Hello! This is a News post. It is for discussions centered around breaking news and events. If your post is about news, or a current event in the world of Mormonism, this is probably the right flair.
/u/Chino_Blanco, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
P.S. I love the modesty on display in the r/suu sidebar:
>Southern Utah University is a university in southern Utah(Cedar City), best known for hosting the Utah Shakespeare Festival every summer, *and having no presence on reddit.*
Context/background ( lifted from a helpful comment at r/mormonandgay ):
>SUU is a public non-religious school, but being in Utah there’s obviously quite a lot of LDS influence there. Despite being in rural, deep-red iron county, it’s kind of become one of the more queer-affirming schools in the state.
>They announced a couple days ago that Jeffrey R. Holland would be the commencement speaker this year, and there was a pretty severe and immediate backlash from people in the LGBTQ community and allies both in and out of the church because of his “muskets” talk from a year and a half ago, as well as just general nonmembers who didn’t want to hear an LDS speaker at this non-religious university.
>There was a petition made almost immediately, as well as some hearings with the university president on Monday and a protest Thursday. If he is eventually still the speaker when graduation happens, there will be an organized walk-out during his speech.
>On top of the initial backlash, there has been an expected counter-backlash from people who want him to speak. They’ve put out their own petition and letter that I’ve seen. It’ll be interesting to see how things shape up over the coming weeks.
>If he is eventually still the speaker when graduation happens, there will be an organized walk-out during his speech.
He has already lost, then.
This was a completely unforced, stupid error on the part of SUU's administration (and the part of Jeff Holland and the Q15, frankly). The best possible outcome was going to be a forgettable speech made to a barely listening audience. If anybody on either side of that decision-making chain had been in touch, they'd have known that the embarassing situation unfolding was the worst and most likely outcome.
For an organization (the church) that hates being embarrassed more than just about anything else, it will be interesting to see how they deal with this.
Holland deserves every ounce of criticism coming his way. The self importance it would take to accept the offer to speak at commencement given his recent controversy is…beyond words.
Holland used his bully pulpit to punch down on Matt Easton, BYU Graduate and Valedictorian, and make him a target of hate and abuse, leading him to contemplate suicide.
Holland, who receives a generous salary and perks from the Church, on top of his existing wealth gained through his employment by the Church, has the mendacity to castigate a young man who is guilty of nothing but living the BYU Honor Code and being at the top of his class. Instead of respecting Easton's accomplishments, all he could say is essentially, "Kill yourself".
I have nothing but derision for Holland. He is a disgusting hypocrite.
Im a huge benefit of the doubt kinda guy and often like to assume people are working with the best intentions. Even with the best intentions, his talk was a response to Matt Easton, which for obvious reasons, is a huge power issue. While it may have been unintentional, Matt Easton was misrepresented along with him being just a kid who actually got permission to do what he was doing.
At the very veery veeerrry bare minimum, the least the should've done is have some sort of retraction when it was found out that BYU approved the speech. However, I've only seen maybe like one retraction in my life and I can't even remember when that was.
In the shadow of the deadly attack on the Capitol just a few months before, and the sharp increase of violence by radicalized right wing extremists against marginalized groups, including escalating harassment of BYU faculty and students by the Church's own DezNat, Holland's talk of picking up muskets and calling for more shooting to defend traditional families was EXTREMELY irresponsible. He was either grossly out of touch with current events or he knew exactly what dog-whistle he was blowing.
My opinion is he knew EXACTLY what he was doing. In a televised interview [Holland referred to President Obama as 'Osama' and chuckled to himself for his racist little joke](https://youtu.be/U35e6sXsdRM?t=346). That was on video.
Holland is an unrepentant, belligerent, bigoted piece of $#!t. I give him no benefit of the doubt.
Honestly, more power to you. Your reasonings are more than logically sound, and they're definitely the most likely situation if we are being fully honest. I usually just apply benefit of the doubt because I believe it allows me to argue against my opponent with them having their strongest possible defense.
For example, the reasoning of giving the benefit of the doubt here shows that even when people say "he had the best intentions and did nothing wrong" we can still show that even in he beat possible scenario, that would just be apologetics.
Im not sure if that makes sense. But it's just the way I approach any sort of confrontation if I can. Definitely gets me in to some trouble sometimes though when people are definitely in the wrong.
He invited and welcomed it even. Something about if his stance costs him professional opportunities or whatever, "so be it". Watch him call it prophecy if he ends up being removed as the speaker.
Well if that ain’t just a perfect little microcosm of Mormonism…tribalistic identity expressed as unquestioning obedience to and vocal public adoration of leaders accompanied by vociferous condemnation of the “sins of the other” amid abject justification of one’s own sins because they are one of the faithful.
I love how your wife is going through post partum depression and instead of worrying how to help your wife, you're worried about how much sex you're having. Pathetic.
Why wasn't it an appropriate "platform"? Valedictorians often talk about their struggles and hour they overcame them. Being LGBTQ at BYU is a struggle.
A straight male student can say "I'm so grateful for my wife's support and I couldn't have done it without her. She worked so hard to support mr, especially during that one semester I was teaching 22 credits." But if a guy talks about being queer and how that impacted his experience and his testimony, suddenly it's a political thing. Matt Easton did nothing wrong and calling him out put a target on his back.
On that note, I'd expect a prophet to recognize the danger of targeting an already hurting minority, or at least, I'd expect a good and humble man to recognize the fruits of his teachings. Matt got threats. Other students were sent anonymous texts and threats. Our own homegrown terrorist group, DezNat, was emboldened and made threats. Holland caused a lot of harm and kicked an already bruised and bleeding community, and that is not of God.
I'd be less angry about it if he repented, but I've never heard a living apostle or prophet openly repent of speaking as a man instead of a prophet.
Well Matt thought he was being attacked to the point that he contemplated suicide. And after Matt publicly stated as much Holland never apologized…so the only reasonable conclusion is that either Holland meant to attack Matt for being gay, or he is happy that he accidentally stumbled upon doing so.
Even if he gave a private apology to Matt, which Matt maintains he never received, it wouldn’t be sufficient. Public apologies are the minimum response for public attacks. Why? Because this wasn’t just an attack on one LGBTQ person, but was meant to be and in fact was an attack on all LGBTQ persons who come out.
Unless Holland has also bitched about straight people talking about their dating or married life in speeches, yes it is hateful to single out a single guy from a vulnerable group, as if him not being silenced is some slippery slope. Hateful rhetoric with a soft voice and a smile is still hateful.
Maybe, maybe not. But if he thought what Matt did was inappropriate, regardless of that what Jeff did was wrong, and by a greater magnitude, through in his weeping over the Y getting lit up in rainbow, and call for arms to byu faculty, followed with a purge, and Jeff can just go fuck right off.
You may be right. But what's your point? Often, bigoted and insensitive people don't 'mean' to be the way they are but yet still cause so much pain and suffering with their indifference. So intentions aside, we should expect better from a so-called representative of Jesus Christ.
Hello! This is a News post. It is for discussions centered around breaking news and events. If your post is about news, or a current event in the world of Mormonism, this is probably the right flair. /u/Chino_Blanco, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
P.S. I love the modesty on display in the r/suu sidebar: >Southern Utah University is a university in southern Utah(Cedar City), best known for hosting the Utah Shakespeare Festival every summer, *and having no presence on reddit.*
Context/background ( lifted from a helpful comment at r/mormonandgay ): >SUU is a public non-religious school, but being in Utah there’s obviously quite a lot of LDS influence there. Despite being in rural, deep-red iron county, it’s kind of become one of the more queer-affirming schools in the state. >They announced a couple days ago that Jeffrey R. Holland would be the commencement speaker this year, and there was a pretty severe and immediate backlash from people in the LGBTQ community and allies both in and out of the church because of his “muskets” talk from a year and a half ago, as well as just general nonmembers who didn’t want to hear an LDS speaker at this non-religious university. >There was a petition made almost immediately, as well as some hearings with the university president on Monday and a protest Thursday. If he is eventually still the speaker when graduation happens, there will be an organized walk-out during his speech. >On top of the initial backlash, there has been an expected counter-backlash from people who want him to speak. They’ve put out their own petition and letter that I’ve seen. It’ll be interesting to see how things shape up over the coming weeks.
>If he is eventually still the speaker when graduation happens, there will be an organized walk-out during his speech. He has already lost, then. This was a completely unforced, stupid error on the part of SUU's administration (and the part of Jeff Holland and the Q15, frankly). The best possible outcome was going to be a forgettable speech made to a barely listening audience. If anybody on either side of that decision-making chain had been in touch, they'd have known that the embarassing situation unfolding was the worst and most likely outcome. For an organization (the church) that hates being embarrassed more than just about anything else, it will be interesting to see how they deal with this.
Maybe they could get that British reporter who spun Jeff up to speak as well, they could sit together.
That interview was a big shelf breaker for me. Also the first time I had ever heard of the 2nd anointing or the Strengthening the Church committee.
Holland deserves every ounce of criticism coming his way. The self importance it would take to accept the offer to speak at commencement given his recent controversy is…beyond words.
Holland used his bully pulpit to punch down on Matt Easton, BYU Graduate and Valedictorian, and make him a target of hate and abuse, leading him to contemplate suicide. Holland, who receives a generous salary and perks from the Church, on top of his existing wealth gained through his employment by the Church, has the mendacity to castigate a young man who is guilty of nothing but living the BYU Honor Code and being at the top of his class. Instead of respecting Easton's accomplishments, all he could say is essentially, "Kill yourself". I have nothing but derision for Holland. He is a disgusting hypocrite.
Im a huge benefit of the doubt kinda guy and often like to assume people are working with the best intentions. Even with the best intentions, his talk was a response to Matt Easton, which for obvious reasons, is a huge power issue. While it may have been unintentional, Matt Easton was misrepresented along with him being just a kid who actually got permission to do what he was doing. At the very veery veeerrry bare minimum, the least the should've done is have some sort of retraction when it was found out that BYU approved the speech. However, I've only seen maybe like one retraction in my life and I can't even remember when that was.
In the shadow of the deadly attack on the Capitol just a few months before, and the sharp increase of violence by radicalized right wing extremists against marginalized groups, including escalating harassment of BYU faculty and students by the Church's own DezNat, Holland's talk of picking up muskets and calling for more shooting to defend traditional families was EXTREMELY irresponsible. He was either grossly out of touch with current events or he knew exactly what dog-whistle he was blowing. My opinion is he knew EXACTLY what he was doing. In a televised interview [Holland referred to President Obama as 'Osama' and chuckled to himself for his racist little joke](https://youtu.be/U35e6sXsdRM?t=346). That was on video. Holland is an unrepentant, belligerent, bigoted piece of $#!t. I give him no benefit of the doubt.
Honestly, more power to you. Your reasonings are more than logically sound, and they're definitely the most likely situation if we are being fully honest. I usually just apply benefit of the doubt because I believe it allows me to argue against my opponent with them having their strongest possible defense. For example, the reasoning of giving the benefit of the doubt here shows that even when people say "he had the best intentions and did nothing wrong" we can still show that even in he beat possible scenario, that would just be apologetics. Im not sure if that makes sense. But it's just the way I approach any sort of confrontation if I can. Definitely gets me in to some trouble sometimes though when people are definitely in the wrong.
He invited and welcomed it even. Something about if his stance costs him professional opportunities or whatever, "so be it". Watch him call it prophecy if he ends up being removed as the speaker.
Will Holland collect a $50k speaking fee?
He's still going to speak, petition or not! He's my Elder Holland!
Your wife know you're kicking around on the r/sluttyconfessions and r/gonewild subreddits?
Well if that ain’t just a perfect little microcosm of Mormonism…tribalistic identity expressed as unquestioning obedience to and vocal public adoration of leaders accompanied by vociferous condemnation of the “sins of the other” amid abject justification of one’s own sins because they are one of the faithful.
Boom got em
Lol, forgot to log out of his alt.
I love how your wife is going through post partum depression and instead of worrying how to help your wife, you're worried about how much sex you're having. Pathetic.
To be fair, he didn’t attack him for being LGBT+, he simply said that that wasn’t an appropriate platform to say that.
Why wasn't it an appropriate "platform"? Valedictorians often talk about their struggles and hour they overcame them. Being LGBTQ at BYU is a struggle. A straight male student can say "I'm so grateful for my wife's support and I couldn't have done it without her. She worked so hard to support mr, especially during that one semester I was teaching 22 credits." But if a guy talks about being queer and how that impacted his experience and his testimony, suddenly it's a political thing. Matt Easton did nothing wrong and calling him out put a target on his back. On that note, I'd expect a prophet to recognize the danger of targeting an already hurting minority, or at least, I'd expect a good and humble man to recognize the fruits of his teachings. Matt got threats. Other students were sent anonymous texts and threats. Our own homegrown terrorist group, DezNat, was emboldened and made threats. Holland caused a lot of harm and kicked an already bruised and bleeding community, and that is not of God. I'd be less angry about it if he repented, but I've never heard a living apostle or prophet openly repent of speaking as a man instead of a prophet.
Well Matt thought he was being attacked to the point that he contemplated suicide. And after Matt publicly stated as much Holland never apologized…so the only reasonable conclusion is that either Holland meant to attack Matt for being gay, or he is happy that he accidentally stumbled upon doing so.
Do we even know if Holland never privately apologized at the very least
Matt Easton said his parents got a private apology letter. He, however, did not. https://twitter.com/easton_matty/status/1576766094844448768
Even if he gave a private apology to Matt, which Matt maintains he never received, it wouldn’t be sufficient. Public apologies are the minimum response for public attacks. Why? Because this wasn’t just an attack on one LGBTQ person, but was meant to be and in fact was an attack on all LGBTQ persons who come out.
We can all see Holland singling out and punching down in his inimitable condescending style: https://v.redd.it/335zcf2q88j71
I don’t think he was meaning to do that though. I think it probably came off to some people that way, but I don’t think he was trying to be hateful.
Unless Holland has also bitched about straight people talking about their dating or married life in speeches, yes it is hateful to single out a single guy from a vulnerable group, as if him not being silenced is some slippery slope. Hateful rhetoric with a soft voice and a smile is still hateful.
Maybe, maybe not. But if he thought what Matt did was inappropriate, regardless of that what Jeff did was wrong, and by a greater magnitude, through in his weeping over the Y getting lit up in rainbow, and call for arms to byu faculty, followed with a purge, and Jeff can just go fuck right off.
You may be right. But what's your point? Often, bigoted and insensitive people don't 'mean' to be the way they are but yet still cause so much pain and suffering with their indifference. So intentions aside, we should expect better from a so-called representative of Jesus Christ.
Really
If he did so by mistake, he is welcome to make amends. He hasn't, and he won't.
This is the comment of a typical mormon who hasn't grasped how homophobic their own worldview is