Sometimes our posts get too long for just one post. So, to end with, when I was baptized back in 1977, I wrote a letter to a friend and made a list. It was a list of why my church as good and his was bad and he should change. Like an epistle if Paul. However, after receiving a response from his fiancée whom I also knew well, my letter really was not inspired and was a holier than thou epistle. I did the same thing to my family as well. Anyways, I received a letter back from his fiancée letting me know that He was hurt by my words. But, the final words of her letter, from a non-member still rings true, “may God teach you patience.”
I have no doubt that Grasshopper is devoted to the church and is passionate about the church. I agree with him on most things political and doctrinal. He just seems to be a bit clueless sometimes in expressing his opinions and in arguing for the sake of arguing when there is no reason to argue. I would bet both Floyd and Grasshopper find spousal and child abuse deplorable no matter what decade it occurred in and that is why I found it a bit pointless to jump on Floyd’s post and split hairs. There was no reason for it unless it was for the purpose of debating for the sake of debating.
I am sure that Grasshopper knows that we are admonished in the scriptures to avoid contention. When a debate causes one of the parties to feel contentious then it is unhealthy.
I don’t feel contentious with Floyd. I simply am willing to respond with reason. I’m willing to see and hear all sides of a topic. At the same time, I think it’s reasonable to listen to what I may have to say as well. And anyone else. Why does Floyd object to the words of Dr. Brooks and basically call him a worthless person of interest? I’m sure if he watched the talk he would agree with me that his words are uplifting and his opinions are good ones. He even quoted President Nelson.
Aro and Floyd, please try to avoid the lure set out for you by the insect. It is tempting to engage, especially when the trap is perfectly laid for you to step in. We all get what you are saying and the hard line of the insect 
crosses over the solid yellow, no passing lane, so don’t get worked up by him. His Game is to get you to debate and engage him in non sense. I know it is hard, but you have to resist.
Reed, my comments were made to reflect the time period of what was acceptable and what was not.
Abuse by a husband/father was not viewed the same as we view it today, it had different standards. I read several research articles on the subject. they basically concluded that a lot of this stuff was not reported because of the social stigma attached to it.
My mother went through abuse and was accused of “Not pleasing her husband” as a reason for the abuse. Which is total BS.
It was not until people starting taking notice of the issue and standing up for the abused, creating or changing laws about abuse that things started to change.
That was my comparison to what Jim Hawks was saying quote “It was totally unnecessary and frankly detracted from what should have been an otherwise celebratory occasion. I don’t understand the extreme need for people to do this.”
That why I am not condoning what the speaker did and why he did it, that sometimes standing up for what you believe in is not always bad.
Maybe the comparison is a bit off, but that was what I was trying to explain.
Scott, please don’t waste your time responding to this comment… I won’t respond back.
We had a neighbor who used to verbally abuse his wife mercilessly…That was what you could hear. I don’t know what else may have happened. Another neighbor commented to my mother on what a wonderful man he was. When my mother told her she could not respect a man who treated his wife like he did the neighbor woman quit talking to her. That is anecdotal but not atypical for the era. That was in the 60s. The old man who was our neighbor had a son who was another neighbor of ours who physical and verbally abused his son. He may have abused his wife for all I know. My uncle who lived next door to him saw him hold his son’s hand over some hot charcoal at a backyard barbeque to discipline him. He witnessed other things as well. These two men were at church every week and most people in the ward thought they were pillars of righteousness. Most abusers try to keep it behind closed doors but sometimes it is witnessed by their neighbors.
I understood your remarks and the context and didn’t see any need for anybody to challenge them. I am not sure why anybody would have had a problem with them.
I have worked with a number of gay people over the years and none of them ever talked about it at work. I have an issue with people making public pronouncements about their sexual orientation. A nephew of mine was married a few years ago and his wife’s brother decided to come out of the closet at their wedding reception. I thought it was a very selfish act to detract from his sister’s day by drawing attention to himself. If he had the need to make a public pronouncement of his homosexuality he picked a completely inappropriate venue. Announcing your sexual orientation at a commencement ceremony is not the time nor place for it either. Too much attention is given to sexual orientation. It shouldn’t entirely define who somebody is. For too many people being gay seems to be the major thing that defines them. That is sad and pathetic.
Jim was referring to a kid who spoke and announced he was gay. Completely different from what Dr. Brooks said.
I completely agree with you.
No one said it doesn’t happen today-they said it doesn’t happen as much. Don’t let your ignorance show-in ruins any credibility you have if you have any left at all. There is nothing wrong with debate, but if you are going to debate something, at least be credibly sound and many times you are not. Everybody from the schools to the Catholics, to the members of the church have had to implement stricter procedures to ferret out abuse and take prohibitive actions in dealing with them. It’s not even close to being debatable
See here again you are telling lies. Is that how you represent the church? Floyd did not say that. He said they were opinions and that he chooses to follow the Prophet and the quorum of the 12. Really are you being a good example all the times you misrepresent other people or call other people derogatory names . I know of no such teachings in the ministry of Christ
I agree with most of what you have said. The young man that gave the speech at the BYU commencement ceremony was an exception, though, and an inspiration to many gay people at BYU, that they can have those type of feelings and still be great members of this church and have a solid relationship with God. It was inspiring even to me, who has issues with accepting those types of things and tremendously inspiring to those in attendance
You are mis characterizing what I wrote. Note how I responded while you use the “lie” word. Bad. And, no, you missed the point of his response. He thinks that it’s wrong to listen to someone outside the Church. Go back and read his response. I challenged him on his answer. Not that he follows the prophet. I doubt the Prophet would reject anything Brooks said. And it’s really rude to put down a guest of BYU like that. I don’t apologize for pointing this out to him.
Scott I don’t know where you come up with this stuff. He said it is only opinion-not truth and it is only opinion-but it may be a good opinion. He says he relies on truth as coming from the president of the church or the 12 and tries to live his life according to that truth. I’m not sure why you like to twist people’s words to fit your own whims. But if it isn’t truth it’s lies, no matter how you want to portray them. Floyd is very specific about what he is saying-not much room for confusion. I read a lot of informative information on secret combinations in the last days. I accept much of it as likely or probable, but until in comes from a General Authority it is interesting conjecture but not truth but opinion based on studious scholarship
Like I said in the topic of this thread…
It is the dead time of the year.
So dead that people are willing to argue and debate a speech. I was very impressed with Dr. Brooks speech. He was respectful and honest. It seems to me that he has integrity and character.
I didn’t have a problem with the speech given by the valedictorian of the political science department until he made it a priority to state his sexual orientation. I don’t know why this is so important. I didn’t clap or shout out loud when he finished. Overall I didn’t think the speech was all that good and he lost me when he made his coming out the focus of it. Does that make me homophobic? Absolutely not. People are people, we are all spirit sons and daughters of the same Heavenly Father. I care about all of my brothers and sisters.
This has become a very long thread because there is nothing to talk about on the BYU sports front. I think it is good though. I also think we are all probably a lot closer on our ideas and beliefs than we sometimes appear to be.
We are at 94 posts in this thread. I hope we make it to 100.
If I were Brooks and saw what Floyd thinks of me I would never set foot again at BYU nor enter an LDS Church again. The idea he has that much contempt of the opinions and words of a non-member capitalist would sour me (Brooks) to all that the Church is. I’d (Brooks) give back my BYU briefcase too.
Now, go back and read all the posts to see why Floyd posted such a holier than thou post.
I thought Brook’s belief on anger, contempt, civility and Love was brilliant. According to him, abuse comes with contempt and not anger.
Your posts also have a touch of humor which is good 
Why? Because he didn’t announce Brooks as being prophetic? I’m sure Brooks did a good job and though I didn’t hear what he said, Hawks is a good judge of content. Nowhere that I can find did Floyd disparage Brooks. Now grow up and act the part
I find it belittling to guests of the BOT and BYU to say he or she isn’t good enough to receive inspiration from the Spirit in order to give a talk to members of the Church in that situation. I felt that Dr. Brooks did get inspiration for the audience. That it wasn’t just opinion. It was inspired and with great wisdom and love. He didn’t say come follow me and be Catholic. Instead, it was quite the opposite. As my wife said when she heard it, “And he’s still not been baptized?”
I think his words support what the Prophet and Apostles teach. What he does do is give a different set of words to help understand how to implement what we are taught to do and then go out and serve. Be missionaries again.
I think his understanding of the difference between anger and contempt gives better understanding of what is happening to the world today. And what we need to avoid. He warned against being only civil to each other and instead love one another. He did it in a way that makes sense. And there’s more. I think it would help many get over their past and have better marriages. But that is just my inspired opinion. Certainly nothing that would cause apostasy as Floyd made it out to be. Do we really have a corner on all truth and no one else does?
“I cannot stress enough the importance of listening to and following the prophet and the apostles. In today’s world, where 24 hours a day television and radio commentators spew forth conflicting opinions, where marketers compete for everything from your money to your vote, there is one clear, unpolluted, unbiased voice that you can always count on. And that is the voice of the living prophet and the apostles. Their only motive is ‘the everlasting welfare of your souls’
President Russell M. Ballard
No one is questioning listening and following the Prophet. But, even the Prophet says listen to the Apostles, 70’s, Stake President’s, Bishops, EQ President’s and people who speak at Sacrament Meetings. Now, share amongst other members in Sunday School and at home. Joseph Smith said read from good books. Today, he would include videos too. He didn’t limit to books written by only GA’s. Nor did he limit to members.
As I said, I hope he doesn’t see your post or hear things from members on what you have written. He would never have any interest in the true Gospel again.
I remember my wife telling me when she went to BYU for a couple of years that some egg heads wrote in the school newspaper that Neil Diamond should not be allowed to perform at BYU because of his long hair. He came and performed keeping his commitment but said he would never come to BYU again because of those personal attack comments. He hasn’t.