Reader comments
BYU rehangs photo exhibit

141 comments | Read story

Glen | 9:16 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

Are you guys serious? Shock therapy?! Did BYU really give gay students shock therapy in an attempt to cure them?

What is the source for this information?

Re: Missing the Point | 9:19 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

"Why the church is has [sic] to continually answer this question is beyond me."

The reason why the church is, and will continue to be, harangued about homosexuality is due to their refusal to address it.

LDS doctrine requires Temple matrimonial ordinances in order to ascend to the highest level of Celestial life. Since gays cannot marry each other, they must either forfeit their eternal reward, or conceal their proclivities and feign affections for their partner. This certainly would not be fair to the hetero spouse; this marriage would most likely be doomed.

Homosexuality is NOT a choice. The "choice" is whether or not to ACT on those innervations. Gays can be no more impressionable to alter their innate orientations than we. I am a hetero male, but I never chose to be hetero, nor did I choose to be male. It just worked out that way for me.

Since LDS church Presidents and General Authorities are so divinely inspired, it stands to reason that something that could bar one of God's children from achieving such Celestial happiness and everlasting joy would be something of a concern to them. Why, after 178 yrs, has the church not addressed it?

To Cats | 9:27 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

"God has stated that homosexuality is an abomination and GOD WILL NOT BE MOCKED!"

And neither will you, obviously!

I think God can take care of himself. You do not need to speak for him or do the judging for him. That is his job.

Comments continue below

Anonymous | 9:32 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

Wow. As I've been reading these comments, most of them just sound so hateful, mean-spirited, and contentious. Is this how Mormons talk? If so then I suddenly feel less sorry about all the recent attacks on your church- you guys are no better than the people making the attacks. You get what you give.

Great Decision BYU | 9:36 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

I applaud BYU's decision to put the display back up. There is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuge difference between homosexual attraction and homosexual behavior/activity. As the article says, those who are experience homosexual attractions are more than welcome at BYU; only when those attractions end up in behavior do these people violate the Honor Code. Also, there is nothing sinful at all about being attracted to someone of the same gender. I understand completely those who would argue that putting someone's struggles and temptations on display is something that is unnecessary, but art is never about what is or is not necessary. It is often about a message. Any piece of art that helps those with same gender attraction know that they are accepted at BYU and that helps people understand that it is alright to be attracted to members of the same gender, but not to act on those attractions is praiseworthy in my eyes. Here's to hoping there are future opportunities for BYU to stand up for its true viewpoints again in the future.

Penny | 9:42 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

Have you seen the photos? They are not that good...

Re: Splitting Hairs | 9:47 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

I agree, BYU is splitting hairs here. This is an area where hairs need to be split. So many people attach to their intolerance of homosexual behavior (which I share) an intolerance to anyone with homosexual attractions. If this project can send the message to people that you can struggle with same gender attraction and still be acceptable at BYU and still be "worthy" in the eyes of God, fantastic!!!

Same Gender Attraction is not a sin!! I understand that people might be uncomfortable discussing the issue and that it is not necessary for people to where their sexuality on their sleeve; but, I don't see this display as an advocacy for homosexual behavior. It is a recognition that there is an entire class of people at BYU (and in the LDS church) that struggle with major trials in their lives. Despite these trials, they chose to live a chaste life. If that is not the best message that can be sent to those who advocate gay marriage and homosexual lifestyles, I don't know what is!

roger | 9:49 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

peace is a good thing

Bravo | 9:57 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

As an active LDS person who lives with same gender attraction, recently attended BYU, and chooses to live a chaste life, I can tell you that homosexual attractions are not a choice. I don't know whether the source of such attractions are biological or environmental, and I honestly don't really care (I happen to believe it is a little bit of both). I strongly believe that what the Church teaches about homosexuality is 100% correct; the problem is that most people have no clue what the LDS church actually teaches about homosexuality (at least they don't act like they believe it). Go and read what President Hinckley has said on the matter; read the interview given by Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman. On the churches newsroom site, there are several videos and articles explaining their position. I am not suggesting that homosexual attraction is something that should be celebrated and broadcast to the world, but if this art display can cause people (lds or not) to really find out what the church's position on homosexuality is and to be a little more tolerant themselves, then it will be a huge success.

to Cats | 9:59 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

Hugh Nibley's daughter, Martha Beck accused him of molesting her, which all her siblings vehemently denied.

Many gays feel they were born gay, are not aware of having made a choice to be gay. There are many who talk about feeling gay at a very early age--7 years old for example. Additionally, there are many gays who have spent their entire lives trying to deny their gayness, trying to avoid feeling gay, praying and fasting mightily to be cured of gayness, yet not being able to escape. We have a long way to go in this church in our level of knowledge and understanding about what it is like to be gay.

Gandolf | 10:07 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

The point of is article and photo essay is to point out the intolerence that exist in Utah and at BYU. Intolerance has always existed at BYU, rather it be with non-LDS, non-white, non-conformist.
It's OK to teach that homosexual activities are not acceptable with god, but taking away their rights is another issue all together.
Homosexuals have always existed in mass numbers but during some times they were driven underground due to intolerance. I know there are lots of gays that exist within the church but are driven underground because of the hate that is present amongest most members. Example- this blog.

Hmmm | 10:13 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

"Right is right and wrong is wrong."

Radicals from any religion have long justified hate and murder as "right."

Instead of issuance of a definition of what "right" is, it seems to me that we would all be better off doing good instead of needing to be "right."

I don't think anyone can argue what is good and what is bad. So, I for one, will try to do good, and ignore definitions of "right" and "wrong."

Perhaps there is something peaceful in doing good. If that's the case, I'm walking that way.

Penny, you miss the point | 10:27 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

Penny must mistakenly think BYU removed the pictures because "they are not that good . . ." I'm pretty sure the quality or lack of quality wasn't the problem. Good on BYU for backing off their communication problems and replacing the exhibit. Presumably they had review the photos before approving the display, it is sad to see small minds at work.

Troy | 10:33 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

Will Mormon culture ever be released from the grasp of ignorance regarding homosexuals?

Some people here get it, but many do not and much of what has been said is extremely disheartening for me, as a Latter-day Saint, to read. This discussion has completely overlooked the true intent of Michael Wilbank's display.

What has happened to love? What has happened to compassion? What has happened to understanding? What happened to remembering that we are all brothers and sisters? Mormon culture sometimes forgets. And it is the "forgetting" of these quality's that will help lead to society's fall--not the mere existence of homosexuals.

Thank-you BYU for doing the right thing and allowing the project back up :)

Why Gays so Special? | 10:43 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

Why should they hang pictures of gays who live the honor code? What about people who are attracted to married people at BYU but who live the Honor Code? What about recovering alcoholics at BYU? What about students who lust after the opposite sex but live the Honor Code? What about anyone who has an inclination to disobey the Honor Code, but lives it anyway? I can't understand why gays get all the attention.

dave smith | 10:45 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

Michael wanted attention, and he got attention. Only time will tell if he got the kind of attention he was seeking. I will say that he showed an amazing display of tolerance when he posted my unfavorable comment on his blog, an attribute that many of his supporters lack, as they attacked me personally for my opposing viewpoint.

Tolerance is a two way street, and the sooner we all understand the right to dissent exists for us all, the sooner we will move forward. While I understand the challenges that being gay in an intolerant society can present, my advice is simple. Practice what you preach, and show equal tolerance for even those that may oppose you.

Lead by example,and take the higher road. The one who talks loudest, rarely if ever wins the argument, and often the one who whispers is heard the best.

blue is the color of the day | 10:47 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

I think that there is a natural knee jerk reaction when you work for a church owned institution that is likely normal for any such environment. Better to err on the side of "looking righteous" than to err on the side of possibly promoting a behavior discouraged by the institution. Would he lose his job if he pulled the photos's? Probably not. Could he lose his job if he didn't pull the photos? Probably yes if the administration viewed the display of the photos to be against the mission of the school.
This is just a case of covering your butt to keep your job. However, I would not be surprised if this went all the way up the hierarchy of the church and a decision was actually made at the top or very near to the top.
Prop 8 only adds to the temperature of this issue.
we love gay people. They are our brothers and sisters. They are children of God.

Re: Sneak Jimmy | 10:50 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

I am sincerely intrigued by one of your comments. Where is there a reference in the bible to the apostle Paul's possible same-gender attraction? This is not a rhetorical comment of any kind, just a question. Thanks for your post.

Re: Anonymous @ 9:13 | 11:16 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

I know blind obedience is a slippery slope. But I think you understood me wrong: some people posting here are appalled the BYU administration allowed the display, but I'm saying that I trust their judgment to replace it.

It seems like the "blind obedience" argument would be used if they had taken the display down and then I completely backed them on it on the basis that they're leaders.

Lose your self-righteous attitude.

MMM | 11:27 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

I dont really think gay people are special to do all these kind of stuff so they can feel better, everyone of us take day to day decisions, and for those decisions we must be enough mature and responsible to live for.
If you are trying to change GOD's law for those decisions, and Im not talking if you are gay or not, there is many issues today to discuss. You cannot change GOD's law, He was, is and will be the same forever.

About these pics @ BYU, I think we can spend that money in pics about saving lives from genocide or finding the cure for AIDS.

RE: dave smith | 11:32 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

How do know what Michael "wanted"? We as human beings tend to see the world as we see ourselves. Unless you know Michael personally and he told you that he wanted this kind of attention, or that somehow you are mysteriously able to "know" the real intents of his heart, you're making a VERY HUGE assumption about his character.
The words you posted on his blog are very manipulative.

Too much inflammatory language | 11:34 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

Fellow members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,

It is embarassing to read some of these posts. Beliefs can be upheld and positions stated without finger-pointing, inflammatory language, and spiteful argumentative words.

It has been my experience that if you really want to cement someone's idea about something or someone (Us for instance), the best way to do it is to attack them and their ideas.

BYU is not about to change its position nor its honor code.

Verbal attacks only fuel the fire of those who are attacking the Church.

Mormon Scholar | 11:36 a.m. Dec. 10, 2008

To Sneak Jimmy,

Nothing about Paul was moderate. He was tightly drawn, passionately emotional, filled with enormous feelings of self-negativity, seeking to deal with those feelings in the timehonored way of external controls, unflagging religious zeal, and rigid discipline. He could not, however, master the passions that consumed him.

What were these passions? There is no doubt in my mind that they were sexual in nature, but what kind of sexual passions were they? Searching once again through the writings of Paul, some conclusions begin to emerge that startle and surprise the reader. Paul's passions seemed to be incapable of being relieved. Why was that? Paul himself had written that if one "could not exercise self-control" that person should marry. "For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" (1 Cor. 7:9). But we have no evidence from any source that Paul ever married. Indeed, he exhorts widows and the unmarried to "remain single as I do" (1 Cor. 7:8).

Also, Paul has been perceived as basically negative toward women. He did write that "it is well for a man not to touch a woman" (1 Cor. 7:1).

Cats | 12:19 p.m. Dec. 10, 2008

To Jeff: I don't recall saying what gender I am. Interesting that you just assume that I am a woman. HHHMMMM.

You are making my point. There are many countries who do NOT tolerate homosexual behavior. We are NOT one of those countries and LDS people are not one of those religions. We DO tolerate gays. That's why we would ALWAYS oppose any of those laws or practices.

What we won't do is accept homosexual behavior as normal, natural or morally equal to heterosexual behavior. When gays say they want tolerance, what they really want is for everyone else to embrace and accept their lifestyle as normal and moral. That is what we will not do. That is a completely seperate issue from tolerance.

Bob in Boise | 12:21 p.m. Dec. 10, 2008

But is it art? Seems like a display of this kind would be better suited to a social science setting.

Cats | 12:24 p.m. Dec. 10, 2008

To: Sneaky Jimmy: There is aboslutely NO evidence that the Apostle Paul had same gender attraction. In fact, he was a member of the Sanhedrin. In order to be a member of the Sanhedrin, one HAD TO BE MARRIED. So you see, your comments are incorrect.

Cats | 12:29 p.m. Dec. 10, 2008

To: TO Cats: Those quotes are from the scriptures. If you disagree with them, your arguments is not with me, it is with GOD. I don't speak for GOD, I am only quoting the scriptures.

And, I reiterate, there is NO scientific study that concludes that anyone is born gay no matter how much gays or others try to say there is. One study, conducted in Holland, (the most gay affirming country on earth) conluded that there may be a genetic component to it. If so, it is only one of several factors, ONE OF WHICH IS CHOICE. That was the conclusion of the study.

To Those who struggle with this problem and have chosen to life a chaste life, I really admire and support you. YOU WILL BE BLESSED FOR YOUR FAITHFULNESS.

BYU Grad | 12:32 p.m. Dec. 10, 2008

Why are people denying that BYU tried to "fix" homosexuals by applying shock aversion treatment? This was very common in the 1960s-1980s, and even as recently as 1995. Just do a simple Google search for "BYU shock treatment".

Cats | 12:35 p.m. Dec. 10, 2008

To Gandolf: I have not seen one blog here that has exhibited ANY hate whatsoever. That is so typical of the gay movement to use the word HATE every time someone disagrees with them. This sort of intimidation will not work.

And to the blogger who said the Church won't adress same gender attraction or "gayness," that is absurd. The Church has completely addressed this issue. They have made their position clear. Case closed.

To Cats | 12:37 p.m. Dec. 10, 2008

"I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers" (Galatians 1:14).

However, Paul might not have advanced far enough to be a member of the Sanhedrin before He converted to Christ.

How do you know that he became a member of the Sanhedrin?

Mark | 12:39 p.m. Dec. 10, 2008

I support the human race. Homosexual activity does not support it because they cannot reproduce. It would seem homosexual activity along with pornography, pedophiles, and whatever other attraction people act upon is because of selfish desires. Everyone needs to get over themselves and see the bigger picture. P.S. All people regardless of gender attraction still have the right to get married. They can ALL marry those of the opposite sex. No rights have been lost.

Cats | 12:51 p.m. Dec. 10, 2008

TO: TO Cats: I am quoting scholars from the Neil A. Maxwell Institute. These scholars maintain that he had to be a member of the Sanhedrin and, as such, was persecuting Christians. Jewish men were expected to marry at about the age of twenty. It would be extremely unusual for one not to be married after that age. In order to reach a position as eminent as being a member of the Sanhedrin, one had to be married. That is what those scholars maintain. I refer you to them.

Otis Spurlock | 1:15 p.m. Dec. 10, 2008

Mormon Scholar | 11:36 a.m. wrote:

"Nothing about Paul was moderate. He was tightly drawn, passionately emotional, filled with enormous feelings of self-negativity, seeking to deal with those feelings in the timehonored way of external controls, unflagging religious zeal, and rigid discipline. He could not, however, master the passions that consumed him.

What were these passions? There is no doubt in my mind that they were sexual in nature, but what kind of sexual passions were they? Searching once again through the writings of Paul, some conclusions begin to emerge that startle and surprise the reader. Paul's passions seemed to be incapable of being relieved. Why was that? Paul himself had written that if one "could not exercise self-control" that person should marry. "For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" (1 Cor. 7:9). But we have no evidence from any source that Paul ever married. Indeed, he exhorts widows and the unmarried to "remain single as I do" (1 Cor. 7:8).

Also, Paul has been perceived as basically negative toward women. He did write that "it is well for a man not to touch a woman" (1 Cor. 7:1)."

Sounds gay to me.

A Better Exhibit | 1:19 p.m. Dec. 10, 2008

I would have liked to have seen a picture of an alcoholic, a student in a wheelchair, someone struggling with pornography, an older single person, a person addicted to anti-depressants, and a gay person all in the same picture, arms wrapped around each other. (Labeled of course). To me, that message would portrait an understanding of the trails people go through. To see just gay people sends an awkward message to an awkward audience that doesn't quite know how to deal with this issue.

Only the Facts | 1:21 p.m. Dec. 10, 2008

To John Pack Lambert:
You wrote: "What are you talking about?! BYU never used shock aversion therapy. Check your facts before you post."
May I suggest you go to the BYU library and ask for the PhD dissertation, "Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy," by Max Ford McBride, 1976. It reports on what happened at BYU. It will clear up your questions. Unless, of course, it has been "temporarily removed from circulation."

Question | 1:41 p.m. Dec. 10, 2008

So why is it so many BYU students can't accept homosexuals, when they are sodomites? They walk around with a giant stick up their...I can't say because I'll be edited..but you know what I mean. Anyone outside of LDS org, and an admirable few inside, can see that BYU is close minded and deserves any critism it gets on this. Gays are people too, children of God, you claim to love them (just not the sin)...but then you can't support and love them, or show pictures of them! No no no. It's better to keep a faceless enemy you can despise, in the name of righteousness.

A few thoughts....... | 1:46 p.m. Dec. 10, 2008

Cats: "What we won't do is accept homosexual behavior as normal, natural or morally equal to heterosexual behavior. When gays say they want tolerance, what they really want is for everyone else to embrace and accept their lifestyle as normal and moral."
Would that "normal heterosexual behaivor" include promiscuity? Promiscuity is really the issue which has degraded our society. Promiscuity results in out-of-wedlock pregnancies, higher rates of abortion, STDs, AIDs etc. The church approves of "civil unions." So what we are arguing about here is the term we use?
Why don't we work on the main issue instead of focusing our attention on an easily targeted group of people? Especially when the history of our church included a practice viewed abhorently and depraved by the outside world...............

Re: Missing the point | 1:52 p.m. Dec. 10, 2008

You have every right to vote the way you see fit. Nobody is forcing you to abandon your beliefs, however misguided they may be. And, we have every right to view you as misguided and bigoted, just was we view those who supported slavery and segregation as bigoted as well. The these were both once majority views, similar to this issue.

What I don't get is how you can argue that you "love" the gay person and then turn around and vote to take away their right to marry, a right that had been granted by a Republican majority court. That, sir, is not love at all. Intolerance, fear, and homophobia.

absurd | 2:15 p.m. Dec. 10, 2008

these comments are pure absurdity... do any of you realize what you are saying?

Cats | 2:23 p.m. Dec. 10, 2008

TO: a few thoughts: That was REALLY off point. Talk about setting up a straw man. Are you trying to distract attention from the real issue here? No one would disagree with your comments about promiscuity. That's a completely seperate issue from homosexuality.

shocked | 2:40 p.m. Dec. 10, 2008

Electro-shock aversion therapy?!
That's shocking- SHOCKING!

annoyed | 2:55 p.m. Dec. 10, 2008

Are you proud of yourself, Michael??

Rich | 2:56 p.m. Dec. 10, 2008

Simple fact: This is a boring idea. A bunch of face photos of people with no expression. This is a classic case of hanging nothing and calling it "Art."

closed minded? | 3:04 p.m. Dec. 10, 2008

How can having a mind that doesn't agree with your thoughts be 'closed minded'? I'm so tired of the gays trying to cram their lifestyle down our throats so we will accept their evil ways. Believe how you want and allow others to believe how we want. That's freedom and free agency. I am tired of gsys telling me to 'love' them. Yes, I can love them. But, I don't have to accept, nor embrace their lifestyle.

Penny | 3:11 p.m. Dec. 10, 2008

@miss the point

No, I know why they were removed. I also know that skill-wise, they are crummy. If this kid tried to put these in his portfolio, he wouldn't get a job. You know why? Coz they go for "statement!" instead of craft, and a very narrow statement at that. (Honestly, is that statement that creative? No one in New York would give a flying rat about it. No, it's only there to let BYU and LDS people show how close-minded they are. Now that's open-minded!)

As far as the review board goes, you must mean the "You gotta do a show or you won't get your BFA degree" review board. Yea I know that board. I graduated with a degree in BFA at BYU so I should.

Re: Bravo | 3:18 p.m. Dec. 10, 2008

Celibacy works until you meet the love of your life. Then what do you do?

Paperboy | 3:21 p.m. Dec. 10, 2008

This is a great article. Very insightful. To my thinking this is the first acknowledgment from the LDS Church that it is not only aware that many of its BYU students are Gay and but that they [the students] feel comfortable outing themselves. Talk about progress...now if we can only stop treating them like 2nd class citzens...

Question | 3:22 p.m. Dec. 10, 2008

Um, "Cats", some people would disagree with "A few thoughts"'s comments about promiscuity. Not every one in the world thinks that having more than one sexual partner in their life is contributing to the end of society. Not everyone has the same point of view on these "moral" issues. Isn't that half the problem? BYU classifies homosexuality as evil, but to the person with those feelings it's natural. People are people are people.

Yes, close minded | 3:28 p.m. Dec. 10, 2008

You can think gays are evil, and the rest of the world can think mormons are close minded. You can't put judgement on one group and then complain when the same thing happens to you.

Chris Dutkiewicz-BYU Alum | 5:20 p.m. Dec. 10, 2008

I don't like the exhibit at BYU. However, I trust the President of BYU and the President of the Church to make the right choices for this institution.

But I don't like it one bit. Of course, I didn't like scheduling Elon College for the Men's BBall team either, but that's not my job.

So I'm still a proud Alum, but I don't like even the appearance of promoting that lifestyle and the potention for destruction to the family it represents.

Chris Dutkiewicz

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.