Some Thoughts on Tolerance…
I know I haven’t written for a while, and it’ll be a few weeks yet before I can do any regular posting, but I had to throw this up because I feel pretty strongly about it.
It’s always fun for me to cruise through my friends’ blogrolls to see who they read and link to. I’ve found some great blogs that way. Tonight, however, I came across a blog post that bothered me, and though I generally just troll new blogs, I had to leave a comment on this one. And by comment I mean essay.
Anyway, by way of background, the post deals with the recent statement that Brigham Young University has made regarding homosexuality. They clarify and update “the university’s policy against homosexual behavior among students rather than homosexual orientation. . .Now the written policy more clearly states that gays can attend BYU without concern that the Honor Code Office will take action against them because of their sexual orientation.” Read the news release here.
Let me first say that I applaud this clarification by BYU. I will admit that in the past I have been guilty of intolerance, but as the years have passed and I have become more independent in my point of view, I have become much more tolerant of those espousing different points of view. Perhaps that’s what made the blog post I came across so disturbing to me. The author basically stated his shock and disappointment with BYU’s decision to publicize a more tolerant approach towards homosexuality, and then proceeded to engage in a vitriolic and closed-minded (I thought) diatribe against anybody with any kind of inclination towards homosexuality. It was exactly the kind of intolerant attitude that makes me hate living in Provo. What was even more worrisome was the cloud of back-slapping support for the sentiment in the comments. At that point, my inner activist flared up and I penned typed the following response:
I’m going to have to disagree with you, my friend. I have a couple of issues with what you’re saying.
First, let’s talk about this statement: “Entertaining thoughts is behavior.” Now, you had better hope to God that this is not true, because if it is, you and I are in far worse trouble than we realize. Fortunately, we have it on good authority that this isn’t the case: “The distinction between feelings or inclinations on the one hand, and behavior on the other hand, is very clear. It’s no sin to have inclinations that if yielded to would produce behavior that would be a transgression. The sin is in yielding to temptation. Temptation is not unique. Even the Savior was tempted.” -Dallin H Oaks
Granted, you did kind of edge away from this hard-line definition as you proceeded, but the fact is, you’ve based this entire post on this faulty statement.You also mention how “they think it’s only “fair” that they be allowed to do whatever they like, since the hetero students can.” First let me address the obvious. Heterosexual students at BYU absolutely CANNOT do whatever they want. There are handfuls of students that are expelled from BYU for sexual misconduct each semester. The BYU Honor Code is very specific on this point. The point being if they do indeed feel entitled to do whatever they want, then they’re every bit as free to be expelled as heterosexual students with the same opinion.
The broader issue at stake here is your presumption that you know what all these individuals are thinking. Sure, there are some people who miraculously experience the healing power of the atonement and have the bitter cup taken from them. But for every instance of such miracles, there is another instance of the Lord allowing the individual to continue to labor under the burden of temptation. Notable examples include Paul (2 Cor. 12:7-10) and even the Savior (Luke 22:42).
In this light, your willingness to mete out judgment in behalf of the Lord based only on your own personal experience is troubling.Finally, I have a comment relating to your insinuation that the church is caving to political and social pressure. Remember that the prophet and members of the 12 are on the board of directors for BYU. Also keep in mind that this attitude is the same attitude that led to the foundation of the FLDS church. They apostatized because they felt that polygamy had been abandoned by the church in response to outside pressure. I leave the conclusion up to you.
Here’s some additional reading on the topic, along with a snippet to support what I’ve said:The Atonement also gives us the strength to endure “pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind,” because our Savior also took upon Him “the pains and the sicknesses of his people” (Alma 7:11). Brothers and sisters, if your faith and prayers and the power of the priesthood do not heal you from an affliction, the power of the Atonement will surely give you the strength to bear the burden.”
“He Heals the Heavy Laden,” Dallin H. Oaks.Anyway, thanks for letting me hijack your comments to share my thoughts and feelings on this subject.
Nate Kartchner
And now I feel a little bit better. Man, I need to move.
Tags: rant, mormonism, homosexuality, tolerance, byu
April 11th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
I’m confused at what set Drew off here - BYU just clarified a policy that has been common knowledge among the students for as long as I’ve been in the area. At least somebody called him on it…
April 13th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Nice one Nate-dawg. Prudes=douche-bags.
April 14th, 2008 at 12:34 am
Wow, Nate, you made a post about ME on your blog! I’m really sorry you chose to feel this way about my beliefs, especially considering that our beliefs should actually be somewhat in rhyme. But, I don’t think that you used to be “intolerant”, I just think you used to have standards, and have now lowered them all in the name of being “tolerant” and “open-minded”. It’s so sad to me that you are so completely bought and paid for by the oh-so-pervasive agenda. You may have lowered your standards, as may the councils of men, but God’s laws have not and will not change. Also, let it be known that I have PERSONAL experience with this issue, I’m not just some pitchfork-wielding conservative with a vendetta against “anybody with any kind of inclination towards homosexuality”. I have done my homework, I have seen the damage that this can and does do to individuals and families, even at BYU. I have nothing but compassion and hope for these people, but I have no tolerance for indulging sinful behavior, and neither should any of us. It is possible to love someone and disapprove of their behavior, you know.
I will end by quoting what our beloved Prophet said in his most recent General Conference address:
“The face of sin today often wears the Halloween mask of tolerance. Do not be deceived; behind that facade is heartache, unhappiness and pain. You know what is right and what is wrong, and no disguise, however appealing, can change that.”
Enough said.
Signed,
The Prude (I guess… Assume away.)
April 14th, 2008 at 3:15 am
Dear Drew,
I absolutely DID post about you on my blog, primarily because I was so amazed at the virtuosic bigotry (original, I know) that I witnessed on YOUR blog. And I have to be honest, that same unattractive bigotry has gotten even worse as you have tried to defend your untenable position. I’ve tried to avoid writing anything else, despite my growing irritation, but alas, you ventured onto my home turf, eliciting a strong response.
Let me begin by attempting to understand your murky bog of an argument. You argue that anybody who identifies as gay should not be tolerated by BYU. Let’s just stop here for a minute. So what you’re saying is that you’d rather have people hide that fact that they have homosexual tendencies and deal with it by themselves so that they don’t risk getting kicked out of school. Bravo, Drew. Way to advocate getting rid of critical support groups. But hey, I guess the atonement is enough, huh? I mean, who needs a bishop for counseling or repentance when you have the Lord? Oh yeah, turns out that the Lord feels like we need help from others and that’s why we have priesthood leaders. Now, you might respond and say that it’s ok for them to admit these tendencies to people so that they can help, but my response would be that that would put them squarely in the camp that you seem so intent on vilifying: those who identify themselves as homosexuals, which identification is apparently tantamount to gay sex. But seriously, where do you draw the line? You say that you need to be able to judge the difference between HAVING bad thoughts and ENTERTAINING bad thoughts. How do you plan on telling the difference between someone having bad thoughts and someone entertaining bad thoughts? Oh, by their actions? Turns out that the Honor Code addresses actions the same way that it always has. Honestly, I don’t understand what you’re thinking on this.
That said, you furthermore insist on adhering to a shaky doctrinal foundation that is at odds with the actual teachings of the scriptures. I have yet to see any doctrinal proof, scripturally, apostolically, or otherwise, in ANY of your responses, that outlines your point that if you have enough faith, you will be healed of everything in this life (which IS the point you’ve made, time and time again). The reason for this is because no such doctrine exists, and is at odds with the foundations of our beliefs as a church. I defy you to show me where it says that the bitter cup will be taken from everyone IN THIS LIFE if they have enough faith. I assure you that such a statement does not exist. If such a doctrine were true, then the implication would be that there would be no need to endure to the end. Instead, there would be a huge focus on having so much faith that we become perfect in this life. You may say that that’s true, and use Zion as an example. But let me ask you this. For every Zion, how many saints have NOT been perfect enough to be translated? Do you believe that they didn’t have enough faith, and therefore they denied the atonement? Such is the slippery logical slope you’ve ventured onto.
On the other hand, there are several notable instances in the scriptures of the Lord purposely NOT healing people, NOT taking the bitter cup, though they were full of faith. Again, see Paul or Jesus. Are you honestly arguing that the only reason Paul’s thorn in his flesh (and for the sake of argument, let’s say that thorn was homosexuality) wasn’t taken away was because he didn’t have enough faith? The scriptures directly refute that! Such a proposition is ridiculous. However, that said, logic is obviously not a strong point for you. You insist rather, on making emotionally-charged statements and accusations without ever providing any kind of proof except for one distinct quote from President Hinckley, which you have taken out of context. I contend (again) that you have no doctrinal foundation for your intolerant, closed-minded, and uncharitable opinions. These ideas that have “slipped in” have been preached time and time again over the pulpit at conference after conference. It boggles my mind that you still fail to understand them. Show me the doctrinal money, Drew, instead of making vague references to “the scriptures.” (Note: if you want to argue any of these points with me, I’ll have to have scripture, chapter and verse, or conference talk, along with context. Otherwise, I’ll trash the comment. I’m tired of your vagaries. In that same spirit, if you have any questions about what I have said, I’d be happy to supply you with the same information.)
Now let me get a little more personal. I resent several things about your responses. Your condescending “I know what I’m talking about you ignorant plebes” attitude is getting old, friend. You’ve mentioned your own VERY PERSONAL understanding of the issue, while decrying our assumptions about you. Yet you, in the same breath, have made countless assumptions about me, not in the least is your statement that “I think you used to have standards, and have now lowered them all in the name of being “tolerant” and “open-minded”. It’s so sad to me that you are so completely bought and paid for by the oh-so-pervasive agenda.” Yes, Drew, you’re absolutely right. There’s no way that I could think this way on my own. The only way that I could possibly disagree with the ironclad logic of your arguments would be if I had somehow been brainwashed by the evil left-wingers who are putting mind-controlling drugs in my water, along with that horrible fluoride. Heaven forbid that I might have a CONTRARY OPINION OF MY OWN. Personally, though you deny it, I believe you really are a “pitchfork-wielding conservative with a vendetta against anybody with any kind of inclination towards homosexuality.” I believe that you are incapable of compassion towards anybody who has to hoe a more difficult row than you. I mean, after all, if the Savior healed you, then he’d heal anybody, regardless of whether that was part of His plan for them, right? I must confess, the hatefulness of your opinions disgust and sicken me. I must also confess that I have little or no hope that this (or any other) post will do anything to change your mind. But I feel like at least I’ve been honest with you and have discharged my responsibilities, as a concerned citizen and human being, to fight ignorance and intolerance wherever it arises, even when it is as poorly articulated as yours. Drew, someday I hope you can become more like Christ, who ate with publicans and sinners while the Pharisees complained about his open-mindedness.
Sincerely,
Nate
April 14th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Nate Kartchner.
Holy crap. You are my hero and I will absolutely have your babies. Lest you think I am exaggerating, I have already asked Mike’s permission, and he has wholeheartedly granted it. Also Megan said the same thing.
Your response is amazing! I really can’t believe that Drew of all people has this narrow-minded, unChristlike perspective about such a personal issue. I also tried not to get involved, but there was a point where Drew’s self-righteousness and condescension were too much. I have always loved Drew, but I just don’t know where this kind of thinking gets off.
Bravo, Nate. If I ever become president, I want you for my speech writer.
April 14th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
I agree with miri wholeheartedly. Not about the babies, but you know.:) Most of you dont know me but i just want you to know that many people agree with you. So like Miri said, bravo. And encore if possible!
Thanks
Alex
April 14th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Defensive, defensive, defensive. You missed my point entirely. OF COURSE Priesthood leadership is important! That is how the Atonement works, through the proper channels, as well as through the gift of direct revelation. But sad that you think the Savior’s plan doesn’t include healing everyone.
This isn’t a debate, nor would it do any good. I’m sorry for spamming up your blog, I just couldn’t let that go undefended.
Christ may have eaten with publicans and sinners, but he did NOT condone their behavior. He cast the moneylenders out of the temple and ordered people to forsake sinful behavior.
I’m sorry for your obvious aversion toward people who are fighting for the right.
April 14th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Dear Drew,
You’re ridiculous, but I support your right to be so.
Currently eating babies and destroying the moral fabric of society,
Nate
April 14th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Well done Nate. If nothing else you opened a big can and got some reasonable people thinking. (Big can being the “0′worms” kind)*(and the other kind)
April 15th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Nate - 2
Drew - a-hole (no pun intended)
April 17th, 2008 at 7:49 am
That was, without doubt, the most intelligent, logical, linear smack-down I have ever read. A knockout. A head shot. A royal flush. Woody Allen challenged Michael Jordan to a game of one-on-one on in Jordan’s back yard and got epic owned.
This, Drew, is where you tuck tail and run. You are a soft slap to Nate’s uppercut. You are an 8-track to Nate’s iPod. You have thrown your hat into a ring that you just…can’t…compete in. Go back to your own little minor league blog and continue to spew your hate-filled diatribe. But please, for your own sake, steer clear or the majors.
Or you could continue to flail and post. Someone pass the popcorn please.
April 17th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
I don’t allow smoking in my home. Period. But I would welcome any smoker to join us for family home evening.
Isn’t that the right thing to do?
Shouldn’t the church do the same thing for people with homosexual inclinations who want to be in a righteous environment and feel the spirit?
May 6th, 2008 at 3:18 am
…sleep evades me…
In the void of a new post (I forgive you) My thoughts returned to this whole escapade. When you initially posted on this, I found it far more interesting than my physics class, and spent an uncharacteristic amount of time perusing the posts and comments. I was curious about the person who could take so bold a stance, and I spent some time familiarizing myself with his blog–reading older (and newer) posts, attempting to decode the cryptic title, and trying to get a feel of who he is. Tonight another analogy comes to mind.
think of that special someone in your life. A spouse, a mother, a child. Then imagine that they were killed in a car accident, hit by someone who had been drinking but whose blood alcohol level was below the legal limit (0.08). The driver is cited with only a moving violation, his penalty is the proverbial slap on the wrist, and he is back to drinking, and driving before you have even begun to mourn your loss, seemingly unaffected by the event that has left your life in chards and fragments.
Then imagine that the state legislature released a statement that the allowed blood alcohol level was up to and including .08, and that a driver could not be convicted of DWI unless their blood registered .085 or higher.
Wouldn’t you feel betrayed? You would feel as if someone had dug open your wounds and spat in them. Wouldn’t you go on, if not a crusade, at least a tirade, about how the legal limit is far too high, the penalties are too few and too forgiving, and that no one with a hint of alcohol in their blood should ever be allowed behind a wheel?
If we are to believe a would-be publication, our dear author might be on a comparable tirade, and (in my opinion) more justified in his defiance than at first he appeared.
The thing that still has me thinking, is the miniature throng of followers before the ‘reign of terror’ brought on by an opposing comment. Perhaps some have a similar motivation, but I fear there is too great a “cloud of back-slapping support” as you put it. I think often we take sides without realizing where we are standing. It is damnably easy to side with a friend, and nearly as simple to follow the most charismatic, or even the most energetic voice we hear. In much of our lives we are not encouraged to think, only to accept what is in front of us. From advertising to entertainment to corporate policies. We are surrounded my much more newspeak than we realize.
Crusaders change the world (for good and for bad) they are an invaluable part of society, but they are (at least in theory) only as strong as their following is large. I guess the take-away thought is that we need to differentiate the resonating and the dissonant voices we hear before we start singin along.
May 13th, 2008 at 8:48 am
Woah, this is getting pretty heated. I kind of like it. Keep up the good work Nate. I’m behind you all the way.
May 14th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Well spoken! I’ve been living in Provo for almost 5 years and i can’t believe some of the things that come out of people’s mouths. There is nothing worse then false doctrine being preached as gospel. I think that Drew kid got the reality b**slap of a lifetime.
My best friend growing up was gay, i guess you could say he was the will to my grace and it was really hard for him because he was raised LDS and believed with all his heart but still couldn’t get over the trial that had been put in his path. He came out of the closet right after high school and the only people who didn’t shun him were me and our other friend Jonathan. I couldn’t believe the response that our community and friends were now showing him. They shunned him like a leper and it broke my heart to see this.
It’s hard to see, and it’s that kind of intolerance that doesn’t help the people who need it the most. There is a big difference between tolerance and condoning actions.
Here’s a good question for you Drew… What would you do if several years from now, you have a son that comes to you and tells you he’s gay? What will you do then?
May 15th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
new post! new post! new post!
May 18th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Nate, as always you are my hero, and you are ALWAYS welcome here in California.