“Kiss-in” held outside Temple Square in SLC

The Deseret News is reporting that about 60 protesters staged a “kiss-in” on the sidewalks surrounding Temple Square today, in response to a recent incident on Main Street Plaza:

Former Salt Lake City Councilwoman Deeda Seed launched the idea from her Facebook page after two gay men, Derek Jones and Matthew Aune, were forced to leave the church-owned pedestrian walkway between North Temple and South Temple Thursday night for “inappropriate” behavior. That behavior, reportedly, was holding hands and a kiss on the cheek and led to the men being handcuffed, led off the plaza and cited by Salt Lake police.

Seed called the actions “heavy-handed,” and invited people to meet downtown Sunday morning to “engage in gentle, tasteful displays of public affection.” Dozens of gay and straight couples did just that at the feet of a statue of Brigham Young near the entrance to the plaza just after 9 a.m.

Seed said the idea behind the gathering was to illustrate the innocence of a simple display of affection, no matter where it occurs.

“We’re giving a visual demonstration of the power of love,” Seed said. “And, saying that it should be OK for people to show affections regardless of their sexual orientation or age.”

Apparently about 35 protesters entered Temple Square as the gathering began to disperse, which precipitated a call to SLC police. No citations were issued.

Kissing in Main Street Plaza

I’m sure you guys have already heard about this incident by now. The other night, a gay couple was strolling through LDS Church-owned Main Street Plaza. According to the AP,

Aune, 28, said he gave Jones, 25, a hug and kiss and that the two were then approached by a security guard, who asked them to leave, telling them they were being inappropriate and that public displays of affection aren't allowed on the property. He said other guards arrived and the men were handcuffed.

The Salt Lake Tribune provides more details:

The pair crossed the plaza holding hands, Aune said. About 20 feet from the edge of the plaza, Aune said he stopped, put his arm on Jones’ back and kissed him on the cheek.

Several security guards then arrived and asked the pair to leave, saying that public displays of affection are not allowed on the church property, Aune and Jones said. They protested, saying they often see other couples holding hands and kissing there, said Jones.

“We were kind of standing up for ourselves,” Jones said. “It was obviously because we were gay.”

The guards put Jones on the ground and handcuffed him, he said. Aune said he was also cuffed roughly, and suffered bruises and a swollen wrist. The injuries did not require medical treatment, Snyder said.

Farah said the two men “became argumentative,” refused to leave, and used profanity

Aune said he felt “upset” and “affronted” during the approximately five-minute exchange.

“When I was handcuffed, I was very pissed and I unleashed a flurry of profanities,” he said.

Police arrived about 10:30 p.m. They spoke with the couple and two security guards before issuing the citations, Snyder said. The pair was banned from LDS Church Headquarters' campus for six months, Farah confirmed. That does not include the City Creek or any other properties.

Of course the articles really only give one side of the story. But I do think it’s rather disingenuous to say that public displays of affection are categorically not allowed on church property. I have photos of my wife and I kissing on Temple Square, just minutes after being wed. And we all know that young engaged or recently-wed Mormon couples are constantly making out all over the property. As Jones observes, this altercation obviously had to do with sexual orientation.

Perhaps if the couple were making out on the pedestal in front of the Salt Lake Temple or otherwise making a scene, I could understand the security guards asking the men to leave. But Main Street Plaza is quasi-public property, and it appears that the men were simply strolling through the plaza after attending a concert. Under the circumstances, it probably would have been more tactful to just let them pass through.

George Bush is still President in Provo

I really don’t mean to beat up on BYU-slash-Provo. I promise that I post this light-heartedly. I should probably write on something else. But this is too funny not to mention:

Apparently a patriotic devotional was held in the Marriott Center this past Sunday, as part of Provo’s Freedom Festival. Two Daily Universe letter writers (here and here) describe the event:

At the devotional (to my great chagrin), a slide show presented slide after slide of President George W. Bush, and seemed to completely disregard the new president. Finally, a single picture of President Obama popped up. I realize Utah is a predominantly Republican state; however, it is time to show support for our current leader, differences aside.

* * *

Would someone let the Provo Freedom Festival and The Osmonds — Second Generation know that George W. Bush has not been our president for a good five months already? I was surprised during the video montage during one of the Osmond’s rousing performances at Sunday’s service at the Marriott Center they showed several images of former President Bush, but none of current President Barack Obama.

I don’t know if they bought last season’s American montage footage on sale or if they were trying to make a statement, but I consider it highly disrespectful to our current leader to omit him from a celebration of American patriotism. In fact, I am pretty embarrassed for them.

In other news, Glenn Beck will be headlining at BYU’s Stadium of Fire event this weekend. (I worked at Stadium of Fire in 2004; Sean Hannity was there that year.)

BYU Paternalism

As the Salt Lake Tribune and Los Angeles Times are reporting, BYU has decided to lift its campus YouTube ban (meaning that it now has one less thing in common with the PRC and Iran). BYU contemporarily launched a new website, BeSafe @ BYU. [1]

While BYU’s initial discomfort with YouTube a few years ago may have been understandable (especially given the university’s usual overabundance of caution in regard to media), that the ban was not rescinded until mid-2009 is a little troubling, if not altogether surprising. Whereas YouTube may have been easily brushed aside as “just another website” in 2005, it is now thoroughly embedded in the mainstream. The Vatican and the White House each have their own YouTube channel.

As the former YouTube ban evidences, despite Mormons’ frequent repetition of the “teach correct principles and let them govern themselves” mantra, BYU just doesn’t seem to subscribe to that philosophy.

I’ll give an anecdote from my senior year at the Y. I was writing a paper on Ang Lee, and one of my professors suggested that I devote a part of it to The Wedding Banquet. It turns out that this is a very difficult movie to find in the U.S. (or at least in Provo). I searched all over the Wasatch Front, but to no avail. Of course, BYU has a copy of the film—but as the library listing states, it is “Non-Circulating” and for “Faculty Use” only.

Again, this is somewhat understandable, given BYU’s standards. The Wedding Banquet is rated R. In one scene, a character says the F-word about five times in a row. In another scene, there is a quick glimpse of a female breast. And the subject matter of the film—homosexuality—is kind of a sensitive topic at BYU. I realize that the Church (and by extension, the University) may generally and legitimately discourage viewing media of this type.

Since faculty have access to the Harold B. Lee Library’s R-rated movie collection, my professor agreed to check out the DVD on my behalf. But this didn’t work out either. As my professor later reported to me, faculty could only check out “Non-Circulating” materials for three-hour intervals, and even then had to view the media at the library (in the Learning Resource Center). My professor ended up lending me a pirated copy of the film that he had bought in Taiwan a couple years earlier.

The point is that even when it comes to the decision whether to watch a Chinese drama about a couple of gay guys (or to view classic art), BYU faculty and students are not trusted to “govern themselves.”

This issue is much broader than media, of course. The Honor Code, which extends far beyond issues of academic integrity to the minutiae of student life—it requires that men’s hair be “trimmed above the collar leaving the ear uncovered,” that students refrain from all body piercing (besides a single set of earrings for women), and that students not let members of the opposite sex use their bathrooms except in extraordinary circumstances—epitomizes the Culture of Rules that persists at BYU. (If you’re not convinced, please read the chapter on the history of the Honor Code in this book.)

I’m sure that this is coming off as a complain-y post, and for that I apologize. I know I’ve hashed and rehashed these issues in the past. But while BYU’s lifting of the YouTube ban is certainly a step forward, it’s also a reminder of just how far the administration is from embracing Joseph Smith’s “teach them correct principles” injunction. Although the Honor Code is ostensibly about honor, campus policies show a general lack of trust—of students and faculty alike. I can’t help but think that this detracts from campus culture.

________________

[1] On a tangential note: After browsing the site for a few minutes, I came across the following quote, which is apparently excerpted from this church-published pamphlet: “An unintentional encounter with pornography may not require confession to your bishop” (emphasis added). That “unintentional” conduct apparently might warrant confession seems odd to me. I suppose the line may implicitly be susceptible to interpretation and qualification, but that’s a topic for another day.

Father’s Day and Gender Roles

In sacrament meeting today, all three speakers spoke about fathers. This, of course, presented the perfect opportunity to reinforce traditional gender roles.

Gender roles are kind of a big deal for Mormons. As a recent TIME magazine article observed, the two major policy issues in which the LDS Church has been involved over the past few decades—women rights (the ERA) and gay marriage—are both “gender debates.” The Proclamation to the World, the closest thing to scripture that LDS authorities have promulgated in the last thirty years, codifies male and female roles:

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.

Our sacrament meeting speakers quoted the Proclamation several times today. I would love to discuss one speaker’s assertion that husbands are responsible for making a living so that women can stay home and “do housework and chores,” but I think that topic has already been discussed a time or two in the ’nacle.

Rather, I’d like to focus on the “equal partners” thing. (Not that this topic is any less tired.) Two of our speakers today—a teenage girl and a middle-aged woman—stated that the father is the “head of the household.” You know, the whole “presiding” thing. Spencer W. Kimball was quoted a handful of times.[1]

Although none of the speakers mentioned that husband and wife are “equal partners” (it’s Father’s Day, after all), most Mormons will tell you that “presiding in the home” does not indicate hierarchical superiority (it really means “to serve,” or something to that effect)—in spite of the fact that, in every other context, Mormons use the word “preside” in express reference to hierarchy. At the beginning of nearly every LDS meeting, for instance, the person conducting indicates who is “presiding” over the event. The “presiding” authority is the highest-up leader in attendance.

Elder Oaks tried to clarify things in 2005, stating that “the government of the family is patriarchal, whereas the government of the Church is hierarchical.” He then segued into a discussion of equal partnership between spouses (while maintaining that men and women have “separate responsibilities”).

But is patriarchy any more compatible with the notion of equal partnership than hierarchical superiority is? Doesn’t patriarchy denote the “supremacy of the father” in the family?

Confused? I sure am.

Someone wanna clear this up for me?

_________________

[1] Not that the “head of the household” language is behind us or anything. In a 2004 Ensign article, Elder L. Tom Perry wrote that “[t]he father is the head in his family.” He continued, “Fatherhood is leadership. . . . Father, with the assistance and counsel and encouragement of his your eternal companion, you preside in the home.” Of course, he then quoted President Gordon B. Hinckley: “In this Church the man neither walks ahead of his wife nor behind his wife but at her side. They are coequals.”

Only at BYU

Only at BYU: A student asks that the university mandate school uniforms because the current dress code “obviously [is] not strict enough.”

TIME: “The Storm Over the Mormons”

In the middle of flipping through this week’s issue of TIME magazine this evening, I unexpectedly found myself looking at a full-page photo of the Oakland LDS temple. The magazine devoted several pages to Mormons.

It’s a fairly good article, although I wish that the author had spoken with more Mormons who opposed Proposition 8. For me, perhaps the most eyebrow-raising part was the quote from General Authority and (lapsed?) Democrat Marlin Jensen:

“I’ve had personal experience with gay people, and I weep with them,” says official LDS historian Marlin Jensen, but the “context for our being so dogged about preserving the family is that Mormons believe that God is their father and that they have a heavenly mother and that eventually their destiny is to become like that.”

To me, the quote is significant for two reasons:

• (1) Elder Jensen explicitly refers to Heavenly Mother. General authorities just don’t do this very often, especially in interviews with high-profile publications. Notably, Jensen’s comment comes as justification for the Church’s stance on gay marriage.
• (2) Elder Jensen claims to have “had personal experience with gay people”—and in the same breath says that he “weep[s] with them.” This strikes me as an odd thing to say. Why does he weep? The implication is that there is some type of tragedy or reason for mourning—is the tragedy simply that gay people are gay? This, coupled with his use of the phrase “preserving the family” as a euphemism for opposing gay marriage, suggests to me that Elder Jensen’s “personal experience with gay people” has not produced genuine understanding.

I don’t mean to rail on Jensen. I have no reason to believe that he bears any enmity toward gays and lesbians. I think his comments were well-meaning. But I also think they reveal a fundamental lack of understanding. And I’m not using “understanding” as a synonym for acceptance of homosexuality. But there is no reason why someone who considers homosexuality immoral cannot also recognize that gay people are not anti-family.