- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Heber13 wrote:
wow. Is it that high now? 40-50%?Hm.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it was higher. When I finished my mission a few years ago they had the going-home lecture about how you better stay active in the church. I believe the number they gave us was more like 80% of return missionaries go inactive. Not sure where they got those numbers, what timeframe they looked at, or their definition of activity, but it’s enough of a problem for them to be very worried.
Heber13 wrote:
Quote:When you love someone, you love the person as they are, and not as you’d like them to be.
-Leo Tolstoy
Unfortunately, the exact opposite is often taught at church. As a missionary we were taught to love people for who they could become, not for who they were. They always shared a story of a missionary who pictured everyone he met in white baptismal clothes, which gave him motivation to become one of the highest-baptizing missionaries.
Arrakeen wrote:
Heber13 wrote:
wow. Is it that high now? 40-50%?Hm.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it was higher. When I finished my mission a few years ago they had the going-home lecture about how you better stay active in the church. I believe the number they gave us was more like 80% of return missionaries go inactive. Not sure where they got those numbers, what timeframe they looked at, or their definition of activity, but it’s enough of a problem for them to be very worried.
Yes, I believe the Next Mormons to be very much on the conservative side and they didn’t specifically ask that question (they were more focused on “leaving” the church and whether missionary service affected that). Also in play as you point out is the definition of inactive, which does vary. 1/3 or 4/5, it’s significant either way. From my own perspective, the seeds of my faith crisis were planted on my mission.
Arrakeen wrote:
Heber13 wrote:
Quote:When you love someone, you love the person as they are, and not as you’d like them to be.
-Leo Tolstoy
Unfortunately, the exact opposite is often taught at church. As a missionary we were taught to love people for who they could become, not for who they were. They always shared a story of a missionary who pictured everyone he met in white baptismal clothes, which gave him motivation to become one of the highest-baptizing missionaries.
I don’t remember which of the Q15 it was, but it was recent. The gist of the statement was that we take everybody for who they are but then expect them to change to be like us.
DarkJedi wrote:
I don’t remember which of the Q15 it was, but it was recent. The gist of the statement was that we take everybody for who they are but then expect them to change to be like us.
I remember President Hinkley saying, “bring all the good you have, and we’ll see if we can’t add to it.” It sounds like the comment that you referenced was more recent.The person who washed off the chalk on the sidewalk is “no longer a student” according to the SL Tribune. https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/2021/09/13/byu-student-no-longer/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/2021/09/13/byu-student-no-longer/
Quote:The private religious school said in an email to The Salt Lake Tribune that the man was a student previously this semester but, as of this week, is not taking classes there any more. BYU spokeswoman Carri Jenkins declined to say whether he dropped out or was expelled.
I think there’s another interesting thing near the end of the article. BYU claims the curved sidewalk at the stairs is BYU property.
Quote:Jenkins, the spokeswoman, said that “BYU has always removed chalk art on its private property.”
She added: “BYU does not remove chalk art on public sidewalks. What may be confusing to people is that the curved sidewalk by the Maeser stairs is BYU property — something we are explaining to those who are drawing in this area.”
I can see how that could be, just like the sidewalk in front of my house is my “property” and I do have the responsibility to maintain it and keep it open for people who walk there (clear the snow, etc.). And were there a chalk drawing there which I didn’t like/want, I would remove it (my children did chalk drawings there back in the day, and other children in the neighborhood draw on the sidewalk in front of their houses). With such being the case, is there really any such thing as a “public” sidewalk? My sidewalk is of necessity open for anyone to walk on (I’d get a code violation and fine if it was impassable or blocked) but is it by definition public? Are the only real public sidewalks on public property, such as by a park or city owned building? I think that’s an interesting little can of worms.Even if the city owned the sidewalk in front of the stairs the church owns the city, so… :angel: People have actually dug up the parcel maps and determined that BYU does in fact own that particular sidewalk.
https://maps.utahcounty.gov/ParcelMap/ParcelMap.html Zooming in and clicking on aerial images produces the following (added a red line to make property line more visible against background)
[img]https://i.imgur.com/5Fn4tE5.png [/img] What’s interesting is that the sidewalk further down (east of pride corner) becomes public property and the sidewalk to the west of the tennis courts appears to be public property.
Of course the real tell would be to see who foots the bill when the sidewalk needs repairs.
Regardless, it’s very bad optics to wash away pride chalkings given the circumstances, even if removing chalk art is a long standing policy. It’s a classic example of the church putting policy before people.
Quote:What’s interesting is that the sidewalk further down (east of pride corner) becomes public property and the sidewalk to the west of the tennis courts appears to be public property.
I guess that was my point in describing the sidewalk in front of my house. Yes, I own that property, but is the sidewalk really mine or does it belong to the town? Unlike the BYU sidewalk, there is a grassy strip between the sidewalk and the street as there is on most residential streets (and as there is further down 800 North in the above picture). The grass is mine as well, and mine to maintain (or park my car). There are also road signs in that grassy strip on my street.Sort of related to this is the Y Mountain property owned by BYU. I think we generally assume that the mountain sides there are public property, and that’s true for the most part. BUT, The Y and the trail leading to the Y is owned by BYU, while all the surrounding property is marked as owned by “The United States of America” in the above mentioned parcel maps. I bring this up because a reliable source told me that when the Y was lit in rainbow colors BYU attempted to press criminal charges because it was their property and they didn’t authorize the lighting. However, since the public does have free access to the land and no actual damage was done to the property (ie vandalism) there was no crime.
Quote:Of course the real tell would be to see who foots the bill when the sidewalk needs repairs.
That is a good point. In the case of my town, and I’m sure laws vary by locale, it is ostensibly the property owner’s responsibility to pay the thousands of dollars to replace the sidewalk but in reality the town has done replacements of broken segments for the past 20 some years I have lived here. The town also shares in tree maintenance in the strip between the sidewalk and street. Having seen the section of sidewalk in Provo many times (I walked by there last month) it is very clear that BYU installed that section of sidewalk in conjunction with the stairway and landscaping.
Quote:Regardless, it’s very bad optics to wash away pride chalkings given the circumstances, even if removing chalk art is a long standing policy. It’s a classic example of the church putting policy before people.
Yes. And I maintain that if the chalk drawings were something different (such as Go Holland!) they may not have been removed as quickly.
DarkJedi wrote:
Yes. And I maintain that if the chalk drawings were something different (such as Go Holland!) they may not have been removed as quickly.
Yeah, finals week always had encouraging messages people put on the sidewalk and those didn’t get immediately washed away by morning.
Arrakeen wrote:
DarkJedi wrote:
Yes. And I maintain that if the chalk drawings were something different (such as Go Holland!) they may not have been removed as quickly.
Yeah, finals week always had encouraging messages people put on the sidewalk and those didn’t get immediately washed away by morning.
Yes, I only get to Provo about once a year (plenty enough for me) and I don’t go over on that side of campus much – but I have seen messages there before. Our youngest should graduate in April and hopefully visits will be less frequent after that (although we do have a son remaining who lives/works in Orem – we’re encouraging him to find a different/better job).
The Deseret News article on the guy no longer being a student at BYU. (No mention of Holland.) https://www.deseret.com/faith/2021/9/14/22674054/byu-student-who-defaced-lgbtq-chalk-art-is-no-longer-enrolled-provo-campus-university-says ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.deseret.com/faith/2021/9/14/22674054/byu-student-who-defaced-lgbtq-chalk-art-is-no-longer-enrolled-provo-campus-university-says Long story short, I believe that BYU has the legal right to clean up the chalk art. I remember some cases where a private institution owned a sidewalk with public access and attempted to restrict access to certain individuals (protesters etc.)
One case was a casino in Las Vegas that owned the sidewalk in front of the property. They attempted to ban individuals from passing out pamphlets advertising private strippers/escorts. The pamphlets were trashy in more ways than one and were a nuisance for the casino and the type of family friendly environment that the casino was trying to portray. Unfortunately for the casino, the issue was interpreted as a free speech issue and they could not restrict access.
Another case was whether the LDS church could restrict protesters access to the sidewalk that they own near temple square. The church, like the casino in the previous example, was thwarted in the attempt because of free speech issues on public access space (even if privately owned).
However, I believe that if anything was left behind by groups using the public access (whether it be litter or expressions of support through chalk art) the owner would have the right to clean it up at their discretion. I do believe that this would mean that BYU could choose to leave a piece of sidewalk art exclaiming, “Go Cougs!” while removing an adjacent piece of sidewalk art.
I teach at a higher educational institution. We did away with the student speaker at graduation entirely due to problems with student speakers coming out with things that were either derogatory toward the school, off-topic, or otherwise embarrassing or unfitting for a graduation ceremony. I know this isn’t the case with this particular student. His speech was approved, so it doesn’t apply, but I wanted to share the problems other schools face with student speakers, and not on gender issues. It seems that Holland made a mistake in assuming that this student’s talk about his sexual orientation was an ambush of his use of the podium, similar to what other schools experience on different issues.
Roy wrote:
Long story short, I believe that BYU has the legal right to clean up the chalk art.
Of course you’re right Roy, just as I would be free to remove any drawings on my own sidewalk. And as you point out, I would also be free to leave it. I guess the real question is what message is being sent by either?
The other day I brought this up with my sister who is still studying at BYU. She said the topic came up in her Sunday school class. Apparently all of the students were voicing their disagreement with Holland’s talk, while the bishopric member sitting in the class appeared very uncomfortable. This is going to be a huge issue for the church going forward. If the leadership keeps pushing this issue they will end up driving away all of the younger membership.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.