I wanted to give some serious time to really reflect on what Holland said in his BYU address. What were the goals of the talk, and did he achieve them? And what does it say about the direction of the Church from a man who is very likely to be head of the Church in a few years?
The first few paragraphs are pleasant, filled with nostalgia, giving us background for his love for BYU. The first section that really struck me was this one:
One of our colleagues seated here this morning speaks of his first semester, pre-mission enrollment in my friend Wilford Griggs’s History of Civilization class. But this was going to be civilization seen through a BYU lens. So as preambles to the course, Wilf had the students read President Spencer W. Kimball’s “Second Century Address” and the first chapter of Hugh Nibley’s Approaching Zion.Taken together, our very literate friend says these two readings “forged an indestructible union in my mind and heart between two soaring ideals — that of a consecrated university with that of a holy city. Zion, I came to believe, would be a city with a school [and I would add, a temple, creating] something of a celestial college town, or perhaps a college kingdom.”
Now I decided to read Kimball's address is full of warnings that BYU will always put spiritual matters above academics when the two are seen in conflict, and it included lines like this Pres. Taylor quote:
"Whatever you do, be choice in your selections of teachers. We do not want infidels to mold the minds of children... I would rather have my children taught the simple rudiments of a common education by men of God, and have them under their influence, then have them taught in the most abstruse sciences by men who have not the fear of God in their hearts."
This foreshadows nicely where his talk is going to go. He soon refers to this letter he received.
Imagine the pain that comes with a memo like this one I recently received. These are just a half-dozen lines from a two-page document:“You should know,” the writer says, “that some people in the extended community are feeling abandoned and betrayed by BYU. It seems that some professors (at least the vocal ones in the media) are supporting ideas that many of us feel are contradictory to gospel principles, making it appear to be about like any other university our sons and daughters could have attended. Several parents have said they no longer want to send their children here or donate to the school.“Please don’t think I’m opposed to people thinking differently about policies and ideas,” the writer continues. “I’m not. But I would hope that BYU professors would be bridging those gaps between faith and intellect and would be sending out students that are ready to do the same in loving, intelligent and articulate ways. Yet, I fear that some faculty are not supportive of the Church's doctrines and policies and choose to criticize them publicly. There are consequences to this. After having served a full-time mission and marrying her husband in the temple, a friend of mine recently left the church. In her graduation statement on a social media post, she credited [such and such a BYU program and its faculty] with the radicalizing of her attitudes and the destruction of her faith.”
The weighted language of that final line. No way to verify it. "The radicalization of her attitudes and the destruction of her faith." Any chance the friend of this writer would categorize her leaving much, much differently?
What doctrines or policies are getting criticized exactly? Is there anything specific we can examine? Not really, so it's up to Holland to take on the journey of examples. A few paragraphs later, he says this.
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." He said this in a way that could have applied to a host of topics in various departments, but the one he specifically mentioned was the doctrine of the family and defending marriage as the union of a man and a woman."
So of all the directions he could have gone with this, with the metaphor of musket fire, he reaffirms the Church's opposition to gay marriage. And then this:
If a student commandeers a graduation podium intended to represent everyone getting diplomas in order to announce his personal sexual orientation, what might another speaker feel free to announce the next year until eventually anything goes? What might commencement come to mean — or not mean — if we push individual license over institutional dignity for very long? Do we simply end up with more divisiveness in our culture than we already have — and we already have too much everywhere.
Now this was irresponsible at best and dishonest at worst. Holland should have known that Matty Easton's speech was pre-approved by the BYU administrators. If he didn't, why didn't he check first before sub-tweeting him to the world? If he did, is this his way of firing a musket shot across Pres. Worthen's bough that it never should have been pre-approved? And the slippery slope fallacy! Come on, he knows better than this. And said it anyway.
In that spirit, let me go no farther before declaring unequivocally my love and that of my Brethren for those who live with this same-sex challenge and so much complexity that goes with it. Too often the world has been unkind, in many instances crushingly cruel, to these our brothers and sisters. Like many of you, we have spent hours with them, and wept and prayed and wept again in an effort to offer love and hope while keeping the gospel strong and the obedience to commandments evident in every individual life.But it will assist everyone in providing such help if things can be kept in some proportion and balance in the process. For example, we have to be careful that love and empathy do not get interpreted as condoning and advocacy, or that orthodoxy and loyalty to principle not be interpreted as unkindness or disloyalty to people. As near as I can tell, Christ never once withheld His love from anyone, but He also never once said to anyone, “Because I love you, you are exempt from keeping my commandments.” We are tasked with trying to strike that same sensitive, demanding balance in our lives.
This is tortuous. "We love you, but we don't condone you." And he concludes with that passive voice. We are tasked. Tasked by who? If the Lord really reveals things to his prophet, then why won't he be clear here? It is so frustrating.
My Brethren have made the case for the metaphor of musket fire, which I have endorsed yet again today. There will continue to be those who oppose our teachings and with that will continue the need to define, document, and defend the faith. But we do all look forward to the day when we can “beat our swords into plowshares, and [our] spears into pruning hooks,” and at least on this subject, “learn war [no] more.”[13] And while I have focused on this same-sex topic this morning more than I would have liked, I pray you will see it as emblematic of a lot of issues our students and community face in this complex, contemporary world of ours.
His remarks were planned. He wanted to throw down the gauntlet of being anti-LGBT and look forward to some day when the swords can be beaten into plowshares. Well, they can do that now. They can stop attacking the LGBT community, LGBT members, LGBT children, instead of emboldening the far-right DezNat wing of the Church that they specifically will not condemn. This is what his remarks inspire.
He concludes thusly:
Light conquers darkness. Truth triumphs against error. Goodness is victorious over evil in the end.
I believe deep down he's doing the best he can with what he knows. But just like the church couldn't stay the "Blacks can't hold the Priesthood or receive temple endowments" church forever, they will eventually have to change their doctrine that homosexuals can only go to the Celestial Kingdom if they stay celibate their entire lives. The sooner they do it, the better off they and their membership will be.
Some other thoughts:
- He quoted Dallin H. Oaks for his musket-fire remarks. I expect to see more and more apostles and General Authorities quoting Oaks from now on. Oaks is next in line to be President of the Church (as Nelson turns 97 next month), and hey, he'll need to think about whom he wants in his First Presidency. He'll need to think about about who the next Apostle should be. Wouldn't hurt to be on his good side.
- I've seen good people find his remarks inspiring. There's a lot of positive thinking in there. I could see how those words could be their takeaway while the more problematic parts of his talk don't resonate.
- Does this give us a hint of where he'll take the Church once he's President, if he lives that long? I believe it means "Wait for President Uchtdorf."
