Deseret News | Reader comments: BYU rehangs photo exhibit

Reader comments
BYU rehangs photo exhibit

141 comments | Read story

Page:
1
2
3
Next >

Anonymous | 1:57 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

Nothing to see here. Move along folks.

Bill Gronberg | 3:16 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

This article should prove to be a real "lightning rod" to attract Forum posters of all shades of opinion. One can hope that none of the comments will be "abusive, offensive, off-topic," or "misrepresentative".

Nov 31? | 5:02 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

Nice story. I understand some things are different at BYU, but I thought they used the same calendar everyone else does.

Comments continue below

So | 5:24 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

So, if one proclaims to be gay yet he refrains from the act is he still gay?

Steve | 6:02 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

The word tolerance was used twice here in the story and the words words hate and bigot were also used. Just because I don't tolerate certain lifestyles doesn't mean that I hate or am a bigot. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Those who accuse the L.D.S. community of intolerance ,are themselves hateful, and bigoted, and intolerant of my beliefs. Pictures are pictures, big deal.

Missing the Point | 6:13 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

What don't BYU students understand about the church's policy. The LDS church does not condone homosexuality. Does the church love gay people? Yes. Loving someone and accepting the lifestyle they choose are two completely different things. Why the church is has to continually answer this question is beyond me. People just don't seem to get it. I have two great friends, not my best friends but good friends. They are gay. Do I think less of them, NO! Do I still love them as friends? Absolutely! However, I DO NOT accept homosexuality as a righteous practice, nor should I be forced to do so.

Why is it that the gay community cannot accept my belief? Why is it that they cannot accept my vote by my conscience? It appears that in today's society I am being strong armed into accepting a practice that I STILL think is wrong.

Does my morality have a place in society? I guess whichever way you look at it someone will not be happy but quit asking me to defy what I believe to be correct. Thankyou.

NCBYUALUM | 6:23 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

The end result of this issue at BYU is an example of "patience is a virtue". That is why pentagenarians and above are called to lead at BYU. That sometimes patience and wisdom are required to make the correct decision.

I applaud the artist for his talents and willingness to develop them at BYU.In addition I hope that he will develop the wisdom to use his talent to reflect the good in society and not the bad.(Please, no hidden meaning.)

The Administration at BYU showed exemplary leadership with their judgement and decision. May Mr. Wiltbank strive to do the same in his quest.

Regards,
drw

Gary | 6:38 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

While I have compassion for those who may suffer from same sex attraction I do not understand why BYU feels it needs to show an exhibit of openly gay students. In my mind to be openly gay means you not only have same sex attraction feelings but you act on those and have inappropriate same sex relationships. Why don't we have an exhibit of students who struggle with any other inappropriate behavior? The voice of the gay community is so loud and so constant it is beginning to wear us all down. I believe that to be the goal of the gay community. Wear us all down so we will finally admit that same sex attraction is normal and they can practice their craft with impunity from Church and state. Well, in my mind it is not normal, and never will be. Should we have tolerance and love for those who may struggle with this, absolutely. Should we view it as normal and good, absolutely not.

Tolerance to both sides? | 6:43 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

I believe that BYU did the right thing to correct the misunderstanding by re-displaying the exhibit, since it does not violate the honor code which Mr Wiltbank signed. The fact that the school did this, in spite of a clear policy against homosexual conduct, should be applauded.
I am disappointed with Mr Wiltbankï¿½s actions on this matter.
As quoted,
ï¿½Wiltbank said he spoke with college leadership on Monday. Later that day, bloggers around the country began to criticize BYU and its owner, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.ï¿½
Mr Wiltbank did the right thing to discuss it with BYU, and BYU did the right thing to redisplay the work.
However, for Mr Wiltbank to prematurely criticize BYU in his blog, before a decision was made, is detestable. His actions unleashed criticism and propagated misunderstanding throughout the country before BYU even had a chance to act in good faith.
Mr Wiltbankï¿½s premise of showing ï¿½toleranceï¿½ on ï¿½both sides of the issueï¿½ appears now to be an attempt to show tolerance on only one side of the issue. His actions have directly lead to further intolerance toward the LDS church and BYU. Poor form.

What change? | 6:46 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

Does Wiltbank want the church to petition God to change eternal marriage to include gay partnerships in the celestial kingdom? Hmmm. I wonder how that dialogue will evolve. We'll have to change the words in the hymn, "Oh My Father". I was taught all my young life by my parents that I would live to see the day when every worthy male could hold the priesthood, and our family celebrated that revelation. But I was never taught that one day I would see temple sealings of anyone to anyone and that same-sex marriages are an eternal principle.

Wayne Rout | 7:06 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

Many have missed the special thing about this display. They put it up November 31. As Paul Harvey would say, "Now that is news."

MissingthePoint = Right on Point | 7:20 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

I agree with Missing the Point's comments. Tolerance is a two way road. More and more people are realizing how hateful, bigoted, and intolerant the gay movement is. I accept everybody as equals, but I do not accept certain behavior.

Voice of Reason | 7:25 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

Wiltbank here seems to be walking a fine line. On one hand, his exhibit apparently doesn't violate the BYU Honor Code, since it doesn't engage in(!) or actively promote homosexual conduct. It's just photos of BYU students who claim to "be" gay.

On the other hand, what is Wiltbank's intent here? Is it to put a face with a condition, like an exhibit of cancer sufferers? Or is it to very subtly promote gay marriage or homosexuality itself as normal and harmless? If so, he's smart to leave that unsaid. And the lack of a clear, non-fluff statement on his intent leaves me suspecting that promoting gay marriage or homosexuality itself is his private desire and intent.

Cats | 7:39 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

I think Milbank was trying to create controversy when he put up the display. This is a particularly sensitive subject at this time and he just enflamed the situation even more by creating the display. It was really bad form.

Under the circumstances, the School did the right thing by allowing the display and it will be nice if the whole thing just dies a natural death. But, it will probably be picked up nationally and cause even more controversy for the Church. Again, bad form on the part of Mr. Milbank.

Neither the Church nor the School will not be intimidated into changing a policy that is based on right and truth. These principles are eternal and no amount of pressure is going to change that. God is the same yesterday, today and forever.

Tom Rose | 7:45 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

What objective do gay individuals have in openly declaring that they are gay? If I was gay, I don't think I would be announcing it to the world. I would quietly strive to change, because I know that I want to become like my Savior. If I had a problem with pornography, should I try to defend my "orientation," or should I quietly meet with my bishop, and possibly counsel with loved ones, and strive to change and become virtuous in my heart?

Missed the Point | 7:52 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

Seems to me that "Missing the Point" misses the point. MtP says, "The LDS Church does not condone homosexuality." Homosexuality is the state of being burdened with homosexual attraction. My understanding is that the LDS Church does not condone homosexual relations, but neither condones nor forbids someone being born with homosexual attraction. The state of being born with homosexual attraction is not a sin. The Church condones righteous behavior or forbids sinful behavior. It does not condone or forbid states of being. Does the Church condone or forbid children born with too many or too few fingers or toes? With IQ's of 85 vs. 145?

Anita | 7:58 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

What does a group of pictures have to do with homosexuality? These were not, and are not pictures of a sexual act decipting homosexual behaviors - they are of PEOPLE. What is so hard, or so threating to members of the church to have to look at the person, not the sin? I am a fourth generation member, I am active, and could hold a temple recommend if I chose, but I am first a mother of a gay son who I adore - and never see his gayness when I look at him. He is 20 years old and is proud to admit that he is not sexually active, not has never been - how many straight kids in the church can honestly state that? It is a world of small minds that assumes that gender preference infers sexual deviance and immoral behavior - I think this artists display was lost on most of you. When will we all recognize that life is not all about YOU!

Zell | 8:01 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

What next? Maybe we could photograph pedophiles and the kids they are attracted to. Of course the photographer would not be promoting deviance would he? Wake up people or slide down the slippery slope! Any promotion of homosexuality is wrong. Get the photos out of BYU and make a statement. I'm tired of having to "tolerate" perversion.

Straight | 8:03 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

Just as I would not view pronography, I will not view the "message photos", vote with your attendance. I will not be attending any other fine arts events for the next few months, voting with $ is my way of making another statment about this display.

Stenar | 8:09 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

@So and @Gary,

If you were a straight student at BYU, or just following the church's admonition not to have sex before marriage, does that make you asexual rather than heterosexual? You don't have to be actively having sex to be gay.

Missing the point | 8:10 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

I have not heard the gay community go after the mormons for their beliefs in god, jesus, or spirituality. The problem is the LDS leadership and members have targeted the gay community mercilessly at the legislature, media, calling on members to finance hateful pieces of legislation. If you had not stuck your necks into this as an organization, this would not be happening. Yes, tolerance goes two ways, reach out to the gay communities and help them to gain equal rights. That is all they are asking for, dialog and support.

I wonder ... | 8:15 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

if a photo-essay about a person who struggles with alcohol attraction / addiction, and the family that supports them, would elicit the same uproar? That question is rhetorical. Of course it wouldn't. We would focus on the compassion of the family and have compassion for the struggles of the alcoholic.

However, the homosexual community has, for the most part, successfully altered the dialogue such that homosexuality is spoken of as just another natural division of the human genome; White - Black, Tall - Short, Male - Female, Heterosexual - homosexual. To them, it's a natural division that should be given equal rights.

That fundamental change in the way society speaks of homosexuality alters this discussion. We view alcoholicism as a condition which includes personal choice (even though many struggle with a strong attraction to alcohol). Unless we correct the dialogue where homosexual behavior is a lifestyle choice in response to an attraction, we'll continually face this angst.

Lastly, it seems to me that previous discussions regarding those who choose to be gay included the notion that 'openly gay' was equated to practicing the gay lifestyle which includes homosexual behavior that would violate the honor code. What am I missing?

TNHick | 8:17 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

From the article: "The artist's statement said labels create societal divisions"

I realize I'm just a dumb'ol country boy, but isn't a display of gay photos, or however you want to label it, perpetuating a societal division?

Otis Spurlock | 8:21 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

BYU has come a long way from the old days of electro-shock aversion therapy.

I applaud BYU allowing this photo exhibition at their campus. In 1985 when I was a BYU student, I can tell you that this would not have been allowed.

what the? | 8:24 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

Why don't the next project be photos of people who are attracted to porn and the people who support them? Why not? Seems like the logical next step dontcha think? Let's put up pics of everyone and their dirty laundry!!!

Wow | 8:27 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

And we wonder why people think we are judgmental and petty. Let's take his exhibit at face value and appreciate that people with different life circumstances are still people who deserve to be loved.

Wrong Call | 8:29 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

I'm a BYU grad and I think BYU is splitting major hairs here. It's one thing to display photos of people who just happen to be gay as part of some neutral theme and quite another to display photos of gay people when homosexuality itself IS the theme. At BYU? Come on! As far as I'm concerned that is promotion of homosexuality and is an inappropriate display to have at a university owned by a religious institution that unapologetically disavows homosexuality. LDS people are all taught the 'love the sinner, hate the sin' principle, so we don't need to be schooled in "tolerance" (in the true meaning of that word--not the current skewed meaning, which seems to include not only tolerating, but accepting and even embracing beliefs you don't share). The display is promotion and it should be taken down, permanently. It's a really sad day when you can't even escape having the militant homosexual agenda rammed down your throat at BYU. Sorry BYU, you got this one dead wrong.

To: Missing the Point | 8:29 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

>>Why is it that the gay community cannot accept my belief?>>

Why should the have to accept YOUR belief?

>>Why is it that they cannot accept my vote by my conscience? >>

Because you're wrong?

If you "believed" the earth was flat, should I be required to uphold your fantasy?

What so many of the posters in here, and in LDS strangleholds don't understand is that gay men and women are up to 10% of our population. Homosexual behavior, despite biological directives, exist everywhere in all species.

God made us all. What can you not understand about that??

No one is required to acquiesce to your misguided fantasies or "beliefs."

Feel free to not accept or tolerate gays. But don't expect people to pat you on the back and cater to you for, basically, being ignorant.

Anonymous | 8:30 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

I agree with you wholeheartedly, Tolerance. And Otis, get over yourself and move on.

des | 8:33 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

I liked the display. It shows that our perceptions or assumptions may not be true. You know someone who is gay but may not know it. Would knowing change how you feel about that person? Should it?

Being gay doesn't mean you act on the attraction any more than being heterosexual means you act on the attraction. If heterosexuals can comply with the honor code why would you expect less from someone who is gay?

Brother Chuck Schroeder | 8:34 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

Otis Spurlock | 8:21 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008 wrote:

"BYU has come a long way from the old days of electro-shock aversion therapy.

I applaud BYU allowing this photo exhibition at their campus. In 1985 when I was a BYU student, I can tell you that this would not have been allowed."

Why is this a good thing, Otis?

John Pack Lambert | 8:38 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

Otis Spurlock wrote:

"BYU has come a long way from the old days of electro-shock aversion therapy.

I applaud BYU allowing this photo exhibition at their campus. In 1985 when I was a BYU student, I can tell you that this would not have been allowed."

What are you talking about?! BYU never used shock aversion therapy. Check your facts before you post.

Honor Code Fan | 8:38 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

I love the Honor Code. BYU is a tremendous institution in part because of it. But I am sometimes disappointed in the administrators that apply it. This might well be one of those instances.

gay vs honor code | 8:43 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

I think that the BYU students who are gay must be free to date, kiss, and show other affection in their same-sex relationships, but are not allowed to have sexual relations outside of marriage. That is what is a violation of the honor code. Do I understand this correctly?

Trust the BYU leadership | 8:46 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

If you don't want to see it, don't go.

I have enough faith in the leaders at BYU to know they're not "sliding down the slippery slope." They're the leaders...I trust their judgment call. I might not have done the same thing if I were in their position, but I'm NOT in their position, am I?

Honor Code Fan | 8:46 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

To Otis and John P. Lambert,

Aversion Therapy is no longer practiced by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The practice of electroshock therapy at BYU ended in the 1970s. Aversion therapy had to be abandoned by BYU because electroshock aversion therapy failed to cure homosexuality.

End of story. Now you guys can go back to whatever you were doing and let us continue this discussion.

To: Honor Code Fan | 8:51 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

Hugh Nibley was also bothered by what he saw as the unthinking, sometimes almost dogmatic application of some portions of BYU's honor code.

Hugh Nibley said, "The worst sinners, according to Jesus, are not the harlots and publicans, but the religious leaders with their insistence on proper dress and grooming, their careful observance of all the rules, their precious concern for status symbols, their strict legality, their pious patriotism... the haircut becomes the test of virtue in a world where Satan deceives and rules by appearances."

I don't think he would have been too pleased with this decision to pull the photo exhibit either.

conduct unbecoming? | 8:52 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

to 8:43. You make me wonder if the honor code extends to all kinds of unbecoming activities, like students hanging out in bars (not drinking of course), going to 'R' rated movies, looking at pornography, gambling, participating in pro-gay events, etc. are against the honor code. Is dating and kissing members affectionately of the same sex unbecoming? How restrictive is the honor code?

Institutionalized Discrimination | 8:52 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

Gay vs. Honor Code, no that is not correct. Two gay people holding hands is a violation of the honor code which forbids any homosexual behavior or advocacy of homosexual behavior whether it is sexual behavior or not.

Cats | 8:53 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

To: To Missing the Point: Gays amount to about 1% of the population--not 10%. Also, there is no study ever conducted that has come to the conclusion that anyone is born gay. There was a study conducted in Holland that concluded that genetics may play a roll, but it is only one of a number of factors, one of which is CHOICE. This is the study that most gays point to in order to claim that gays are born that way.

To the mother of a gay son--I feel really sorry for you, but there is NO study that supports the position that ANYONE is born gay. I hope your son can get some help.

And we do tolerate gays. If we didn't they would be in prison or executed. That's what they do in some countries. We don't do that and would never tolerate any such practice. So you see, we are very tolerant. What gays want is not tolerance but total acceptance. They want the rest of us to tell them their behavior is natural, normal and morally equal to heterosexual behavior. God has stated that homosexuality is an abomination and GOD WILL NOT BE MOCKED!

BYU Grad and Active LDS | 8:57 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

I applaud the reposting of this exhibit and the BYU administration. Just because we LDS have some controversial moral stances doesn't mean we can't be accepting and examine ourselves and our reactions. Gay members of the church are a fact of life - we should not shy away from it nor should we shun them or condemn. I lost a lot of faith in BYU, not the church mind you, when I was there but this restores much of my good will towards the school. Brave steps and big hearts for BYU.

Cats | 9:01 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

I'm not so sure Hugh Nibley would have been tolerant of the gay display at BYU. His lesbian daughter nearly broke his heart with her pro-gay, anti-Church activities.

To JPL | 9:02 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

"What are you talking about?! BYU never used shock aversion therapy. Check your facts before you post."

I don't think BYU has ever denied using shock therapy and I have heard too many first hand stories from gays who were subjects to question it.

What makes you think they did not try this? It makes sense. If, in the 1970's, the church believed it was a learned response, it could be unlearned. Thus, reparative, shock therapy. They do not do it any longer as it did not work.

gay vs honor code | 9:06 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

Thanks I.D. 8:52. I was not sure. I imiagine that the students pictured in the display are those with same-sex attraction who have chosen to follow the honor code. They have proven that we can all choose our actions, in spite of our attractions and propensities. The display can be taken as a pro-responsible choices in spite of adversities declaration. Am I correct?

Anonymous | 9:06 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

re: So | 5:24 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

>>So, if one proclaims to be gay yet he refrains from the act is he still gay? >If you were a straight student at BYU, or just following the church's admonition not to have sex before marriage, does that make you asexual rather than heterosexual? >You don't have to be actively having sex to be gay.<<

Really?

Anonymous | 9:09 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

I would be terrfied to advertise my gayness at that school!

Anonymous | 9:13 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

re: Trust the BYU leadership | 8:46 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

Blind trust is a slippery slope.

re: TNHick | 8:17 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

I agree its perpetuating a societal division

re: what the? | 8:24 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

There is an incredible amount its all about be & having look at me moments 24/7 so people wanting to air their dirty laundry s/b no surprise.

Jeff | 9:13 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

Cats: Some of your remarks can't go unanswered. I'm sure that as a woman you do things every day that would get you stoned to death in many countries.

You imply that the opposite of tolerance is execution or imprisonment. What an attitude! Also the bible says lots of things that rational people don't believe or act on. I think America is the wrong place for you. You belong in Saudi Arabia.

The key word.... | 9:15 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

in this article is "change". Tolerance?.....Yes....Support?......Yes.....But the word change ought to be deleted because BYU won't change as expected....

Sneaky Jimmy | 9:16 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

It seems that few get the point of the exhibit. We have met the enemy and he is us. Same gender attraction is a normal part of the "Mormon Lifestyle". THEY are among us, our sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers. Until we accept the fact that someone like the apostle Paul could have a same gender attraction and still be a man of God we will make no headway.

Page:
1
2
3
Next >

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.