- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
https://publicsquaremag.org/dialogue/worldview-clash-franciscan-health-southern-utah-university/ There is some controversy over the decision to ask Elder Jeffrey Holland to be the commencement speaker for SUU.
I understand this controversy to stem from the church’s general policy stance on LGBTQ+ individuals and also from a speech that Elder Holland gave to BYU faculty in 2021 in which he quoted Elder Maxwell. Elder Maxwell said, “[LDS] 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.”
The article claims that some have misconstrued this as a call for gun violence against the LGBTQ+ community. I suppose some may have made that connection, however tenuous. I agree that Elder Holland meant nothing of the sort.
I do feel, however, the Elder Holland’s speech did paint LGBTQ+ youth and activists as individuals that the church needs to be defended from. I believe that this reinforces a mindset where they are enemies. Elder Holland had said in the same speech that it was not appropriate for 2019 BYU Valedictorian Matt Easton to come out as gay in his own commencement speech. I believe that Elder Holland was using militaristic rhetoric to describe a non-military issue and in so doing helped to cause division and “us vs. them.”
I personally am not terribly invested in whether Elder Holland speaks at SUU or not. I do, however, respect the first amendment rights of the students to protest.
Quote:As one of the foremost leaders of one of the world’s leading faiths, any university would be fortunate to have him as a commencement speaker.
One of the world’s leading faiths? I think outside of Utah very few people have ever heard of Jeffrey R. Holland. If this was any university outside of Utah/Idaho it would never be considered.
One problem I see with this is that it is insensitive to the 20% of students who are not LDS. I could see it being very alienating, as it treats SUU almost like a church-owned school and assumes Holland is an important person to the student body. LDS students have many other opportunities to hear from Elder Holland, but to non-LDS students he’s just some random person.
As a public university, I believe SUU should not endorse or show favoritism to any one religion. Would they invite a rabbi, imam, or priest to speak at commencement? If so then I would say it’s fair to invite Holland. Or if the decision to have him as a speaker is based on his business or career achievements instead of a particular religious role.
One part of Holland’s “musket speech” the article seemed to omit is this: Quote:I would like to hear a little more musket fire from this temple of learning
which sounds a lot more hostile than the portion quoted in the article. Suggesting not just that it is important to defend the church, but that there must be aggressive actions taken to fight back.
Edit: It seems like this was Holland quoting Oaks:
https://www.thechurchnews.com/2021/8/23/23218683/elder-holland-byu-university-conference-love-lgbtq ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.thechurchnews.com/2021/8/23/23218683/elder-holland-byu-university-conference-love-lgbtq I get where the controversy is coming from, and it appears that the protesters are not off base – Holland has apparently made remarks which seem hostile toward the LGBTQ+ community. And the church’s (and BYU’s) record with the LGBTQ+ community is far from stellar, despite rhetoric to the contrary. I am generally opposed to cancel culture, but I also understand that each situation is unique. Southern Utah U is a state school not affiliated with the church and has a diverse population, including LGBTQ+ students as well as active and inactive members of the church. Without going into any detail I am aware that the LGBTQ+ population at SUU includes faculty. I am also aware of why Utahns choose to attend schools like SUU (and UVU) – mostly because their culture is not church focused like BYU is (and sometimes to get away from family church pressure).
I have no skin in this game either. My take on this one is that if it were a situation where Holland was being invited as a guest speaker for some event other than commencement I’d say that by all means he should be allowed to speak. However, commencement is different than other university events – commencement should be about the graduating students. I think those students should have the privilege of having a graduation ceremony that is something they can remember and be proud of, and as such that would probably not include someone who is hostile toward different lifestyles.
While I’m at it I’ll lay some blame here, and say that this is a very stupid mistake by the university president Mindy Benson. I don’t know what she’s thinking. She is apparently an active church member, and the first female president of SUU. She does have a predecessor who is a close relative of ETB, but I’m not sure if she is related to the former president.
DarkJedi wrote:
I think those students should have the privilege of having a graduation ceremony that is something they can remember and be proud of, and as such that would probably not include someone who is hostile toward different lifestyles.
I can’t say I agree with the decision to have Elder Holland speak, but at the same time I realize I have no recollection of who spoke at my commencement and what they talked about, and I graduated two years ago. I suspect the same would be true for many of the students at SUU if not for the controversy, which will probably make it more memorable.
Roy wrote:
The article claims that some have misconstrued this as a call for gun violence against the LGBTQ+ community. I suppose some may have made that connection, however tenuous. I agree that Elder Holland meant nothing of the sort.
I’m certain Holland wasn’t making a literal call for violence but words still matter. There’s the intent of the speaker and there’s also how people listening interpret the words. The two aren’t always in harmony.
I remember an event where a lesbian couple was murdered in southern Utah. I remember because it was in the same month that Holland gave his speech to BYU faculty. I’m certainly not suggesting that Holland’s speech inspired the murders, the murders occurred a few weeks before he gave his speech, I’m not even saying that the couple being lesbian was a motivation for the crime, all I’m saying is that careless phrasing in the wrong ear can have unintended consequences.
Maybe the murders weren’t a big news item at the time Holland gave his speech (meaning it was a relatively unknown event) but I think it’s also insensitive to say things like that after the murders occurred, even talking metaphorically.
Can we forever be done with warlike rhetoric and battle imagery when talking about the gospel of Jesus Christ? Musket fire, onward Christian soldiers, we are all enlisted, hope of Israel, etc., etc.
Arrakeen wrote:
DarkJedi wrote:
I think those students should have the privilege of having a graduation ceremony that is something they can remember and be proud of, and as such that would probably not include someone who is hostile toward different lifestyles.
I can’t say I agree with the decision to have Elder Holland speak, but at the same time I realize I have no recollection of who spoke at my commencement and what they talked about, and I graduated two years ago. I suspect the same would be true for many of the students at SUU if not for the controversy, which will probably make it more memorable.
Good point, I don’t recall the speakers at my graduation either. I do remember the event in general and that family and friends came to celebrate (I am the first in my family to have gone to college). If that speaker were controversial I likely would remember more though. I guess what I’m really saying is that commencement ought to be about the graduates and the accomplishment. A campus guest speaker you can just choose to skip, boycott, or even peacefully protest outside. Commencement is something graduates should be able to attend to celebrate without being concerned about what might happen. (I know some people choose not to attend, but usually not for that reason.)
Holland may very well give a great speech along the lines of celebrating the accomplishment because it is, after all, not a church function. But that’s the thing about Holland – he’s unpredictable and sometimes volatile. I would not have the same concerns were this someone like Uchtdorf or Gong.
When I first posted about and linked this article, I had not heard of Public Square Magazine. I know understand it to be similar to LDS Dailey or Meridian magazine in that it is not owned or run by the church but is run by church members and is friendly to LDS causes. Their “about us” page explains,
Quote:Our background as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints informs the publication’s editorial focus and values, and it inspires us to draw a large enough circle to include voices of goodwill from numerous faith traditions and moral perspectives.
It would not surprise me if the editorial team of the magazine see themselves playing a part similar to the dual builder/defender role described by Elder Holland in his controversial speech.
I believe that this leads to certain decisions made in the article, like describing the church as one of the world’s leading faiths or in omitting the quote that Elder Holland would “like to hear a little more musket fire.” By focusing on those on the opposition that took the most extreme interpretation (that of Elder Holland advocating gun violence), the article makes the opposition seem unreasonable in that they (the opposition) try to make Elder Holland an offender for a word (Isaiah 29:21). IMO this glosses over better and more reasoned objections to his speech.
The article makes reference to personal experiences that Jeff Bennion and an unnamed Bennion friend had with Elder Holland. Bro. Bennion is the founder of North Star described in the article as a “Latter-day Saint LGBT+ advocacy organization.” Wikipedia describes North star as follows:
Quote:North Star is an organization for believing LGBT Latter-day Saints. Its stated mission is to “provide a place of community for Latter-day Saints who experience homosexual attraction or gender identity incongruence, as well as their family, friends, and ecclesiastical leaders.” It supports the teaching of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, including the law of chastity, which prohibits sexual relationships outside of a legal marriage between one man and one woman.
The group is not currently advocating any particular form of conversion therapy but seem to be one step removed from conversion therapy.So Elder Holland is supportive and loving towards gay church members that are committing themselves to lifelong chastity and helping others to do the same. That’s not exactly earthshattering. I think most reasonable people would conclude that Elder Holland loves gay people, as long as they are either celibate or act as though they are straight.
And that brings me to the title of the article. “Love Misunderstood” I believe that the author of this article, Elder Holland, and probably most Mormons are convinced that their worldview is correct and that the most loving thing that they can do is to make sure that everyone becomes converted to the same worldview. As someone who was once an enthusiastic missionary, I think I can understand that point of view. And yet, as someone who is now on the margins of the church, I can feel how that form of love can be self-centered and dismissive of others – their identities and their lived experiences. It is as if the most loving thing that you can do for others is to turn them into a mirror of yourself and reinforce your own values and identity in the process. I think that some traditionally believing LDS might counter that the missionary does not want to turn people into mirrors of himself but rather into mirrors of Jesus Christ. Yeah, I get it. We seem to be awfully confident on how Jesus would have us respond to our gay brothers and sisters. I’m just not comfortable calling it love.
The “musket speech” was also where Elder Holland called out by name the gay student who gave a graduation speech and accused him of hijacking the podium. The preponderance of the evidence indicates as valedictorian the student was invited to speak and the admins knew what he intended to say (thus not a hijacking). Nevertheless, the SUU president has doubled down, thanking people for their input but the decision stands. She did indicate in the future they’ll seek input first.
https://www.sltrib.com/news/2023/03/30/latter-day-saint-apostle-jeffrey-r/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.sltrib.com/news/2023/03/30/latter-day-saint-apostle-jeffrey-r/ Since Holland was addressing the BYU faculty and staff and not the student body it might have been his way of telling faculty and staff that they shouldn’t have approved of Matt Easton’s speech. As an update on this post. Elder JRH missed conference due to having Covid and now we know that he also needs ongoing dialysis. He will not be able to speak at SUU due to his health concerns (and he is receiving reduced church administration responsibilities as well). Roy wrote:
As an update on this post. Elder JRH missed conference due to having Covid and now we know that he also needs ongoing dialysis. He will not be able to speak at SUU due to his health concerns (and he is receiving reduced church administration responsibilities as well).
And it appears SUU will have three student speakers at graduation in place of Elder Holland.
As a more general topic, there have been protests at other universities that have invited controversial (mostly conservative) as guest speakers. This presents a problem for universities that face higher then average fees for security or risk having the situation get out of hand and devolve into a riot.
If I were a university president, I might fix the problem by requiring all guest speakers to be university staff or students.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.