Charlie Bird was the Cosmo who came out as gay and became a big news story. In keeping with the trajectory of BYU that troubles me (and bleeds over into our athletic decline, I think), we have Cosmo performing (and being celebrated by many BYU fans and Church members for doing so) at Bird’s wedding to a man.
I think personally that representatives of the school (Cosmo is certainly a representative of BYU when performing or appearing in media) should not be celebrating, endorsing, or promoting things that the Church is opposed to. It really confuses and muddies the waters as far as what BYU stands for (or doesn’t really stand for, any more).
This is a sensitive topic within the Church, because many people have gay family members and friends, and all people should certainly be treated with kindness and respect. But I think the lack of clarity and directness that BYU and to an extent the Church has had leads to confusion and loss of youth and young adults that wouldn’t have occurred with that clarity and directness.
That is an interesting situation. I would have to know more about this thread. When did it occur? Was the wedding attended by BYU administrators or athletic dept members? I am guessing Worthen was the president of BYU? Can a private party request Cosmo to attend special occasions? Did BYU know the nature of the wedding or just send Cosmo when requested? There are more than 1 Cosmo per season and it might have been one of the buddies as Cosmo at the reception/wedding. Was it just a reception or the actual wedding?
I agree with your sentiments. The wokeness allowance and move toward trying to play nice to both sides confuses many. Especially the youth. The way I feel is that as long as someone has same-sex feelings, there should be no Church discipline like dis-fellowship or excommunication. If there is acting on those feelings going on, if they aren’t Temple Recommend holders, there should be no excommunication based solely on the acts. If they attack or injure the Church then discipline should take place up to the bishop, stake president and first presidency.
A family member came out and got married to someone of the same sex. His mother said she will always love him and support him but not with that and did not attend. Yet, young cousins attended. We are losing our youth because of being ambiguous about this. Like this mother, we can love all without supporting bad behavior. Turned out that the marriage didn’t last very long. Gays get divorced too.
The post was from two days ago. It was at the reception, not the wedding itself. Although, since the wedding and reception were at the state capital, it might have been the wedding, too (I wasn’t there). I have no idea if BYU administrators or athletic personnel were there.
The current Cosmo could have acted on his own, but should not have worn the costume and performed. I have significantly less of a problem with him (or anyone else) going to a reception as a friend or family, etc., but he shouldn’t have as Cosmo.
BYU won’t say anything about it, and that’s also a problem. They didn’t address growing strident protests and rallies on campus about gay issues until it was too late (finally saying that the Y is private property and may not be lit rainbow). Then, when it was rainbow lit again, radio silence. You have to be willing to expel or press charges, and if you’re not, then your impotent assertion of property rights is worthless.
The silence of BYU administration enables and encourages this erosion. Worthen was bad, and Reese looks like more of the same.
Well I suspect that BYU allows the Cosmo’s to keep their mascot uniform throughout the year and probably never even made a rule about its use outside the school at activities that have nothing to do with BYU. But I am just guessing. There is probably a rule now!
Reece is probably going to be a better administrator than Kevin was. Kevin was super nice and always tried hard to see the other side of the argument. He almost couldn’t make a decision on tough issues so he would form committees and get them to make recommendations to the BOT and it would give him cover. He hates controversy and his behavior actually brought on more angst and controversy than any other BYU president …… excepting the Boy George fiasco that lasted about 14 days. Anyway I think Holland and Oaks know that they need a good strong hand at the controls of the university and Shane has been told to get things calmed down. If he doesn’t he won’t have a 9-10 yr tenure.
I don’t mind gays and lesbians as students at BYU. Even teachers who remain silent about it and teach the Gospel correctly. It was said in the late 1970’s that half the dance and theater students were gay. They never behaved on campus inappropriately. And, as the brethren have taught, being same-sex attracted is not a sin. Acting on that is just as it is with heterosexual persons not married.
Now, how we handle that in the past decade or two is different than 40-50 years ago. We include them now and help them to get married, especially when there are children involved. Now, homosexuality is different than that. Getting married to another of the same-sex isn’t making homosexuality right. But, they are human beings children of the Most High. I have no problem with a club on campus that helps gays with staying celibate as the rest of the straight unmarried students. What Cosmos did was not that.
My opinion from the many lesbians I’ve known over my 70 years is most of them are switch hitters. A close friend of ours has 4 children from 3’guys, one who was gay himself. She loves them all. One she was married to that ended up being an alcoholic. Which is another reason for many who switch, environment. We had a member in our ward recently was openly same-sex attracted who was attracted to one woman and he married her. There was someone in this forum a few years ago that said the same. If we allow for a reprobate mind, there are many sins we will do without conscience. People need the right support that can lead people to the tree of life.
Why BYU chose to have a DEI program is maddening to me. They call it diversity, equity, and belonging, substituting belonging for inclusion (no difference, I am not fooled). When BYU starts copying institutions that are run by Marxists it is a slippery slope. DEI departments on campuses do the opposite of what they are supposed to do. They create division and that is exactly the intent. DEI has also taken the corporate world by storm and the results are ugly. Equity is a Marxist principle implying that there needs to be equal outcomes rather than equal treatment. The idea of seeking diversity without regard to merit in hiring and finding students is a societal disaster.
I wonder if too many BYU administrators and professors have been poisoned by the secular run institutions they did their graduate studies at. It sounds to me like BYU needs to get back to their core principles rather than trying to flirt with wokeism.
The idea of DEI is poisoning our institutions. Teach students Christian principles and forget the DEI committees that pander to the snowflakes. Trying to force some secular morality doesn’t work.
I was listening to a podcast yesterday where it was discussed that Obama lowered the standards for air traffic controllers in the name of equity. Testing was dumbed way down to get a more diverse workforce. Think about that the next time you get on a plane. The big players in world finance grade corporations based on what is called ESG scores (environment, social, governance) that is why we see the disasters at Budlight, Target, and Disney. ESG is nothing more than DEI for the huge corporations. Being woke is more important than profits and some corporations are starting to wake up. DEI is why when a trans person shot six persons at a Christian school
In Tennessee it was largely ignored by the mainstream media and was twisted by the White House press secretary who reached out to the trans community rather the families of the victims. Cosmo performing at a gay wedding is hardly surprising given today’s environment. He probably shouldn’t have been there. Maybe he didn’t violate any university policy but whether he did or not it sends the wrong message and the policy should be changed.
I could go on about this and give more examples but this post is already overly long. DEI is damnable and I am sorry BYU has joined the club under another name.
The church has HAD to soften it’s stance on gay LDS kids. The big reason is when these kids leave the faith, they take their families with them. Its fine to believe in god and the eternal family but there is no room to treat a gay kid any different than a straight kid, you can believe what you want but Parents are going to love the child equally to any of their other children and if it comes to choosing the church and its doctrine over that child, the parents are going to choose that child over a church 100% of the time.
FYI, young people don’t have a problem with it. It is not a big issue to them.
Do you have statistics to back this up? 100% of the time? I have a nephew who came out and married his boyfriend. The mother did not attend the wedding and is still 100% behind the church. She still loves her son and gave him the house to live in as she moved away.
Also, from statements by prophets there will be a large separation as the 2nd coming beads in the Church. I think the Church has prepared well financially for this. Members need to work on their testimonies and the Church has moved towards this more. Someone has to stand for right over wrong.
As I stated above, Hiw the Church approaches this is important. The days of immediate excommunication has ended for this and those married outside the Church.
I guess it really boils down to one major point doesn’t it?
Do you believe that we have a Prophet of God leading the church today? If so, then what does it matter what the “policy” of the church is regarding “Gays”?
We don’t have the authority or the knowledge to know what the Lord has instructed our current Prophet to do or not do in regards to the “Gay” issue.
If you have questions, then I would ask you to pray about it and get your own answer if the Prophet is doing what is right.
We have been given the assurance that the Lord would not allow the Prophet to lead us astray. So you believe or you don’t it is that simple.
Reminds me when they changed things in the Temple, removing “traditions” and keeping what is “Doctrine”. A lot of people were upset because they thought the church was going against doctrine, when in fact it was a tradition that people started.
Just remember the order that the Lord has set in our relationship chain is God, Faith, Family, Church.
I admire people who has gay family members like Fish, who loves and accepts his child unconditionally, even though they may or may not agree with the decision. Recently, I told my grand daughter who has told me she is gay, that there is nothing she can do to make me stop loving her, I may or may not agree with her decisions, but that never stops me from loving her. That is called unconditional love.
What I do know is that doctrine on this subject hasn’t changed and won’t. The administration on how we work within the laws and with the doctrine with respect to each individual changes. As for us as individuals and how we respond, that is up to each of us to choose to love the Lord thy God with all our heart, mind and strength. Full faith and trust in the Lord first. Sometimes easier said than done. And, the Lord has asked us to pray to the Father in the name of the Son, with real intent, faith not waivering and without a double mind to gain wisdom for each situation we face. My sister-in-law did and received her direction to love her child but not attend the wedding. someone else may get a different answer.
I agree with you that LDS families (increasingly more) with gay children still love their children. There is a spectrum of how they respond to it (full embracing and endorsing of the lifestyle in the name of supporting their child — still love their child, but don’t endorse and embrace the lifestyle and will honestly tell the child when asked that they still believe it’s a sin).
I think a lot of young people (who, as you note, disagree with the Church on it) expect that the Church will eventually get rid of homosexuality (living it, not just the attraction) as far as the law of chastity. This will be a wedge issue, because if the Church does this, it will be a moment of truth for traditional/conservative oriented people, and if it doesn’t, it will eventually be a moment of truth for progressive/liberal oriented people who will be bitter that the Church hasn’t changed on it. There will be a winner and a loser on this issue, and either side would consider it God’s will if they “win,” and a travesty if they “lose.” But either way, the Church is going to eventually have a bloc that will leave over this, or at minimum lose commitment and enthusiasm. The Church won’t be able to “thread the needle” forever like it has tried to
The ridiculous thing is that large numbers of young adults (1/5 BYU students, according to surveys) identify as “non-binary,” which is absurd. It is clear to me that it is mostly a social phenomenon, and that many/most of these kids aren’t actually gay. It is fashionable and even cool in many quarters (including BYU and the Church) to not be “cis-gender.” There are, and always have been, small numbers of people who are actually gay (historically around 2-3%, according to studies).
The big problem is how to help gay people in the Church, because there is doctrinally no way for them to advance in the priesthood and achieve exaltation (gay behavior, not attraction alone without acting on it). I admit that it is a hard sell to tell people that they are going to have to remain celibate with no possibility of marriage or “legal” dating, but caving on this simply to keep families from leaving over this would have catastrophic doctrinal ramifications. And, a future revelation upending all of this would also be like a nuclear bomb, in a way that ending the priesthood ban wasn’t.
I am very upset with BYU’s milquetoast response to any of this. No comments, letting crazy activists run amok with no response (or late responses — like years after). The lack of clarity and directness is contributing to confusion and bad choices for young people.
I am increasingly embarrassed by BYU as an institution. I feel less connection to it as these shoes continue to drop.
Some of BYU’s problems are not “top down,” but rather due to “the right hand not knowing what the left is doing,” I think.
I don’t believe, for instance, that President Reece or President Worthen were directly involved or maybe even aware of counseling services giving out resources and information counter to the Church and unauthorized by BYU
but, when made aware of it, there is never any response. Just quiet removal. The next time controversy erupts, rest assured that BYU will have no response and will be Johnny come lately.
I’m sure the Presidents know what is going on with respect to this and other issues. The administration of how to deal with it will differ from one President to another. I agree that not being strong on the side of the doctrine of the Church is really bad for everyone. Everyone thinks there will be mass exodus. I don’t. And, young people are beginning to turn around and away from some of the woke nonsense as well. More and more of them are now saying they would vote for Trump. Imagine that.