Speaking of Les Deplorables

Though my impression is that the Liberal-minded (TM) are supposed to be pretending that actual gender is now totally irrelevant, one of the wildly popular gripe sessions currently running on the Bloggernacle purports to complain about BYU and their abysmally disproportionate and execrable "balance" of male/female professors.  It occurred to me that at least optimally, the survey should be listing the more imaginative "gender identity", rather than actual genotypical and phenotypical sex, since that kind of thing is so passe, but apparently data of more contemporary oeuvre was not in hand.

Of course, the moderators of that forum, in a shining example of the virtue of tolerance for diversity, peremptorily banned my obstreperous crude comments years ago, so I expect my observations went unheeded. Without exception, other comments seemed to be participating in the popular hate-fest of condemnations and disaffected gripes for BYU, Provo, Utah, and the Church in general.

Helpful suggestion for those who hate a particular place:  Why not go somewhere else to seek happiness?  There ARE actually several people who do love being here.  Are you so anxious to tear things down?

BTW:   While attending University of California for my Bachelor's Degree, I never encountered any female professors.  I had no idea that it made such difference in the quality of my education.  Never realized how much I was deprived.  As I can recall, I did have at least one female professor at Ricks College when I attended there, so it would appear that Church schools are 100% better than University of California.

PS:  Article appearing in the Salt Lake Tribune follows the Bloggernacle article.  In typical SLTrib fashion, the comments following are mostly either hilarious or quite unintelligible.

Maxwell: Meeting the Challenges

In discussion about issues raised in the recent election, and always making for heated debate in the Bloggernacle, I submit the following excerpts from Elder Maxwell. Neal A. Maxwell was a President of the First Quorum of the Seventy of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when this devotional address was given at Brigham Young University on 10 October 1978.

The declarations are about principles, not people, and causes, not candidates. On occasions, at other levels in the Church, a few have not been so discreet, so wise, or so inspired.

But make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters; in the months and years ahead, events will require of each member that he or she decide whether or not he or she will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions...

This is a hard doctrine, but it is a particularly vital doctrine in a society which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of Jesus Christ.

I have read some convincing arguments in the Bloggernacle for advocating certain actions. I find it difficult to offer anything reasonable to refute them. But the church spoke out in support of these measures. Therefore, they have my backing, without any further question or pause, without any further doubts, no further questions needed.

I made a covenant to follow the counsel of inspired leaders many years ago. In spite of so many other doubts and questions I cannot answer, in a world fraught with so many uncertainties, I do not question that commitment.

It was the right thing to do.

Creationism and Evolution

In my experience, the vast wastelands of the Internet are not a very helpful source of information on the Church, creation, and evolution.

Those of us just wanting to know what the issues are and what to think, tend to end up shell shocked by the intensity of participants in most of the discussion of relevant issues. While this is hardly an unusual environment for such a topic of controversy and debate, it does present a challenge for someone who prefers to be reasonably informed, reserve judgment, but just wants a bit more information.

Among of the best references I have found to actual Church doctrine and policy on this matter is at the biology department of BYU. Undergrad students at BYU use this information packet for reference. It contains a copy of several authoritative statements on the evolution and origins of man. You can read it without getting battered by proponents from any of the various warlike camps staked out all around this controversy.

One assertion I love to read very succinctly spells out what I want to know -- the real meaning of "evolution"...

Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God.

From the information packet at BYU.


Highly recommended.

BYU Graduation -- The Day After

Near as I could judge, the visit of US Vice President Dick Cheney at the BYU commencement ceremonies had to be one of the most overhyped non-events in the history of BYU.

The ominous rumblings about massive protests failed to materialize anywhere within sight. I suppose something might have been happening elsewhere, but on campus it looked just about like any other graduation day. Lots of graduates flapping around in their cap and gown. Proud parents and family gathering for picnics and photos. Crying babies (might be a more common feature at BYU than at other campuses).

The commencement program went off as planned, without interruption. The only unexpected surprise to members of the audience was the attendance of President Hinckley. He presided over the program, which included presentation of an honorary degree to Vice President Cheney and four others.

I've looked over some of the press coverage of the protests and rallies that were intended to make some kind of political statement, mostly for consumption by the hordes of media people who flocked into town looking for "news". I presume that what the media people found was what they sought -- a few hundred exceptional and miserable malcontents shouting slogans at each other off in some corner, away from all the other BYU students who were celebrating the day. By contrast, BYU President Samuelson reported that more than 6000 graduates participated in the orderly and otherwise rather unremarkable commencement, with more than 20,000 in attendance.

I thought it was interesting that the First Presidency also invited Vice President Cheney to visit with them before the commencement ceremony, in a private meeting.

I have been really entertained by most of the press coverage and attention-getting theatrics of this issue. It has been way better than any talk show. Even better than the last BYU protest I was involved in.

I was especially amused to note that the “alternative” ceremonieswere all timed to take place _after_ the real commencement ritual. Even BYU political protesters didn’t want to miss out on their own graduation.

I personally don’t see the point. I did not attend my own graduation ceremony at University of California. They sent my diploma in the mail. At that point in time, I had everything I ever wanted of beneficent gifts bestowed by my Alma Mater. I just wanted to get away from there.

Incidentally, the last BYU protest I was personally involved in was the occasion of the departure from the BYU faculty of a certain Assistant Professor, by the name of Cecilia. Those of you with good memories will know of whom I speak.

On that occasion, I also sided with BYU trustees.

BYU President Samuelson announced the awarding of honorary degrees and read the curriculum vitae for each of the recipients. President Hinckley sat just behind the speakers podium, and applauded each of the awards. Elders David Bednar and Richard G. Scott sat between vice president Cheney and President Hinckley.

President Hinckley and Vice President Cheney walked into the Marriot Center together, both waving at an obviously friendly and enthusiastic crowd.

As far as I know, President Hinckley’s appearance yesterday was unannounced and a total surprise to most of those in attendance. As he entered, spontaneous applause quickly spread through the audience. He waved his cane in response.

It was a moment of joyous exultation. If I’d had a white handkerchief, I would have waved it.

To be honest, I almost neglected to note the entrance of Vice President Cheney, following right behind President Hinckley and the two apostles in his company. Cheney might just as well have been absent, for all the attention he got at that moment

I personally will interpret President Hinckley’s leadership at this meeting as reaffirmation from church leaders that they continue to support our US government leaders.

The commencement ceremonies were totally unremarkable in every respect. The speakers addressed issues relating to BYU, graduation, and the challenges of life. Cheney’s address itself was brief and entertaining. My impression, as on previous occasions, is that he is an accomplished public speaker.

I saw no indication to justify the notion that church leaders or BYU administrators were attempting to be “silent” about their continuing patriotic support and loyalty, as some have suggested. It is obvious that they are not “speaking out against the administration” of Bush and company because they have no substantive criticism. I cannot understand why anyone would reasonably imagine otherwise.

The strongest impression I had at the commencement ceremony was that this occasion is _not_ a political statement. Nobody is announcing official church sanction of wars or government officials. I am certain that Cheney did not obtain absolution for his sins from the church leaders.

Rather than hearing political themes, what I saw and heard was a unanimous expression of approval for the intergenerational process at BYU that produces college-educated people. BYU perpetuates family traditions in higher education. The most important people in attendance — families. Graduates and their spouses and children. Mothers and fathers, grandparents, aunts and uncles, siblings.

It was not an occasion to make critical remarks about political issues. It was a family celebration.

As a side note, Hugh Nibley’s disparaging remarks about robes and vestments is well taken. I have attended dozens of graduation ceremonies in the last three decades, and this aspect always seems to lend a dark and foreboding air. Why doesn’t academia dispense with this cumbersome artifact from the dark ages?

BYU to give Cheney honorary degree

From the Deseret News story, BYU announces plans to confer an honorary degree on visiting US Vice President Cheney.

Cheney will arrive in Utah Thursday at 1:55 p.m. and meet with the First Presidency of the church at 2:30. Commencement begins at 4 p.m.
The visit with the First Presidency is the norm for international leaders who visit Utah. Church and BYU spokesmen said the honorary degree is not an endorsement of Cheney's policies.
Those who can't attend can watch the commencement live on KBYU-TV Channel 11 in Utah and on BYU Television on cable or satellite stations, or listen live on KBYU-FM 89.1 or BYU Radio on the air or the Web.
The commencement exercises will be rebroadcast Saturday at 4:30 p.m. (MDT) on BYU Television. The event also will be available through video-on-demand to Comcast digital cable subscribers in Utah from Saturday through May 4, Jenkins said.

Well, I'll save some trouble by agreeing that none of this means a whole lot.

The First Presidency routinely meets with visiting officials. Not all of them are particularly nice people.

And the news article points out that such attentions as paid to Cheney do not constitute tacit approval of his politics, nor are they a reflection of any personal merit. He is an official representative of our government, and appropriate respect for his office must be given.

However, I think perhaps it might suggest to the dispassionate observer that it would be quite remarkable for church leaders to meet with such a devil incarnate as Cheney has been portrayed. Who knows? Perhaps they are not even wont to think of him as a murderer or a liar.

Looks like I have a front-row seat at the Marriot Center for Cheney's speech. I will post a report later.

I think part of the problem with the protesters position on this matter is that it doesn't seem to be all that well based in reality. Too wrapped up in divisive hyperbole.

So far as I know, Vice President Cheney has not been convicted of any of the crimes he has been accused of, though the issue has been tried in court a number of times. His culpability has all been established through "trial by media".

Look at this example from yesterdays DesNews article, quoting a protesting BYU history professor.

"I believe this is the first time in BYU history the school has so honored a commencement speaker who is in the process of being impeached by Congress."

This is baffling to me, as I have yet to learn of any official impeachment proceedings by the Congress. (Though I'm certain that members of MoveOn.org have tried, convicted, and burned him at the stake many times over.)

If we simply imagine such things, will it make them so?

BYU trustees and Cheney invitation

I would find it interesting to read discussion about how those signing petitions and demonstrating think their actions reconcile with the initial approval of the Cheney invitation by BYU trustees. After all, “BYU trustees” is just another way of referring to a group of church general authorities, isn’t it?

So, will you also go demonstrate and picket around the Church office building?

This question seems of particular interest to me during this week, when church members gather to hear counsel from general church leaders. Should we feel so inclined, would we also protest the selection of speakers in the conference?

I confess, as a borderline misogynist, I am sometimes mildly offended by the regular inclusion of women speakers in the general conference agenda. But instead of protesting or signing a petition against, I personally find it more than sufficient to nap through their talks.

…zzzz…

;-)

Cheney at BYU: In the news, blogs

I seldom find anything to agree with in SLTrib editorials, but this one seems to hold the grasp of one essential idea...

...protests, boycotts, issues brought to the forefront - it's all good. It's all part of the participatory process.
So let Cheney speak. Be appalled, or enthralled. He may posture and prevaricate, but he will be speaking to a class of college graduates who presumably are capable of weighing his words against his record.

I don't find anything else of merit in the thoughts expressed, but at least they got one foundational idea right.

Then there's this article from one of the regular columnists, which hews close to the traditional SLTrib line of enthusiastically misrepresenting and slandering the church and anything related to it.

Actually, the SLTrib did better than DesNews on this. The DN article could only find controversy as the point of discussion.

LDS Blogs are more-or-less dominated by outrage that Cheney is not already caged up in chains. Few seem to recognize that the federal prosecutor labored for more than a year to convict Bush and Cheney and company on all kinds of charges, but failed to deliver. Anyway, sentiments in the Bloggernacle are strikingly similar to something from MoveOn.org these days. Typical fare at a couple of representative blogs: Times and Seasons author says Cheney deserves a fair trial, oblivious to the fact that it already happened. Guy Murray's Messenger and Advocate follows the crowd with a rather disappointing anti-war posture that pretty much obscures all reasonable considerations. Others are far less even-handed in their discussion and rhetoric.

More stories in the Deseret News

BYU OKs Cheney protest
LDS Church statement concerning Cheney visit to BYU
LDS Church fires back at criticism over Cheney
Readers on Cheney — with a 'Y'
Protests not new at Y.


And in the Salt Lake Tribune

BYU allows students' Cheney protest
LDS Church responds to Tribune columnist
BYU allows Cheney protest
Chilly for Cheney at BYU?

Petition: Let Cheney speak at BYU

Dear Friends,

I have just read and signed the petition: "Please don't prohibit Dick Cheney from speaking at BYU"

Please take a moment to read about this important issue, and join me in signing the petition. It takes just 30 seconds, but can truly make a difference. We are trying to reach 1,000 signatures - please sign here.

Once you have signed, you can help even more by asking your friends and family to sign as well.

Thank you!

Jim Cobabe


www.thePetitionSite.com

Vice President Cheney to speak at BYU

Media sources have announced that Dick Cheney will deliver a public address at the BYU Commencement ceremonies in April 2007. Here's a link to a Deseret News article.

Just below the radar is a muttering growl of outrage. Too many people personally project hatred and loathing for President George W. Bush. Cheney gets the benefit of some of the overflow that spills past the edges.

To me, this ferocious mounting antipathy that focuses on Bush and spills over to Cheney is beyond all reason. I cannot fathom why anyone would object to Cheney's speaking engagements. From my experience, Cheney is an accomplished public speaker. The speaking circuit is a common enough occupation for Vice Presidents, has-been and otherwise, honored or infamous.

As to the spewing of pejoratives and unsubstantiated accusations, let those who embrace such vile practices validate their claims in the court of justice. You need to progress somewhere beyond your mock impeachment proceedings and actually do something more than just slander and threaten in hysterical public demonstrations. Otherwise it is just more of the endless unsubstantiated "Bush lied" mantra that amounts to a public propaganda campaign.

Personally, I find far less reason to believe these than Bush and company. Sad to say that the general level of credibility is so compromised by the current tone of public discussion. The only sure premise is that when everyone lies, there is no source of public information that can be trusted.

In fine illustration of this point, a current Deseret News article quotes comments from BYU political science professor Darren Hawkins.

Hawkins believes Cheney has changed in the past four years from a moderate pragmatist to an extremist driven by the Iraq war and has appeared willing to do anything to create his version of a secure country.

Ironically, it is people like Hawkins that are the pivot of change. These fickle people started out as embracing the concept of opposing the sources of global terrorism, and have gradually transformed into caricatures of screaming anti-war protesters of the 60's.

Hawkins goes on to say of Cheney,

"He may be the most unpopular vice president in history and he may be the most unpopular person in America right now, so, yes, where else could he go?" Hawkins said. "It doesn't surprise me the White House called back and wondered if BYU would take him. I seriously doubt he'd be welcome at a lot of other universities."

What does popularity have to do with it? Are we now supposed to begin censoring speakers with unpopular causes?