BYU Censors Artwork for Being Too Conservative

[Rensai]

Is the professor on leave because of his 911 views?

Exactly what I was thinking oh wise one. Maybe a total disclosure of the facts might be beneficial before everyone runs over to the BYU sign and starts TPing it. )

I'm trying to be fair & balanced in an objectively NON-FoxNews sort of way...

You mean like....BYU desperately wants/wanted to be seen as "The Harvard of the West" (Elder Jeffery R. Holland's slogan when he was BYU president in the 1980's), is already struggling with the lack of full national accreditation as a university solely because the BYU's mission statement which says that "all truth comes through Jesus Christ" and the rest of the academic community can't handle that because they want to be Darwinian atheists...and the Pac-10 a few years ago said they would never take BYU into their conference because they only wanted "research universities"; BYU also wants acceptance from the world...and doesn't want to upset the apple cart...bringing negative attention from society and the government for things like protesting presidents, wars, the political party that is supposedly favorable to Christianity and Christian morals

The blame for that can be shared among leaders (mainly of the academic variety), alumni and boosters who always want their school (and football/basketball teams to shine), a great many students (not all though) who have been heavily indoctrinated in socialism by schools and news media and hedonism/materialism by the entertainment industry - yet still think themselves as God's people if they were baptized at age 8 and go to church every week (to get dates); the blame/reasons must also be shared by the UT/LDS people at large who after supporting democrats for 70 years (remember that the GOP was the party that heavily persecuted the Church over polygamy), but when the 1960's exploded with Vietnam, POW's, race riots, Democrat convention riots, hippies, Woodstock, acid rock, drugs, free love, abortion, gays, R & X-rated movies, pornography, ERA/feminism, hijackings, America is bad & incompetent/Communist countries are great...and the democrats suddenly became the party that supported all these things, while the GOP suddenly (1980) was seen as the party that believed in America, the Constitution, and Judeo-Christian values. Naturally the LDS membership would gravitate towards the party that seemed to share their values.

Likewise, most people (especially Americans due to the amazing founding of their country) are unable to realize and accept that their own government/political party/policies/military, etc. can become corrupt and evil - deliberately planning and acting to strip Americans of their freedoms and Constitution - not to mention eventually to destroy their religions.

Finally, I am sure that the Lord has told His prophets that it is not time to tweak the tail of the Beast, or to be openly opposed to it (PTB). For now, we must be content with fighting issues such as gambling, gay marriage, and pornography. There WILL be a time however, when the Lord tells the Prophet that it is time for the Church as an entity to take a strong stand against the overall system of evil (the PTB). At THAT time, expect moves to be made to shut down the Church and round up the members/other freedom-loving & Christian citizens.

But now is NOT that time...

Tell us how you really feel Heir =))

I would have to say you failed at being fair and balanced, but I don't disagree with your views on this stuff. However, even if it is not time to "tweak the tail of the beast" how long can the saints stand by doing nothing about these issues before that righteous indignation turns to apathy and then acceptance? I've heard this reasoning about tweaking the beast many times on this forum, but I think this is a dangerous attitude to take. It's true that the prophet doesn't seem to be talking much about freedom these days, but we've been given the charge in the past. Doesn't that still stand?

"Let us suppose that it is too late to save freedom. It is still accounted unto us for righteousness' sake to stand and fight." - Ezra Taft Benson

David O. McKay said:
"Next to being one in worshipping God there is nothing in this world upon which the Church should be more united than in upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States."
-CR, October 1939, p. 105. also Quoted by Elder L. Tom Perry BYU Sept. 1987

President Benson outlined common excuses that we use for not getting involved in the fight for freedom. The excuses he considered false and directed by the Adversary were these:

"First: "We really haven't received much instruction about freedom" the devil says.
Second: "You're too involved in other church work," says the devil.
Third: "You want to be loved by everyone," says the devil, "and this freedom battle is so controversial you might be accused of engaging in politics."
Fourth: "Wait until it becomes popular to do so," says the devil, "or, at least until everybody in the Church agrees on what should be done."
Fifth: "It might hurt your business or your family," says the devil, "and besides why not let the Gentiles save the country? They aren't as busy as you are."
Sixth: "Don't worry," says the devil "the Lord will protect you, and besides the world is so corrupt and heading toward destruction at such a pace that you can't stop it, so why try?"
(Seventh:)"Don't do anything in the fight for freedom until the Church sets up its own specific program to save the Constitution."
- CR April 1965

This idea of not tweaking the tail of the beast sure sounds like a mixture of excuses 6 and 7 to me. Also, when did this command given by President Grant get rescinded?

Now we have said all of the foregoing with a complete understanding in our own minds that we have said nothing or little of anything that may now be of practical value, but this much we feel we can definitely say, that unless the people of America forsake the sins and the errors, political and otherwise, of which they are now guilty and return to the practice of the great fundamental principles of Christianity, and of Constitutional government, there will be no exaltation for them spiritually, and politically we shall lose our liberty and free institutions.

Heber J. Grant
J. Reuben Clark, Jr.
David O. McKay
The First Presidency, October 11, 1941

[EmmaLee]

Rensai,

Great questions. I've been wondering the same things...

[HeirofNumenor]

I'm trying to be fair & balanced in an objectively NON-FoxNews sort of way...

You mean like....BYU desperately wants/wanted to be seen as "The Harvard of the West" (Elder Jeffery R. Holland's slogan when he was BYU president in the 1980's), is already struggling with the lack of full national accreditation as a university solely because the BYU's mission statement which says that "all truth comes through Jesus Christ" and the rest of the academic community can't handle that because they want to be Darwinian atheists...and the Pac-10 a few years ago said they would never take BYU into their conference because they only wanted "research universities"; BYU also wants acceptance from the world...and doesn't want to upset the apple cart...bringing negative attention from society and the government for things like protesting presidents, wars, the political party that is supposedly favorable to Christianity and Christian morals

The blame for that can be shared among leaders (mainly of the academic variety), alumni and boosters who always want their school (and football/basketball teams to shine), a great many students (not all though) who have been heavily indoctrinated in socialism by schools and news media and hedonism/materialism by the entertainment industry - yet still think themselves as God's people if they were baptized at age 8 and go to church every week (to get dates); the blame/reasons must also be shared by the UT/LDS people at large who after supporting democrats for 70 years (remember that the GOP was the party that heavily persecuted the Church over polygamy), but when the 1960's exploded with Vietnam, POW's, race riots, Democrat convention riots, hippies, Woodstock, acid rock, drugs, free love, abortion, gays, R & X-rated movies, pornography, ERA/feminism, hijackings, America is bad & incompetent/Communist countries are great...and the democrats suddenly became the party that supported all these things, while the GOP suddenly (1980) was seen as the party that believed in America, the Constitution, and Judeo-Christian values. Naturally the LDS membership would gravitate towards the party that seemed to share their values.

Likewise, most people (especially Americans due to the amazing founding of their country) are unable to realize and accept that their own government/political party/policies/military, etc. can become corrupt and evil - deliberately planning and acting to strip Americans of their freedoms and Constitution - not to mention eventually to destroy their religions.

Finally, I am sure that the Lord has told His prophets that it is not time to tweak the tail of the Beast, or to be openly opposed to it (PTB). For now, we must be content with fighting issues such as gambling, gay marriage, and pornography. There WILL be a time however, when the Lord tells the Prophet that it is time for the Church as an entity to take a strong stand against the overall system of evil (the PTB). At THAT time, expect moves to be made to shut down the Church and round up the members/other freedom-loving & Christian citizens.

But now is NOT that time...

Well said! If the adversary was allotted a period of time to have his way.....is not the Lord bound by that time frame as well as His church and doing all that is possible to save souls within that constraint? Which would be very different when the time is up....

I should throw into the mix the various liberal-leaning professors, students, and alumni...these also have their influence/noise-making - as we have seen with this artist and his painting(s) Jon McNaughton -http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/

[HeirofNumenor]

MY responses in RED...

Tell us how you really feel Heir =))

LOL thanks...I was actually being facetious, smarmy, and taking potshots at FNC...of course I have my biases...and am also a BYU grad (92).

I would have to say you failed at being fair and balanced, but I don't disagree with your views on this stuff. However, even if it is not time to "tweak the tail of the beast" how long can the saints stand by doing nothing about these issues before that righteous indignation turns to apathy and then acceptance? I've heard this reasoning about tweaking the beast many times on this forum, but I think this is a dangerous attitude to take. It's true that the prophet doesn't seem to be talking much about freedom these days, but we've been given the charge in the past. Doesn't that still stand?

To me, the issues of not tweaking the tail of the beast is limited to the Church in an official capacity - the individual members can and SHOULD protest the abuses of government; however - as evidenced by certain people on this forum and elsewhere...if enough individual church members get too vocal in opposition to something, and are identified AS MORMONS or BASED ON LDS Doctrine/teachings - even things like Ezra taft Benson's political writings) - if THAT happens....it is a sure bet there will be very pointed pressure on the First Presidency to come out publicly with a clear statement of the position of the LDS Church - and that will likely be a bad thing. Right now, for whatever reason, the Church is trying desperately to remain neutral, except on things like abortion, gay marriage, gambling, porn, etc.)

"Let us suppose that it is too late to save freedom. It is still accounted unto us for righteousness' sake to stand and fight." - Ezra Taft Benson

David O. McKay said:
"Next to being one in worshipping God there is nothing in this world upon which the Church should be more united than in upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States."
-CR, October 1939, p. 105. also Quoted by Elder L. Tom Perry BYU Sept. 1987

President Benson outlined common excuses that we use for not getting involved in the fight for freedom. The excuses he considered false and directed by the Adversary were these:

"First: "We really haven't received much instruction about freedom" the devil says.
Second: "You're too involved in other church work," says the devil.
Third: "You want to be loved by everyone," says the devil, "and this freedom battle is so controversial you might be accused of engaging in politics."
Fourth: "Wait until it becomes popular to do so," says the devil, "or, at least until everybody in the Church agrees on what should be done."
Fifth: "It might hurt your business or your family," says the devil, "and besides why not let the Gentiles save the country? They aren't as busy as you are."
Sixth: "Don't worry," says the devil "the Lord will protect you, and besides the world is so corrupt and heading toward destruction at such a pace that you can't stop it, so why try?"
(Seventh:)"Don't do anything in the fight for freedom until the Church sets up its own specific program to save the Constitution."
- CR April 1965

This idea of not tweaking the tail of the beast sure sounds like a mixture of excuses 6 and 7 to me. Also, when did this command given by President Grant get rescinded?

Now we have said all of the foregoing with a complete understanding in our own minds that we have said nothing or little of anything that may now be of practical value, but this much we feel we can definitely say, that unless the people of America forsake the sins and the errors, political and otherwise, of which they are now guilty and return to the practice of the great fundamental principles of Christianity, and of Constitutional government, there will be no exaltation for them spiritually, and politically we shall lose our liberty and free institutions.

Heber J. Grant
J. Reuben Clark, Jr.
David O. McKay
The First Presidency, October 11, 1941

AS I SEE IT (not having prophetic authority) This would have been rescinded and quiet counsel given to be silent around 1973. I say this because this is when Pres. Harold B. Lee SUPPOSEDLY told Elder Ezra Taft Benson that the PTB are now in a position to and are threatening to destroy the Church if we continued to speak out against communism, socialism, and government corruptions.

I believe that the Lord is having His prophets hurriedly trying to bring as many people into the Gospel, and as many temples built as possible (ROME!) before the Church is forced to take a stand that is in open opposition to the PTB governments.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right...this is what I surmise...

[Obiwan]

This is why the Church needs to STOP being "nuetral" about political issues.....

There are many "wolves in sheeps clothing" (liberals) entering the Church and corrupting it's teachings.
The world is no longer Democrates and Republicans being mostly "conservative" and simply disagreeing on some issues.
JFK today for example would be considered Right Wing. Democrat/Liberal Ideology is completely anathema to the Restored Gospel, it is a perversion. "Social Justice" is satans perversion of God's principles of Freedom, Equal opportunity, etc.

Liberalism/Progressivism are the ideology's of the 60's radicals, and Marxist/Socialists/Nationalists of the 30's/40's. Such ideology's were not comparable to LDS Theology then, and they are not comparable to LDS theology today.

The Prophets need to start speaking more like President Benson.

[HeirofNumenor]

JFK today for example would be considered Right Wing.

Out of curiosity...
JFK was a big-time adulterer (more fully known AFTER his death)...how do you think he would be received by the LDS today if he were a leading politician, but he had the same political views as he did in 1962-3 AND we knew about his affairs in the here and now?

[Mahonri]

JFK today for example would be considered Right Wing.

Out of curiosity...
JFK was a big-time adulterer (more fully known AFTER his death)...how do you think he would be received by the LDS today if he were a leading politician, but he had the same political views as he did in 1962-3 AND we knew about his affairs in the here and now?

he was a huge internationalist and tool of the LDG's. I wouldn't have liked him then, I wouldn't like him if he were around today.

[HeirofNumenor]

JFK today for example would be considered Right Wing.

Out of curiosity...
JFK was a big-time adulterer (more fully known AFTER his death)...how do you think he would be received by the LDS today if he were a leading politician, but he had the same political views as he did in 1962-3 AND we knew about his affairs in the here and now?

he was a huge internationalist and tool of the LDG's. I wouldn't have liked him then, I wouldn't like him if he were around today.

Fair enough...thank you for sharing your opinion.... :ymhug: :-B O:-)

[Silas]

This is why the Church needs to STOP being "nuetral" about political issues.....

There are many "wolves in sheeps clothing" (liberals) entering the Church and corrupting it's teachings.
The world is no longer Democrates and Republicans being mostly "conservative" and simply disagreeing on some issues.
JFK today for example would be considered Right Wing. Democrat/Liberal Ideology is completely anathema to the Restored Gospel, it is a perversion. "Social Justice" is satans perversion of God's principles of Freedom, Equal opportunity, etc.

Liberalism/Progressivism are the ideology's of the 60's radicals, and Marxist/Socialists/Nationalists of the 30's/40's. Such ideology's were not comparable to LDS Theology then, and they are not comparable to LDS theology today.

The Prophets need to start speaking more like President Benson.

Yup those democrats are bad alright. Socialist pretty much. I agree completely and sometimes I wish that the prophet or someone would give a rousing freedom speech warning of such the evil of socialism. But then I also wish sometimes that we would here more about the doctrine of a just war and condemnation of the true evil of war. Somehow I think getting everyone to register as a Republican would not solve all of our problems.
I know you didn't explicitly state that we all need to be republicans, it just occurs to me that if the church is not neutral on political issues then they might speak against something you support.

[larsenb]

Paul Drockton has picked up on this topic and posted an article about it on his web site:

http://www.moneyteachers.org/BYU+Bans+Constitution.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

His articles are also rebroadcast as news items on rense.com, which has a vast, world-wide audience. The item links directly to Drockton's web site and articles. It's about the 38th item down: http://www.rense.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sometimes, I think we lose track of the reality that what we post here can be seen from all over the world; or that it may be picked up and on blogs and web-sites that have a much, much wider audience than little, old, homey LDS Freedom Forum. This isn't just our private little chat group.

So it is a bit jarring for me to see Dr. Jones' quotes regarding his experiences and reactions to what BYU is doing and what it did to him picked up in Drockton's ariticles and given to such a large audience. I hope nothing bad comes of it. On the other hand, you kind of feel glad these things are reaching a wider audience, maybe to the degree that something will be done to correct the wrongs that many of us feel are being perpetrated.

Now Drockton obviously visits this forum a lot; he has quoted from these posts before, and particularly from Dr. Jones. He is really sticking his neck out in what appears to be calling a spade a spade. But is he going too far in terms of what he is doing and why he claims he is doing it? Maybe worth a thread called something like the Drockton Question. Maybe Paul will see fit to join in. But maybe this is too hot of a potato to handle.

Any thoughts? A separate thread?

[bobhenstra]

The Church is doing exactly what Our Lord wants the Church to do! As soon as we recognize that factor and repent of those thoughts, the better off we'll be.

As a people we have exactly the government we deserve, we want a better government, we repent and get closer to the Lord. Folks, Our Lord is now in the process of compelling us to repent, the natural disasters will continue to increase until we do! Are each of us going to continue to be part of the cause of that increase?

Bob

[Mark]

Paul Drockton has picked up on this topic and posted an article about it on his web site:

http://www.moneyteachers.org/BYU+Bans+Constitution.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

His articles are also rebroadcast as news items on rense.com, which has a vast, world-wide audience. The item links directly to Drockton's web site and articles. It's about the 38th item down: http://www.rense.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sometimes, I think we lose track of the reality that what we post here can be seen from all over the world; or that it may be picked up and on blogs and web-sites that have a much, much wider audience than little, old, homey LDS Freedom Forum. This isn't just our private little chat group.

So it is a bit jarring for me to see Dr. Jones' quotes regarding his experiences and reactions to what BYU is doing and what it did to him picked up in Drockton's ariticles and given to such a large audience. I hope nothing bad comes of it. On the other hand, you kind of feel glad these things are reaching a wider audience, maybe to the degree that something will be done to correct the wrongs that many of us feel are being perpetrated.

Now Drockton obviously visits this forum a lot; he has quoted from these posts before, and particularly from Dr. Jones. He is really sticking his neck out in what appears to be calling a spade a spade. But is he going too far in terms of what he is doing and why he claims he is doing it? Maybe worth a thread called something like the Drockton Question. Maybe Paul will see fit to join in. But maybe this is too hot of a potato to handle.

Any thoughts? A separate thread?

Where do I begin? 8-| Let me post one paragraph from the illustrious ones article.

Some members of the Church wonder if the lack of revelation surrounding these perilous times is a consequence for the Church turning its back on both the Book of Mormon and the United States Constitution. It seems that the last official revelation was the "Church's Proclamation on the Family", given in 1995. The last time a leader of the Church said, "Thus Saith the Lord" was under pro-Constitutionalist and Book of Mormon advocate Ezra Taft Benson. He condemned the Church for not defending the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Book of Mormon.

Anybody who doesn't see the underlying jab at church leadership concerning his premise of a "lack of revelation" is either a thick Mick or has been compromised. I watch conference every 6 months and read articles and books from church leadership all the time and I see a steady flow of revelation coming from the Brethren on a regular basis. This "no revelation" premise is used by apostates who want to make the case that the heavens are sealed and wickedness has overcome the flock. I don't buy it from them and I don't buy it from some obsessive compulsive Farmers Insurance ex agent. Deception is rampant in these times. Has anyone considered that this deception can effect both ends of the political spectrum? @-)

[buffalo_girl]

Wasn't it Paul Drockton giving everyone a bad time with the 'dude' term awhile ago?

[Fiannan]

If everything BYU does is gospel then I suppose we should let our daughters dress in skimpy outfits like the cheerleaders there do?????

[Mahonri]

If everything BYU does is gospel then I suppose we should let our daughters dress in skimpy outfits like the cheerleaders there do?????

and preach evolution, global merger, NWO,UN, witchcraft, birth control, un Constitutional government, the welfare state, government schools, only listen to globalist speakers, promote Mao, and avoid those that speak against the previous, and you will be right in line with BYU

[Fiannan]

If everything BYU does is gospel then I suppose we should let our daughters dress in skimpy outfits like the cheerleaders there do?????

and preach evolution, global merger, NWO,UN, witchcraft, birth control, un Constitutional government, the welfare state, government schools, only listen to globalist speakers, promote Mao, and avoid those that speak against the previous, and you will be right in line with BYU

Oh, and how about the BYU professor who came out and said that homosexuality was biological? I think he is still working there -- not sure about the professor who was questioning 9-11.

[HeirofNumenor]

The Church is doing exactly what Our Lord wants the Church to do! As soon as we recognize that factor and repent of those thoughts, the better off we'll be.

As a people we have exactly the government we deserve, we want a better government, we repent and get closer to the Lord. Folks, Our Lord is now in the process of compelling us to repent, the natural disasters will continue to increase until we do! Are each of us going to continue to be part of the cause of that increase?

Bob

Agreed. O:-)

[BroJones]

Many good things came out of my early retirement and subsequent research on the dust generated on 9/11. I have discussed these matters at 911blogger and here. I suspect that much good can yet come of Brother McNaughton's painting regarding the Constitution!

[BroJones]

Here is my blog (not a mere forum comment which has been edited!) of positive things to come out of my relationship with BYU, which I wish to emphasize:

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-05-09/b ... isited#new" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A few days ago I was asked by a distinguished Professor at the University of Massachusetts what happened to me at BYU, in my own words. I often get this question and would like to say the following.

1. In September 2005, I presented a colloquium at Brigham Young University (BYU) in a large auditorium, presenting the physical evidence I had accumulated by then that the “official story” of the 9/11 disaster (that it was all due to Al Qaeda ALONE with no US foreknowledge of the attacks) was highly suspicious. I had invited professors from across campus and many came, from numerous disciplines including physics, math, psychology, engineering. I asked them to take the “kid gloves off” and tell me where I was in error. In particular, we watched the rapid, nearly-symmetrical collapse of WTC 7 – which was NOT hit by a plane and yet fell to the ground seven hours after the Towers were completely destroyed.

After two hours, we had to leave because a class had the room scheduled. But before we left, I asked those present (about 70 in all) if they agreed with me that an investigation into 9/11 events was warranted. By show of hands, none disagreed with this proposition, except one, a geology professor. The next day, he saw me on campus and said that he had changed his mind and that he now supported a full investigation into 9/11. Note that a large number of professors supporting an investigation of the full story of 9/11 is not the same as an endorsement by BYU.

A number of those in attendance provided helpful, critical comments for my nascent paper published later in a volume by Profs. David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, and available on-line here:
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2 ... e_WTC_Buil.." onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. This peer-reviewed paper includes discussion of this colloquium/review described above.

One could say that this was an initial “peer-review” for my research in this area, a peer-review that I sought out well before the paper was published, and at no time have I shied away from scientific peer-review of my research (on the contrary). There was a more formal peer-review process on the paper as well, by multiple referees. The paper was finally approved for publication following extensive peer-review and published in about August 2006:

Professors David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, editors, 9/11 And The American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, Northhampton, MA: Interlink Publishing, 2006. It was re-published on-line by kind permission of the editors (see link above). One of the editors (Prof. Griffin) has explained that there were four reviewers for my paper, all Ph.D’s. To clarify some apparent confusion: the paper is not published in “The Hidden History of 9-11-2001,” Elsevier, 2006, although that volume does contain a number of relevant articles.
2. In April 2006, I presented a talk regarding my 9/11 research findings at a meeting of the Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters. I recall that the abstract for this talk was reviewed and approved by a fellow BYU Physics Professor, and my contribution was subsequently published by the Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters.

3. BYU placed me on administrative leave on Sept. 7, 2006, with reference to my research on 9/11 (see http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,51 ... .html?pg=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

The University spokesperson clearly stated that "The university doesn't have an opinion regarding the theory."

http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/193556/4/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“Jones was placed on administrative leave for publishing a theory that explosives were involved in the towers' collapse through channels university officials deemed inappropriate,"
BYU spokesperson Carri Jenkins said.
"The university doesn't have an opinion regarding the theory," she said.”

This was an important distinction -- BYU was specifically NOT stating an opinion regarding my "theory" which challenges the official narrative of 9/11, the highly-publicized "official theory" that ONLY ill-trained Muslim hijackers were involved in the complete destruction of three WTC skyscrapers, one of which was not hit by a plane (WTC 7), with no foreknowledge of the plans by the Bush-Cheney administration.

4. Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, director of the Transmission Electron Microscopy Laboratory at BYU was (and still is) permitted to work with me on my research. 



5. Based on that research, a group of scientists wrote the paper now published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal, "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe," April 2009. There were two authors from BYU listed on that paper, Dr. Farrer (as second author) and Daniel Farnsworth. Their affiliation with the BYU Department of Physics and Astronomy was listed in the paper as anyone can see by referring to this paper in an established, peer-reviewed journal:

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/conte ... 002/000000.." onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.
Deseret News article on the paper:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7052 ... in-911-dus.." onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

6. Retiring Professors at BYU (at least in the Department of Physics and Astronomy) often are allowed a shared office on campus and to keep a research web page and to continue research, and given emeritus status. One can find this out by asking several retirees; it is not a secret. In response to numerous questions – in my retirement, I was probably treated in a more-or-less standard way.

7. It is apparent from the news media at the time that BYU had been under considerable pressure regarding my 9/11 research; this was particularly clear in radio talk-shows in 2005-2006 (e.g., by Bob Lonsberry, KNRS). Further, we understand from press releases that Dick Cheney's office or the White House approached BYU leaders, and this resulted in Cheney's coming to BYU to give a commencement address just three months after my "early retirement" from BYU, in April 2007. BYU -- to its credit -- allowed TWO on-campus demonstrations against the policies of Dick Cheney in spring 2007. Again, this information is available publicly in the media. (How many protests has BYU allowed through the years? Very few!)


In view of such facts, my friend and fellow 9/11-researcher Kevin Ryan said "Hurray for BYU!" And I have to agree.

Reply from Professor Niels Harrit, Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark (March 13, 2010)

Quote:

Steven: I am glad that you can see beyond your own (and ours!) annoyance and point to the positive aspects of BYUs handling of their situation.
Let me hasten to join Kevin and cheer for BYU – loud and clear.
We have to acknowledge the political space they live and operate in, and BYU deserves the credits you point out.
One senses a high level of decency at BYU.
Kind of the same thing I feel in the mainstream press these days. The young journalists try to squeeze some information in and take the discussion as far as they can before they run their head into the editors hammer.
Regards
Niels
[Unquote]

Steven E. Jones

Professor of Physics (retired)

PS -- In my email to the distinguished professor in Massachusetts, I added that I feel that an INTERNATIONAL INVESTIGATION conducted by scientists and engineers and others is needed -- not a US-congressional investigation at this time. She agreed with me, writing:

"I entirely agree with your suggested objective: an international review body to investigate 9/11, with scientists and engineers from a number of participating countries... In fact, I suspect that this is THE ONLY way to get national and international coverage so extensive that the US media will have to follow the news stories."

With regard to current activities, I am pursuing energy-related research at this time. This is an area where I continue to have support. For example, see:http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/4CF06/Event/55778 . Experiments involving a low-energy deuteron beam impinging on a liquid lithium target are ready to launch at BYU... stay tuned.

American dependence on foreign oil is causing great problems. It is time to declare American Independence a second time -- this time, energy independence.

[BroJones]

Mark, I hope you and Shadow will carefully read the above blog, noting what BYU did NOT say about my "theory".

And then, if you wish to comment further, please say it outright and not with vague innuendo (which appears to me to be mocking). Thanks.

With regard to Paul Drockton, he did not ask me if he could publish my remarks on this thread and I would not have given him permission if he did. Note that remarks on a forum like this are tentative and certainly subject to change, and I reserve the right to edit my remarks as my understanding increases and I apologize for earlier, hasty remarks now retracted.

I would like now to get back to my research on alternative energy which I hope will benefit mankind...

[Fiannan]

"Professor claims scientific evidence of homosexuality
By Brittney McLaws NewsNet Staff Writer - 26 Mar 2004"

This article is from the BYU Universe.

http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/49488" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Guess God makes people gay and lesbian. @-)

Actually, I listened to one of his presentations on the net and the stuff he brings up is a pathetic attempt to make his case.

[pritchet1]

I would definitely question anything published by Drockton. :-$

Maybe worth a thread called something like the Drockton Question. Maybe Paul will see fit to join in. But maybe this is too hot of a potato to handle.

Any thoughts? A separate thread?

[shadow]

Mark, I hope you and Shadow will carefully read the above blog, noting what BYU did NOT say about my "theory".

And then, if you wish to comment further, please say it outright and not with vague innuendo (which appears to me to be mocking). Thanks.

What in the world are you talking about doc? What vague innuendo are you referring? Seems like the innuendo is coming from you . I double dog dare you to find any comment from me criticising your "research". Granted, I disagree with you on the "Minetta" thing, but that is separate form your research. I think you'll find that I'm a supporter of your research, and even Mark can back me up on that one. And for what it's worth, I really am curious if your professor friend is on leave because of his 911 views.

[BroJones]

I don't know for certain if his 911 views had anything to do with it. Thank you for clarifying, Shadow, and for "I think you'll find that I'm a supporter of your research".

[Mark]

I don't know for certain if his 911 views had anything to do with it. Thank you for clarifying, Shadow, and for "I think you'll find that I'm a supporter of your research".

Elwood Blues here Doc. My teasing came from the call of possibly organizing a forum picket at the BYU welcome sign. The TPing comment came out of my sick sense of humor. Nothing personal. I just think doing things like organizing pickets against BYU by people who are clueless as to the specifics of these actions is just a bit premature. You wisely discouraged that for the time which I think is proper.