From: owner-gdm-digest@lists.xmission.com (gdm-digest) To: gdm-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: gdm-digest V2 #14 Reply-To: gdm-digest Sender: owner-gdm-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-gdm-digest@lists.xmission.com 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" 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 http://pobox.com/~plporter - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 21:15:24 -0700 From: "Perry L. Porter" 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 http://pobox.com/~plporter - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 20:12:51 -0700 From: "Perry L. Porter" 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 http://www.xmission.com/~plporter/lds.htm - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 18:59:50 -0700 From: "Perry L. Porter" 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" 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 http://pobox.com/~plporter - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 22:19:52 -0700 From: "Perry L. Porter" 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 ************************