ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/gdm/archive/v02.n014

Internet Message Format | 1999-02-01 | 41KB

From: [e-mail] (gdm-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: gdm-digest V2 #14
Reply-To: gdm-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


gdm-digest          Monday, February 1 1999          Volume 02 : Number 014




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 16:13:00 -0700
From: "Perry L. Porter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ---> Letter to editor in the Salt Lake Tribune

Mormons and Masons

I would like to respond to recent comments made in this Public Forum
regarding Masonry and the LDS temple ceremony. The ceremonies in Masonry
are in no way descended from the time of Solomon's Temple. Masons use the
biblical legends about the temple in their stories and lessons, which is
something they inherited from the medieval building guilds.

Back in the Middle Ages, when most people couldn't read, and the Bible was
available only in Latin, stories from the Bible were acted out in church
to teach the biblical lessons to the common people. At first, the priests
acted out the stories, but over time, the various trades and guilds became
responsible for acting out particular legends. The stone masons had as
their part the legends of the building of Solomon's Temple, and eventually
they worked it into their own lodge ceremonies as well.

How could Joseph Smith have found anything of the true Solomon Temple
rites in Masonry to ``restore'' or ``undistort''? Modern Masonry began in
1717. The ceremonies of Masonry come from three sources: the medieval
stone-mason guilds of England, the ``Englightenment Era'' philosophies
that were current when modern Masonry was getting started (middle 1600's
to 1717, the date of the first modern ``grand lodge'') and the
``magickal'' or hermetic writings that came from North African, Byzantine
and Moorish sources, and were also being rediscovered by philosophers and
scholars in England in the decades before the founding of modern Masonry.

These three sources get all tangled up, which is why there were so many
bad Masonic histories written for so many years. None of those sources had
any connection or contact with a ceremonial tradition from Solomon's
Temple.

Outside of the details of the priestly ceremonies that anyone can read
about in the Bible (especially in Leviticus), there is nothing or almost
nothing known of temple ceremonies. Joseph Smith saw and participated in
Masonic ceremonies and simply borrowed them for his own use. There was no
``restoration'' from Solomon's time going on.

LARA CANNON

Salt Lake City

- -----------------------

see :

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/origin_free-masonry
.html


- -------------------






Perry     <[e-mail]>    http://pobox.com/~plporter

- -

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 21:15:24 -0700
From: "Perry L. Porter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ---> "The Temple Scroll"

Subject: The ancient record known as "The Temple Scroll"

One of the most complete ancient temple records that was not discovered
until over 100 years after the LDS Endowment was put into practice is
called "The Temple Scroll" which describes the temple and its rituals
before the time of Christ. The Temple Scroll was one of the important
findings among The Dead Sea Scrolls.

The information shown below is only a very small amount of the total
information available on The Temple Scroll. Since it would be too lengthy
to include in this e-mail, I've only provided a brief outline of its
extensive contents.

The Temple Scroll has been fully translated into English and is available
at most large bookstores and in some libraries. The Barnes and Noble store
in Orem has several books about The Temple Scroll which provide extensive
information and the complete scroll translation. It is included in several
books on The Dead Sea Scrolls.

There are many different websites that provide information on The Dead Sea
Scrolls. Here are a few you can check out:

1) http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/index.html

"The Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Hebrew University
- - Jerusalem

2) http://www.in-search-of.com/frames/dss/index_nf.shtml

"In Search of...Dead Sea Scrolls", The Temple Scroll is listed as #132.

3)
http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/symposiums/2nd/papers/Schiffman97.html

"The Temple Scroll and the Halakhic Pseudepigrapha of the Second Temple
Period"

Here's some background information about the Temple Scroll and some of the
different views on the exact nature of scroll--

According to some scholars who have studied this record "the Temple Scroll
will carry with it the notion of direct divine revelation, on the model of
the Priestly Code. Indeed, we may say that much of the literary activity
of the author/redactor was directed at converting Deuteronomic material to
this priestly form, so as to cast the entire text as directly revealed
(even if possibly through Moses as a mouthpiece)."

Another Temple Scroll researcher (Yadin) stated that the intention of the
author of The Temple Scroll was "to present the law as handed down
directly by God without the intermediacy of Moses. This is why the author
had to make the alterations in Deuteronomy to accent that these were God's
words and not those of Moses. But he did not have to make such alterations
in the other books where God is mentioned in the third person, since in
these passages it is clear that these are the words of God. He sees this
as pretty much a consistent approach throughout the scroll."

The debate over the nature of the Temple Scroll was also joined by B.Z.
Wacholder. He also argued that this was a second Torah revealed at Sinai.
His views were essentially the same as Yadin's on this matter and he saw
the use of the first person direct address by God as advancing his
argument. But he saw the "I-thou" syntax as borrowed from the Tabernacle
texts of the Torah where the "thou" is clearly Moses. In Wacholder's view
the "thou" throughout the Temple Scroll is Moses because it is
fundamentally addressed to Moses, and that he is the "thou" of the scroll
would effectively assume that in the lost beginning of the scroll, or at
its conclusion, there appeared mention of Moses' name in the text, much as
in the case with Deuteronomy.

In essence, "the Temple Scroll stands alone in its literary character." It
is believed by many scholars who studied the scroll to clearly be a divine
record.

Based on the translation by Y. Yadin, the description below is a very
brief outline of what is found in The Temple Scroll--

The TEMPLE PROPER:  It mentions the objects which stood inside, including:
The Golden Veil (in front of the Holy Ark); the Table for the Bread of
Presence (Showbread); the Menorah (Seven-branched Lampstand), and the
cherubim (above the Ark).

The COURTYARDS:  The courtyards are described in detail: Inner (with
several structures), Middle, Outer courtyards. They are arranged in a
concentric manner, each provided with gates. The gates are not just
openings in the wall but are complex buildings whose plan is based on
Ezekial's description of the Temple.

The STRUCTURES:  Most of all details concerning the Temple are devoted to
the structures (other than the Temple itself) which are located in the
Inner courtyard. The Altar of Sacrifice (Great Altar of Burnt Offerings)
was crowned with four horns, one on each corner.

The HOUSE of UTENSILS:  The House of Utensils was planned to contain
cupboards along its walls to house the utensils used in the daily cult
ceremonies. The priests could cleanse themselves in the big laver (or
basin) contained in another small building. As the ritual rites of
purifications were carried out in the nude, special niches in the upper
side of the House of Laver were planned.

The SLAUGHTERHOUSE:  Facing the Altar, a construction made of 12 columns
carrying a flat roof was planned. It was provided with some kind of rings
which were attached to the pillars. It seems that this device would be
used to chain animals for sacrifice and that the structure was to serve as
a slaughterhouse.  A similar construction, for another specific group of
sacrificial animals, was built just to the west of the Temple.

The STAIRHOUSE:  A stairhouse (in the shape of a stairwell) was planned to
sit at the northwest corner of the Temple. Its purpose was to let the
priests reach the upper and inner parts of the Temple indirectly (that is,
not through the main gate) for the Temple's maintenance.

The COLLANADES:  In the surrounding collanades there were plans for the
priests to eat from the sacrifices without mixing (or mingling) with the
rest of the people. The kitchens were arranged in the corners near the
gates.

The GATES:  The middle and outer gates were named after the 12 children of
Israel (the tribes, sons of Jacob). The northern three gates were named
Dan, Naphtali, and Asher; the eastern three gates were named Simeon, Levi,
and Judah; the southern three gates were named Reuben, Joseph and
Benjamin; and the western three gates were named Issachar, Zebulum and
Gad.

The OUTER COURTYARD:  The dimensions of the outer courtyard were vast,
1590 x 1590 cubits (one cubit equals 800 square meters). For the sake of
comparison the measurements of the Herodian Temple Mount was 280 x 480
meters and was, in its day, one of the largest holy precincts in the
world.

On top of the Temple's roof was a scarecrow in the shape of rows of spikes
all over. These were designed to prevent birds of prey from landing on the
roof and defiling it.

The Temple Scroll also describes codes of conduct and purification
processes that temple workers must follow before they could be allowed to
enter the temple.


=------------------------------------------------------=

This link is even better:

http://www.california.com/~rpcman/MORMMASO.HTM



==================================================


Perry     <[e-mail]>    http://pobox.com/~plporter

- -

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 20:12:51 -0700
From: "Perry L. Porter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ---> Re: W. VA. Sexual Abuse Lawsuit (fwd)

Attorney Michael G. Sullivan Releases Court Report Saying First

Amendment Does Not Shield Churches From Civil Liability

Court Rules Mormons Cannot Escape Sexual Abuse Lawsuit

BECKLEY, W.V., Dec. 15 /PRNewswire/ -- The office of Michael G.

Sullivan, P.C., Attorney At Law today released the following:

In a ruling that carries national significance, a West Virginia court
ruled recently that the First Amendment does not protect religious
organizations from civil liability merely because of their status as a
church.

Raleigh County Judge H.L. Kirkpatrick made the ruling in response to a
suit, filed by a young girl and her mother, that seeks $750 million in
damages from the Mormon Church.  In their complaint, the young girl,
identified only as Jane Doe, contends the Mormon Church knew that her
father was sexually abusing her for five years and failed to report it as
required by state law.  Jane Doe alleges that not only did the Church fail
to report knowledge of her abuse, but it has actually suppressed evidence
of the abuse of hundreds of other Mormon children over the years.

The Court's ruling represents a serious setback for the Mormon Church and
its team of lawyers who have raised this defense in similar suits
throughout the country.  The Mormon Church has been sued at least 26 other
times for their failure to report the sexual abuse of children.

In the past, the Mormon Church has vigorously defended sexual abuse suits
by relying upon the First Amendment, which calls for separation of church
and state.  "Because of the Court's ruling, the Church will need to
re-examine its strategy in dealing with reports it receives of sexually
abused children," said Michael Sullivan, the lawyer representing Jane Doe
and her mother.

The Mormon Church has centered most of its arguments on the question of
when does the state's interest in protecting children override a church's
First Amendment rights to avoid government control. The Court responded by
saying the state's interest in protecting children from the horrors of
sexual abuse "will override even the most sincerely held religious
convictions."

The Court, in an exhaustive opinion, examined each of the Mormon Church's
First Amendment claims and found that they did not shield the Church from
this suit.  The Court also found that Jane Doe and her mother "have
alleged sufficient gross, wanton and reckless conduct such that a jury may
award punitive damages." Awards of punitive damages are designed to punish
a defendant in order to deter similar bad conduct in the future.

Although Judge Kirkpatrick had earlier dismissed the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-Day Saints as defendants on procedural grounds, after
hearing arguments from the plaintiff, the Court allowed them to amend
their complaint and return the Mormon Church as defendants in the suit.

Church lawyers have attempted to distance the Mormon Church, headquartered
in Salt Lake City, Utah, from the local church in Beckley, claiming its
members were not acting for the Mormon Church itself when they failed to
report the sexual abuse of Jane Doe.  The Court found this contention by
the Church unpersuasive and ruled that a jury should decide whether or not
Mormon leaders in Salt Lake City exercise control over their local
churches.

"This defense too has been widely used by the Mormon Church in similar
suits, and its rejection by the Court presents the Church with a difficult
choice," Sullivan said.

In 1994, after five years of abuse, Jane Doe's father was arrested and
convicted on 37 counts of sexual abuse of a minor.  The father is
currently serving a 184-year sentence in a West Virginia prison.

Jane Doe alleges that her father, a member of the Mormon Church, began
sexually assaulting her when she was three years old.  Her brother, who
was seven years old at the time, was also repeatedly abused.  The father
told the children's grandfather, a bishop in the Church, who notified a
senior Church official of the abuse.  The children lived alone with their
father at this time.

The complaint further alleges that the Chief Executive Officer of Raleigh
General Hospital at the time, Kenneth Holt, also a member of the Mormon
Church, too knew of the abuse of the children.  No church members reported
the sexual abuse.  The suit contends that local church leaders, mimicking
Mormon authorities around the country, acted to suppress evidence of this
abuse for five years.

The plaintiffs contend that the conspiracy to suppress evidence of sexual
abuse of Mormon children is motivated by the Church's desire to continue
its phenomenal growth, and to prevent any interference with the donations
it receives.  It is the fastest growing evangelical Church in the world.
Members are required to donate a tenth of their gross income to the Mormon
Church each year.  All tithes from around the world are sent to a bank in
Salt Lake City, Utah, every week.

One of the first cases dealing with the issue of religious freedom in this
country coincidentally involved the Mormon Church and its belief that
polygamy was a basic tenant of its religion.  The Supreme Court ruled that
while the Mormons were free to believe what they wished, the secular law
against plural marriages would have to be followed.

"This ruling re-affirms that in America, not the President nor any church
is above the law," Sullivan said.

SOURCE Michael G. Sullivan, P.C., Attorney At Law


Perry
                    <[e-mail]>
                    http://www.xmission.com/~plporter/lds.htm

- -

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 18:59:50 -0700
From: "Perry L. Porter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ---> Are missionaries Adults?

LDS Church Cuts E-Mail From Missions

BY PEGGY FLETCHER STACK THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE

LDS missionaries will no longer be allowed to communicate with their
families via e-mail or facsimile service, according to a recent policy.
And that has robbed some Mormon parents of their peace of mind.

``It's a cruel move,'' said Bonnie Carter of Orem.

Carter's son, Andrew Carter, is on a two-year mission for The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Sweden. For a number of months,
Andrew Carter has been sending his family a weekly e-mail from a nearby
library.

``It's nerve-racking to have a son out there these days,'' Carter said.

``Missionaries have been hurt or killed at an alarming rate this year.''
Beyond that, Carter said, there have been occasions when she and her
husband needed to communicate with their son about urgent matters like
insurance or wiring money.

``By the time he's written us and we've written him, 20 days have
passed,'' she said.

Communication between missionaries and their families has always been
tightly controlled by the church in an effort to focus missionary
energies.

Missionaries are allowed to phone home only twice a year, on Christmas and
Mother's Day, and are not supposed to write more than once a week.

LDS spokesman Don LeFevre said that the new policy, announced to mission
presidents in early December, would allow exceptions in ``areas of the
world where serious postal service problems exist.'' Under certain
conditions, mission presidents, in consultation with the Area Presidency,
``may allow missionaries to communicate with their families once a week
via e-mail or fax,'' LeFevre said.

However, in such cases missionaries ``should avoid imposing on local
members who have computers or fax machines.'' LeFevre said that given the
convenience of e-mail,``some missionaries may be communicating more than
once a week and that would detract from missionary work.''

=A9 Copyright 1999, The Salt Lake Tribune

[I am not sure how communicating with one's own family more than once a
week is contrary to gospel principals.

It doesn't sound like family values to me.  There was much dead time
during my mission that was filled with activities designed to kill time
while pretending to do missionary work, such as trackting, where we tried
to make sure that every person in an apartment complex was contacted, yet
the city 20 miles away NEVER had missionaries go there.

If these 19, 20 and 21 year old boys are not mature enough to limit their
time communicating with family and friends on a weekly or daily basis, how
are they mature enough to grown men with their own families how to
communicate with God or their own families?

I will not pay one dime for my children to go on missions unless they can
be treated like adults, not like children!  Individuals that misbehave
should be worked with, rather then punishing all missionaries like they
are in Grade school again!]



- -

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 22:01:19 -0700
From: "Perry L. Porter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ---> Desert search yields no clues

Desert search yields no clues

Jeep report no good in hunt for Mesa girl

By Jim Walsh

The Arizona Republic

Jan. 7, 1999

Another frustrating day passed without any luck in the search for an
11-year-old Mesa girl who seems to have vanished without a trace.

About 100 Maricopa County Sheriff's Office deputies and posse members
spent nearly 24 hours searching a lush desert area northeast of Mesa
frequented by Salt River tubers.

But Sgt. Dave Trombi, a sheriff's spokesman, said searchers found no
evidence of Mikelle Biggs, who disappeared Saturday evening while waiting
for an ice cream truck.

The search, near Power and Thomas roads, was prompted by a tip to police
that a copper Jeep CJ had been seen parked on a dirt road nearby, police
Sgt. Earle Lloyd said.

At the time of Mikelle's apparent abduction, a copper-colored Jeep CJ was
seen in her neighborhood, near El Moro Drive and Toltec Street.

With so few leads, police decided to search the area, but all they found
was a stolen vehicle believed unconnected to the case.

Despite the lack of progress, family members managed to keep a positive
attitude, even though police admit the odds of finding Mikelle unharmed
are worsening.

Neighbors along El Moro showed their support for the Biggs family by tying
yellow ribbons to their mailboxes.

"I'm still very hopeful. I'm just more tired than I was on Saturday," said
Michael Darien Biggs, Mikelle's father.

"Everyone I talk to, the first thing they say is keep your chin up," he
said.

His father, Michael Biggs, said, "you think you're in a nightmare, and
then you realize you're awake and its not going to go away."

The Biggs family's travails were compounded further by disclosure that
Darien Biggs had an extramarital affair with a woman whose ex-husband had
made vague threats against him.

"They weren't even threats. They were more like head games," Biggs said.

Biggs said he told police about the affair Saturday night. He disclosed it
to his wife, Tracy, in November.

Lloyd said police do not believe the ex-husband of Biggs' former lover is
involved in Mikelle's disappearance.

Meanwhile, the Nation's Missing Children Organization announced plans for
a non-denominational prayer service at 7 p.m. Friday at Mesa High School's
auditorium.

Drivers also were asked to use their headlights while driving Friday as
symbolic "Search Lights for Missing Children."

[Photo of Mikelle Biggs]

Mikelle Biggs of Mesa vanished Saturday. She was last seen wearing a red
short-sleeve shirt and bell-bottom jeans.

- -------------------------

[Maricopa County Sheriff's Posse] Suzanne Starr/The Arizona Republic

Members of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Posse return to base Wednesday to
rest their horses after searching Coon Bluff Recreation Area.

- ----------------------------------

Related article

* Mormon stake responds to call for help (1/7)

* Hunt for missing girl at 'square one' (1/6)

* Kids need 'stranger danger' education (1/6)

* Leibowitz: Sounds mask silence of girl's disappearance (1/6)

* Hunt for Mesa girl continues (1/5)

* Mesa girl, 11, disappears (1/4)

More Information

* If you have any

information about

Mikelle Biggs

disappearance, please

call the Mesa Police

Department at (602)

644-2211.




Perry     <[e-mail]>    http://pobox.com/~plporter

- -

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 22:19:52 -0700
From: "Perry L. Porter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ---> "Slime and Punishment"

SPECIAL NOTE: The following column -- or, more accurately, the
Communications Department's refusing to publish it -- is the reason I am
discontinuing "Snide Remarks" after next week. Feel free to forward this
particular column to anyone you think may find it amusing, especially BYU
students, since they had no way of reading it in the paper.

(This column can be found online at

http://www.ericdsnider.com/writings/universe/du59-5clinton.html)

"Slime and Punishment"

by Eric D. Snider

"Snide Remarks" #59.5

NOT PUBLISHED; intended for publication Jan. 11, 1999

I've been working on my sympathy lately. This is because I've occasionally

been accused of being insensitive and heartless by certain people upon
whom I will wreak horrible, deadly vengeance as soon as I get around to
it.

There are a lot of people to have sympathy for these days. Just over
Christmas break, in fact, we bombed the crud out of Baghdad; Clinton got
impeached by the House; and those two BYU football players got suspended,
one of them eventually expelled. Unfortunately, the only ones I can work
up any sympathy for are the football players.

See, with Hussein, it's just hard to feel sorry for the guy. I mean, he's
misbehaved for as long as we've known him. No one has ever trusted him. He
has lied to the world countless times, and the only question is, Why did
it take so long for him to be punished? Oh, wait. Sorry. Replace the word
"Hussein" with the word "Clinton."

Hasn't this guy always seemed like a weasel? He's got that sleazy "trust
me" voice, like a used-car salesman, or a politician. And he's apparently
used his high political standing to gain personal satisfaction. Proof:
What woman would sleep with him if he weren't powerful? He's fat as a
house, he's not handsome, and he's full of crap. If he weren't the
governor of Arkansas or president of the United States, he'd be living in
a trailer park, drinking beer and watching "Cops." In fact, I don't think
his sexual dalliances are nearly as disturbing as the lack of taste
demonstrated by the women he's slept with. At least JFK -- the other lousy
president who had a lot of affairs -- was kind of classy.

Many of the commentators have tried to excuse Clinton's adultery by saying
that ALL U.S. presidents have had affairs. I find this excuse flimsy
because 1) even if it's true, that doesn't make it right, and 2) my brain
automatically rejects the notion anyway because of some of the images that
accompany it. (Are you aware that William Howard Taft weighed over 300
pounds?)

So I can't really feel sorry for Clinton. I feel bad for his wife and
daughter, both of whom seem genuine and dignified. I feel bad for the
American people for having to put up with him (although, I hasten to
remind you, it's not like a bunch of aliens flew in and elected him)
(twice). But he kind of brought all this on himself, you know? He made his
bed and now he has to lie in it, not that lying has ever been a problem
for him.

And Hussein -- do we even NEED to feel sorry for him? He certainly doesn't
invite sympathy. Even after we bombed the dickens out of his city, he was
telling the Iraqis that THEY were victorious. That's like LaVell Edwards
telling the football team they won the Liberty Bowl.

Which brings me to those two football players, who, as I mentioned, are
the only ones I feel sorry for. In case you missed it, they were suspended
from school due to Honor Code infractions, and they weren't allowed to
play in the Liberty Bowl (not that it would have mattered). One of them
was ultimately expelled from BYU. And the reason I feel sorry for them,
and not for Clinton or Hussein, is that the football players never denied
doing anything wrong. They received their punishment, they accepted it,
and they seem genuinely sorry. Clinton and Hussein both have serious
difficulty even admitting they've done something wrong, let alone show
remorse for it.

Sure, Clinton has apologized something like 8,000 times in the past few
months -- but that was only after he spent six months denying he had done
anything. ("I didn't do anything wrong. And for what I did wrong, I'm
sorry.")

Ironically, if the football players HAD denied any wrong-doing, we
probably would have believed them. After all, it was the Honor Code Office
punishing them, and we all know that mere innocence does not necessarily
protect you from being punished by the Honor Code Office. No, the
important thing there is that someone has TOLD the Honor Code Office
you've done something wrong.

Whether or not you actually did it is irrelevant. The principle of
"innocent until proven guilty" applies only in America, after all, not
here. (The same goes for the principle of "you have the right to face your
accuser, or at least know who he or she is.")

* * * * [In an effort to appease some faculty members and get the column
published, the preceding paragraph was modified to read as follows. Note
that a couple things in this second version are more clear, not that it
helped...:]

Ironically, if the football players HAD denied any wrong-doing, we
probably would have believed them. After all, we're dealing with the Honor
Code Office here, and most students are aware that just because the Honor
Code Office punishes you for doing something doesn't mean you actually did
it.

The important thing is that someone TOLD the Honor Code Office you did it.

Whether it's true or not is irrelevant. The principle of "innocent until
proven guilty" applies only in America, after all, not here. (The same
goes for the principle of "you have the right to face your accuser, or at
least know who he or she is.") * * * *

HONOR CODE OFFICE: A person whose name we're not going to tell you has
informed us that you were smoking crack on your apartment's balcony.

STUDENT: My apartment doesn't even HAVE a balcony!

HONOR CODE OFFICE: Oh, right, like we're going to believe a crack-smoker.

Where were you smoking the crack, then?

STUDENT: I've never smoked crack.

HONOR CODE OFFICE: Don't play games with us. You're obviously a
crack-smoker. We can tell by the way you're lying when you say you're not
a crack-smoker.

It occurs to me now that rather than having Ken Starr investigate Clinton,
we should have had the Honor Code Office do it. Compared to them, Ken
Starr seems underzealous.

HONOR CODE OFFICE: Mr. President, we've been told that you had sexual
relations with Monica Lewinsky.

CLINTON: Well, not exactly....

HONOR CODE OFFICE: And since you did, that means you must have been lying
when you said you didn't.

CLINTON: I didn't really lie....

HONOR CODE OFFICE: So you're lying now?

CLINTON: No, I'm just saying -- HONOR CODE OFFICE: Stop lying.

CLINTON: I'm not lying.

HONOR CODE OFFICE: What you're saying goes against what we already think.

Therefore, you must be lying.

CLINTON: You're right. I'm lying.

HONOR CODE OFFICE: Yes, but only because we say you are.

* * * * * * * * * *

COMMENTS & REACTION:

This was it: The column that led to the demise of "Snide Remarks."

What was so controversial about this column that made BYU Communications
Department faculty refuse to run it? Was it when I said the president of
the United States was "full of crap"? Was it where I called JFK a "lousy
president"? Was it where I said William Howard Taft was so fat, the idea
of him having sex disturbed me? Nope.

Those of you familiar with BYU will not be surprised to learn that it was
my comments on the Honor Code Office that were troublesome -- everything
else was fine.

I'll briefly summarize the weekly Review Process that "Snide Remarks" went
through. On Monday, I would go to a meeting with the column I intended to
run the following week. At the meeting was the Communications Department
Chair, the Daily Universe faculty adviser, and two student editors -- the
managing editor and the editor in chief. (This semester, since I was
editor in chief, the news editor came, too, just so there would be a
balance: two grown-ups, two students, and me.)

Also, you should know about the Honor Code Office. The Honor Code is a
statement signed by all BYU students which says they will refrain from all
illegal activity, as well as pre-marital or extra-marital sex, and just
generally lead honorable, decent lives. No profanity, no immodesty -- you
get the idea. The Honor Code Office is the organization that enforces the
Honor Code. If you know of a BYU student who is not living up to the Honor
Code, you are obligated to report him or her so they can correct the
problem and take action, if necessary. (In fact, if it comes to light that
someone has violated the Honor Code and you knew about it and did not
report it, YOU can be punished, too.) The Honor Code Office is widely
feared and mistrusted by students, partly because of the
"rat-on-your-roommate" system, and partly because of the horror stories
we've all heard -- some of which admittedly are probably more Urban Legend
than truth -- in which students are falsely accused and yet punished
anyway because the Honor Code Office believed the accuser over the
accused.

When we discussed this column, originally scheduled to be published as the
first column of the semester, on Jan. 11, there was immediate concern from
the Department Chair over the Honor Code stuff. First, her concern was
whether these allegations were true. Is it true they won't tell you who
turned you in? (Yes: Although it's not their official policy, anyone can
tell you of instances in which an accused person was not told who his
accuser was.) Is it true they often have a "guilty until proven innocent"
attitude? (It certainly seems that way, although that's obviously more
difficult to prove.)

The Department Chair was told by me, the two students and the Daily
Universe faculty adviser that these things were true. Eventually, her
skepticism gave way to greater concern -- if this is how things are, we've
got to DO something about it! She eventually supported the column and
agreed to run it.

Well, at some point over the next couple days, she began to doubt. She
feared she would be fired over publishing a column that took potshots at
such a hallowed and revered institution (I think those concerns were
unfounded), and she wanted to be positive, before she let it be published,

that she could defend every word of it. So we decided to run another
column for the first week, and another meeting was called to discuss this
one.

This time, two additional Communications Department faculty people were
called in as ringers -- they felt the column shouldn't run (one of them, I
think, has never felt ANYTHING I've written should be run), and they felt
that way before they even got to the meeting. They were not open to
discussion.

At this second meeting -- which lasted two hours, by the way, and during
which I had to go to the bathroom very badly -- we discussed several
issues. No one doubted that the Honor Code Office often used questionable
tactics -- or, at least, that students PERCEIVE that they use questionable

tactics. Now the issue was, Is "Snide Remarks" the best way to address
this issue?

The general tone was, no, it's not. The feeling was that if we ran this
column, it would ruin any chances The Daily Universe had of conducting a
legitimate, serious investigation later. It would be like opening a debate
by throwing a grenade on the table.

Furthermore, someone said, while it is important for me as a humor
columnist to address social issues, there are some issues that cannot be
addressed in a humor column. This angered me deeply, for we had seen this
attitude before, and I didn't like it then, either. In fact, I worried the
first time whether we were setting a dangerous precedent; apparently, we
were. The humor column is being made into a second-class citizen: "You can
do most things regular columns can do, Mr. Humor Column, but not quite
everything. But keep pluggin' away, little guy!" It's a condescending
attitude -- humor is nice, but ultimately a secondary method of expressing

opinions.

My major defense of the column was, simply put, that it was true: Students
do perceive the Honor Code Office this way. Whether or not the Honor Code
Office actually does this is irrelevant (although I strongly believe it
does); what matters is that students think it does. That's all I was
saying in the column -- that students think the Honor Code Office is often
unfair.

I used this example: What if I were saying that people tend to think auto
mechanics are dumb? It doesn't matter if they actually are; it doesn't
matter how unfair that generalization might be; it doesn't matter what the
auto mechanics have to say about it; what matters is that people DO tend
to think that! Period, end of discussion.

Also, I said, if we actually want to address this issue in the paper, at
least doing so in my column, instead of on the editorial page, would
guarantee that it actually be read. This argument made a few people
grumble, but I had to say it.

The counter-argument was that the Honor Code Office is large and daunting
enough as an institution to where such defenses aren't enough. We can't
just make jokes about the Honor Code Office like I would something else
and have that be the end of it. The Honor Code Office would surely be
enraged and come after everyone at The Daily Universe -- and they're
powerful enough, being tied in closely with BYU administration, to make
some serious waves.

I offered to make a couple changes. I offered to make it more clear that I
was bothered by the Honor Code Office's tactics, not by the Honor Code
itself. I added a paragraph in which I made it clear this was the
students' perception of the Honor Code Office, and that it was based on
anecdotal evidence, not in-depth research (well, I said it funnier than
that, but that was the essence of it). I rewrote a paragraph, as indicated
in the text. All of this ultimately did not help.

And so it was decided that a humor column was not a dignified, legitimate
way of introducing this very sensitive discussion. Everyone decided that
instead, The Daily Universe should launch an actual journalistic
investigation of the Honor Code Office -- we even managed to get BYU
President Merrill J. Bateman's support on this -- and try to rectify
whatever wrongs were being committed. This column, it was decided, would
damage that investigation. I vehemently disagreed, and I reminded everyone
that fixing the Honor Code Office was NOT my crusade, nor was it my
original intention with the column -- you'll notice the column is only
tangentially even ABOUT the Honor Code Office -- and that if an
investigation was to be launched, I would lend as much support, as editor
in chief, as I would to anything else, but make no mistake -- this was NOT
my war. (In fact, none of us students editors were that keen on it. It was
clearly the faculty members' idea the whole way, taking what I said in the
column and running with it, and definitely making more of it than I
originally intended.)

The Department Chair didn't officially make the decision not to run the
column until two days after the meeting. In the meantime, I had decided
that if the column wasn't run, I would quit writing "Snide Remarks."
Things had been changed before, of course, and even an entire column was
not run once (though it later appeared in the first "Snide Remarks" book).
But those things generally had to do with matters of taste or religious
propriety. Here was a non-religious, non-sacred institution that I was
being told I couldn't make jokes about. I could make jokes about the sex
life of the president of the United States, but I couldn't bring up the
fact that BYU students don't like the Honor Code Office. Basically, while
things had been censored before, the censorship had never been as
unjustified and unreasonable as this was.

I really couldn't see myself continuing to write after this column was
quashed. To do say would have been to say, "OK, if you don't want to run a
column, that's fine. You don't have to have a good reason or anything;
just let me know, and I'll write something else. La la la, everything is
happy." Or words to that effect. As a matter of principle (as much as I
don't like that phrase), I couldn't set that precedent.

So when I was informed the column wouldn't run, I informed the Department
Chair that I would no longer write "Snide Remarks." She seemed genuinely
surprised. It was my intention to stop writing immediately -- that the
column that had run a few days earlier would have been the last. She knew
I had written a few columns that were waiting to be run (I usually have a
few stored up); she convinced me to go ahead and publish those. I agreed,
on the condition that the Review Process meeting be abolished, and that I
would send those last few columns directly to her for approval. I didn't
care who she had read them after that; I just didn't want to have any more
meetings. She agreed. (I should have made that demand MONTHS ago!)

The reason I didn't post this column on my Web site immediately, or send
it out to the people on the e-mailing list, has to do with the group's
concerns. Obviously, I disagree that publishing the column would damage
the newspaper's investigation. But I knew they felt strongly that it
would, and that as editor in chief, I should have the newspaper's concerns
as my first thought. I knew that distributing the column on my own would
make it look like I was more interested in my own concerns than in the
paper's -- that I was willing to ruin the investigation by sending the
column around, just so I could get it out there. Again, I didn't think
distributing it would hurt anything -- but I knew they thought it would,
and I didn't want them to think I was less than dedicated to my job. If I
weren't editor in chief, I wouldn't have cared.

As of this writing (late January), The NewsNet investigation (NewsNet is
the student-run organization that houses the print, online, broadcast and
radio news outlets at BYU, including The Daily Universe) is underway. We
have full cooperation from administrators, and we had a lengthy meeting
with some of them recently to let them know what, exactly, we want to find
out. Will anything come of the investigation? Will any reforms be made?

Will we be able to prove any unfairness or wrong-doing? I don't know.

Was it worth not running this column, and putting an end to "Snide
Remarks"? No.

- -

------------------------------

End of gdm-digest V2 #14
************************