Like many other people, I was dismayed to read Elder Holland’s recent speech at BYU where he advocated the use of metaphorical muskets to fire at people who he sees as not sufficiently faithful to the Church’s anti-LGBT stance. He seemed very concerned about a slippery slope that starts with a student expressing the idea (approved by powers that be in the administration!) that they were gay and also loved by God that might lead to . . . it’s unclear exactly what. Maybe a student would say they’re single and also loved by God, or trans and also loved by God. I can’t really get Elder Holland’s concern here, since the people approving the speeches work for the Q15, so if he doesn’t like that they approved it, he should maybe call an internal meeting over it rather than wringing his hands about it in public. Anyway, at the same time that he’s deeply concerned with this slippery slope, Elder Holland seems totally unconcerned with another slippery slope that he starts by bringing up the metaphor of using muskets to shoot at people who aren’t straight-friendly enough. This slippery slope starts with discussion of metaphorical musket fire and moves to discussion of real musket fire (helpfully already supplied by DezNat folks and their friends) and ends with physical violence against LGBT people. I think this should be a much bigger concern, but clearly Elder Holland doesn’t agree. I don’t even want to know how much he sympathizes with DezNat. I was clearly wrong when I placed him as “lean progressive” on my Q15 spectrum just a couple of months ago.
I’ve read a bunch of other posts responding to Elder Holland that have made tons of excellent points with more careful and detailed commentary than I have here. Some of my favorites have been Em and Katie Rich’s posts at the Exponent, and Jana Riess’s at RNS.
One small area where I thought I could contribute a bit of data is on Elder Holland’s complaint about Matthew Easton’s commencement speech that I mentioned above where he came out as gay. I’ve seen several people point out that it’s not like it’s unheard of for students who speak at commencement to allude to the fact that they’re straight, like by mentioning their opposite-sex spouse. So it’s just that Easton said that he’s gay that Elder Holland doesn’t like, not that he brought up his sexual orientation at all. I know this seems like a blinding flash of the obvious, but if the Church is serious about being okay with gay people, just not homosexual relationships, then why does he care? Other commenters have already pointed this out, but of course it’s okay with Elder Holland if people allude to their sexual orientation if they’re straight, but once they do it and they’re gay, then it’s “divisive.” This reminds me of a point Melyngoch made in a post about pants to church nearly a decade ago:
So sure, wearing pants is political. But it’s no more or less political than wearing a skirt; it’s just minority politics, which makes it stand out.
Oh, right, so getting back to how I was going to contribute some data, I thought I would read some recent commencement speeches by BYU students to see if they ever bring up their straight behavior. I looked on the BYU Speeches archive and found all student speeches at commencement that I could in the last ten years. There were 16. (The BYU Speeches site notes that not all speakers are willing to allow their speeches to appear on the site. For example, Easton’s speech isn’t there.) Of the 16, four speakers allude to their heterosexual behavior, such as dating, marrying, or having kids. So with a quarter of the speakers suggesting they’ve engaged in straight behavior, it’s not exactly common, but it’s not entirely unheard of.
One last point that’s probably obvious, but I want to say it to be clear. Of course at BYU, speakers don’t have to come out as straight, or explicitly mention their orientation. They only suggest that they’re straight by mentioning their heterosexual behavior. This is in contrast to Easton’s speech where he mentioned his orientation, but not behavior. But of course this is expected, as BYU will (at least in theory) allow homosexual orientation, but not behavior.
In case you want to review my work, here are links to the 16 speeches I read. I’ve placed asterisks by the ones that mention heterosexual behavior. One last thought: I think you could actually make a case that the women, when they use what sounds like a last name as a middle name (Beth Black Peacock, Phoebe Romney Cook) are also making a statement about their heterosexual behavior, as it seems likely that they’ve gotten (straight) married and taken their husband’s last name.
*2012 April – Stephen R. B. Richards – Little Worlds
2012 August – Julianne Long – The World at Our Doorstep
2013 April – Conrad W. Rosenbrock – Metamorphosis and Accountability: A Guide for the Future
2013 August – Rachel Thayer – Understanding Success
2014 April – Megan Hirschi – To Serve and Benefit the World
*2014 August – Phoebe Romney Cook – How Will You Serve?
2015 April – Ryan T. Barrett – Be the Vision
2015 August – Beth Black Peacock – Our Individual Stewardship
*2016 April – Alicia K. Stanton – Life Connected
2016 August – Marcus Gallo – Remember the Harbor
2017 April – Thomas J. Stone – Let’s Not Leave Jonny Behind
2017 August – Michael William Morgan – Our Identities at BYU and Beyond
*2018 April – Jared T. Blanchard – The Importance of Being Present
2018 August – Ashton R. Omdahl – Embracing the Truth
2019 April – David W. Kastner – “The Ultimate Triumph of Truth”
2021 April – Alyssa M. Baer – Choosing Who You Will Become
Ziff, you’re not alone (now I’ve that song stuck in my head). JRH was one of my favourite speakers and often felt that he had some important things to say especially in regards to mental health challenges. But after this speech, I have completely revisited my opinions. And the more I go through his past speeches and sermons the more I notice there is a undercurrent of smug cruelty to those who dare to think different.
It is sad to say, I can’t think of really anyone in Church leadership that I would trust to exhibit actual Christ-like compassion. I am a straight white male, so I have not experienced any of the kind of trauma our LGBQT members have faced, but I am also never married without children and based on what I’ve seen and heard over the past few years, there is no way I would ever take my concerns to “The Brethern” out of fear that it would be made into a story at General Conference.
I still believe, I still attend (I have a good ward), and I still hold to the tenets of the gospel, but as for the Church, I am more and more agnostic about it and I feel less connected to it.
I agree, Jason. If it had been Oaks saying this stuff, I would have been less surprised, but clearly I’ve probably misjudged Holland all along. I’m sorry that your being single puts you on the outside at church. It really is a very tight box you have to be in to be a fully inside person in the Church. Oddly, I guess I tick all the boxes (straight, white, cisgender, male, married with kids) but I’m a total heretic.
FWIW, Easton spoke at the convocation ceremonies of the College of Family, Home, & Social Sciences, not at the commencement ceremonies of the University.
Thanks, Nathan! I guess that means there’s a whole set of other speeches I could look at considering the college-level commencements!
Ziff: Re: “I was clearly wrong when I placed him as “lean progressive” on my Q15 spectrum just a couple of months ago.” Funny, I swear I’m telling the truth that, upon reading Holland’s talk, one of my very first thoughts was your prediction of him in that post! Haha. I guess your post made an impact!
One other thing: I have this idea in my head that perhaps Holland was asked by the First Presidency to give this talk; that it wasn’t his idea. No matter. Either way, it makes very little difference to those he cruelly shamed and embarrassed.
I feel like those in the ex-mo community are likely less surprised by Elder Holland’s behavior. His cruel behavior and outright lies regarding those who leave the faith (in official church forums like general conference at least – I’ve heard he can be quite better individually) have hurt and angered many former mormons.
It’s been interesting to me to see how many progressive Mormons have been surprised by Holland being the one to say these awful things, and how many have speculated, as Hunter just did, that it was under duress. It did not surprise me at all. Holland has always been viciously contemptuous of nonbelievers, and once he turns on you enough to hurt you, you don’t forget it. I certainly won’t forget the comfortable gods talk, which kicked me when I was down and was the last time I watched general conference without my guard up, or the infamous taffy-pulling rant a few years later. He is hot and cold. People get all gushy when he gives one of his weepy talks about love or whatever, and that makes them forget his pulpit-pounding fire and brimstone talks where it seems like he’s so angry that he’ll come out of his skin–the kind of righteous indignation young missionaries like to admire. This is the real Holland. Always has been.
^ Amen to that. Remember his General Conference talk about not going back to your nets in 2012? That was reworked from an hour long rant the previous year meant for some missionary leadership audience. My mission president had it on video and basically the first thing we did straight off the plane was get locked in a dark room in the mission home to watch the whole thing. That was a real scary thing for the new missionary staring two years abroad in the face, Elder Holland ranting and raving about how the mission call is FOREVER and DON’T YOU DARE GO BACK TO YOUR NETS and ELDER SO-AND-SO, DO. YOU. LOVE. MEEE? He’s a kind one in General Conference but a bit of a bulldog everywhere else, I’m afraid.
Hunter, I’m glad my previous post was memorable! I hope you’re right that Holland was tasked with giving a mean talk.
Jacob, forgot my name, and Pontius Python (I love your name!) great points about this talk not being out of line with Holland’s past talks. I tend to focus most on his Conference talks, because I know he knows then he’s talking to the whole Church. But he definitely has a history of shouting and being dismissive of anyone who would dare doubt or even edge away from orthodoxy. In a neighboring state, I heard he came to a regional (or stake?) conference and yelled a bunch and was awful.
For me, anyway, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, but the fact that he at least sometimes sounds empathetic to people who are in pain makes it more jarring for me when he’s not. Forgot my name, like you said, he’s hot and cold. I guess I’m just happy when a GA isn’t always rude and condescending (like say, Andersen), and it’s easy for me to imagine at his good times that that’s how he really is. But I’m clearly wrong when I imagine such things.
I really appreciate the research you do for your posts. It gives good context for a discussion. I saw a comment elsewhere in which the commenter said he never felt like he needed to bring up his sexual orientation, and . . . yeah, any man who mentions his wife, or a wife mentioning her husband, implicitly brings up sexual orientation. Good point that 25% of commencement speakers actually DO say something about their orientation.
I was surprised it was Elder Holland, but not surprised at the doubling down on perceiving LGBT as a threat. I can’t imagine the Church ever accepting gay marriage. I know many of the more liberal Mormons thought the Church’s stance towards gays might someday change, but sex=procreation is so baked into the theology that I gave up hope a while ago.
Renaming sex “the sacred procreative process” is pretty telling. (I’ve heard that in Gen Conf more than once.) It ignores all the sex that doesn’t make babies, and so fences out anyone who likes non-procreative sex. If the Brethren follow the “sacred procreative process” reasoning to its logical end, they should all be celibate because their wives are post-menopause and so unable to procreate. They should preach celibacy for all men whose wives don’t want to conceive or are past menopause and thereby stand in partial solidarity with the gays who are asked to be celibate for a lifetime.
Thanks, Melinda. Sadly, I think you’re probably spot on on this issue. In the near future for sure, the GAs seem to be signaling that they think straight cis-genderness is the core of Jesus’s teachings, which makes total sense given how often he talked about it. [eye roll] And with a giant pile of money handy, they can really go against the grain of society in a way they maybe couldn’t in the 1970s with the priesthood/temple ban. Just thinking out loud here.
I recommend this post on the subject:
http://rainscamedown.blogspot.com/2021/08/trowels-and-muskets.html
Do you think this will be mentioned in conference? Either an apology or doubling down?
Great question, Trish. I think almost certainly not with an apology, since the GAs aren’t in that business, but maybe with a doubling down. Conference speakers are also famously oblique about things when they don’t want to accidentally direct listeners to controversies that they weren’t already aware of (e.g., Elder Oaks’s response to OW where he didn’t ever mention OW), so if there is a response, you can bet there will be some camouflage thrown in!
I haven’t done the research, but I suspect the incidence of references to straightness is even higher in GC. It’s one thing to be married. It’s another thing to hold up your hetero marriage as the pinnacle of human experience and achievement. I like Melinda’s point that the GAs should preach non-procreative celibacy in solidarity with gay members if sex is really all about procreation. But the least they could do is cool it with the gooey fawning over wives in general conference. It really does feel insensitive to the single and gay members of the church sometimes. I’d be curious to see, actually, if GC references to hetero marriage are declining in step with softening rhetoric against gay people? Or are they going strong as ever?
Ooh, that’s a great comparison Kirkstall. Years ago, I did a little project where I looked at how GAs talked when they referred to their wives. I think you’re right that it would be interesting to see how often they refer to their wives in the first place.
What kind of echo chamber is this?
I guess not the kind of echo chamber you were looking for, Burning Bush.