and suggestion works.

COMMENT: Well, for it to be a "message to associate violence with untraditional families" there has to be an intent of the messenger to make such an association. Here there is no such intent, express or implied.

Holland took the musket metaphor from a prior Oaks talk made several years ago (2017), which quoted an even earlier talk by Neal Maxwell, about defending the faith against criticisms, which had nothing to do with the LGBTQ issue. The message was simply to verbally defend the Church, rather than engage in so-called "friendly-fire" criticisms.

Here is what he said verbatim on the "musket" metaphor:
_______________________________________

"Three years later, 2017, Elder Dallin H. Oaks, not then but soon to be in the First Presidency where he would sit, only one chair — one heartbeat — away from the same position President Nelson now has, quoted our colleague Elder Neal A. Maxwell who had said:

“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.”

"Then Elder Oaks said challengingly, “I would like to hear a little more musket fire from this temple of learning.”
____________________________________________

The leap from this to the assumption of a literal 'call-to-arms' message--explicit or implicit--is ludicrous, and again shows a tendency and willingness of some people to manufacture the evilest of intent if that serves your social, anti-Mormon, or anti-religion purpose.

Read the talk!

One aspect, an important one, is that the *intent* of the original speaker isn't all that has to be taken into consideration. Rather, a speaker has to think about and be aware of how their words will come across to an audience, be it the main one they are addressing at a certain time or any that subsequently hear their words.

"Go out and give them hell" (an unrelated quote I am just pulling out of the air as an example of potentially fiery language) may seem like a motivating expression at the beginning of a football game against a main rival team but in different circumstances it could be taken as a call to arms (so to speak OR literally).

Metaphor, simile and all the clever and creative ways that language can be used are fine and exciting and delightful in the right place. In this world though you have to at least be aware that words have power and in many cases, if not all, refrain from selecting words and expressions that evoke violent imagery, if not intent.

The fact that there were prior and/or ongoing violent incidents, according to the article, amid fears of potential repeat actions, should inspire caution and thoughtfulness going forward, with both speech and actions, particularly from teachers and leaders.

It's easy to fail to realize the negative impact on vulnerable students if one has not been the target of violence, whether in speech or from violent acts.

Hopefully, we will all become more aware of the difficult issues some face.

Just because it's not part of our own direct experience doesn't mean it isn't happening to others.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/19/2024 02:06PM by Nightingale.

The Milgram Experiment showed the world that it is very easy for people to do unconscionable things if they believe their leaders are authorized to give orders. They believe Jeffery Holland is authorized by God himself.

Case in point: the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Not to worry, there are no crazies in the church.

Wishful thinking on my part-- if led by a thoughtful professor, having a class discussion on the musket talk could actually lead to developing critical thinking skills among first year students.

Unfortunately I doubt that this will happen,

Anyone think there are some BYU Foundations teachers who might use this reading to expand the thinking of the new students?
I wonder if the Y will prescribe the lesson and discussion types of questions that are supposed to be used with the reading.