BYU Professor - "Was Joseph Gay?" 

"The philosophies of men mingled with scripture". It will be interesting to see how long God lets these things go on.

There's a real danger in interpreting ancient scripture through a modern lense.

Thanks for sharing this. Even after listening to the "reasoning" of the BYU professor I can't get even close to his conclusion.

If your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Thank The Lord for the Family Proclaimation

The BYU professor is an example of a Mormon scholar undermining the inspirational scripture stories with this identity group lens. Joseph re Potiphar's wife is an account of purity and avoiding sexual temptation. This professor's theory undermines that. Joseph has a prophetic dream. This professor makes it look sexual. The effect is to reduce the power of the scriptures and change people's perceptions and views of scriptural heroes.

Donald Parry, the head of the Hebrew Dept. at BYU told us more than once that the strongest translation wasn't a coat of many colors, but that it meant markings. He presented a perfect explanation that agrees with Nibley; these were the priesthood robes the Lord gave Adam in the Garden. They had special markings on them. They were indeed royal robes.

In answer to "What are the Brethren doing?" They do it at least twice a year. They're teaching truth so we can learn to discern. They're encouraging personal study and revelation. They're encouraging living a life that increases our capacity to receive revelation. Their job is not to remove opposition. Their job is to teach us how to recognize that which is of God.

Sick and twisted. This professor sounds very affeminate himself so maybe it is just projection? Because he is not just grasping at straws....he is selfisly inserting flat out lies. It is hard to understand how we are paying for professors like this to shape young minds with their falsity. I was aware of some of these professors when I earned my bachelor's at UVU in 2005. I stayed away when I could, but had to take a class from one of them and he hated that I called him on his slimey ideals! He gave me a lower grade all because of this. Of course he changed it when I called him on it. It is sad that so many in academia are embracing woken false ideals being deceived and then deceiving others. But often it is their own wishful thinking because of their own darkness. But like you said-who would even care. It doesn't matter. What gets me about this is the stench of it all. It is false. It is a counterfeit of truth and we know who is the master of counterfeits!

His comments are very chronocentric, meaning, he's taking current perceptions and attitudes and assuming they apply to distant cultures both physically and temporally. Handsome and concerned with dress is a characteristic of homosexuality? I think that's arguable today unless you buy into the story line in "Gay Eye for the Straight Eye." As such, he has violated Anthropology 101, don't apply current values to ancient societies. Agree, either he's doing the academic thing of taking and arguing a novel view (i.e. the US started WWII) or he has a hidden agenda he wishes to advocate. You be the judge.

Hugh Nibley said the cost of many colors was really the coat of many markings. It was the original “garment”.

There's nothing wrong with being effeminate, but this professor obviously is and it has tainted his analysis.

So on my journey I’ve discovered that the scriptures really do debunk all of these ideas. These arguments are highly compartmentalized and pretend that no other context within the framework exists to challenge the expressed narrative. Unfortunately we have relied far too much on someone else to teach us spiritual education. President Nelson said “Hear Him” and Elder Bednar said “if all you know about this church is what you hear or have heard, your house is built on sand”. Unfortunately this professors opinions are on very shaky ground. Once the spirit teaches, there can be no misunderstanding. But when context is available, the understanding becomes much clearer and different than first understood.

"Playing with the other boys" is the most ridiculous example of the Historian's Fallacy. I guarantee when these were written and translated, they did not conflate "play with" as sexual activity. That's a modern concept, and he's using it to make an unreasonable allegation. The Coat of Many Colors concept is the same error. Even if the coat is "fancy," historically that was not a women's issue or anything to do with sexuality. Fancy dress as a feminine issue is a modern correlation. Even as recent as the renaissance era, it was men, and the most powerful men, who dressed fancy. High heels is an example. It was a sign of power that men used going back to the 10th Century. Even today in Saudi Arabia, their formal bisht robes are fancier to show wealth and power. Women adopted it as a way to take on that appearance while men dropped the issue. With his education level, I have a hard time believing it is error. This looks like an attempt to specifically look for ways to misrepresent the scriptures, and to create false doctrine.

And this is why President Nelson told us that we must be in tune with the Holy Ghost.

What is happening is that they are accusing Joseph of being unchaste.

Hells Bells Greg,. I'm 65 years old. I played boys baseball, football, basketball and other sports, let alone scouts. It never dawned on me that I was gay. I hope my wife, 6 children and 16 grandchildren don't find out.

This seems like a classic case of projection to me

This Professor's line of reasoning reminds me of an Apostle that got excommunicated: In 1885, Elder Carrington argued before the Twelve that because he did not ejaculate inside the women he had sexual relations with, he had technically not committed adultery, but had simply committed "a little folly in Israel". The Quorum disagreed and excommunicated him. The current Apostles need to start handing out "pink slips"

Sounds like he was trying to hint at some of these attributes that he came up with for Joseph also applies to Jesus.

Holy cow someone sure hit their head. I guess because the scriptures call us peculiar that makes me LGBT?... come on!

This is ludicrous! Yes, it is nefarious. We need to be critical. He is teaching future generations! Wasn't Joseph GIVEN A WIFE, by PHARAOH? This is nuts! And as someone else said below, this "professor" might as well have been referencing Jesus Christ, our literal Savior. As many of the same characteristics apply. Where are the brethren on this!? This is total blasphemy, in my opinion, and I'm sick of hearing this crap. At the same time, thank you for bringing awareness to this. I swear one of the apostles (Holland, I believe) talked about getting loud for the right reasons. Standing up and making some noise. This needs to be curtailed and a stop needs to be put in place on such teaching to our kids, especially at a church sponsored establishment.

Aw, dang. Not Thomas Wayment! I have enjoyed his work and just ordered his New Testament translation for LDS readers. The unfortunate thing about this is it makes you question his other works now. Maybe Joseph was gay but that has nothing to do with the story of his life. He chose the Lord over and over. Ugh...

I find all Prof. Wayment's "indicia or evidence of gayness" to be speculative, highly speculative, ridiculously speculative, laughable (such as the "playing with the boys" argument as PD Scott shot down) misinfomation, grasping at straws, etc. If my judgment of his work was based on this effort, he would get F-.

Greg, I can appreciate your non-personal tact in discussing this. However, sometimes it's useful to just cut to the chase and call stupid for the stupid it is. This is about him as well, not just an academic discussion. He's not worth my time to engage except to rebuke for being a worldly idealogue and bringing that into the restored church. He, the person, is choosing to do that. But thank you for using your gift to speak to us about exposing this inane evil.

I want this to be true, ergo it is true. I want historical figures to represent certain identity groups, therefore I will assert the identity, and support my assertion with random, even fabricated details. I will then tell everyone to ignore any contradictions or incongruities and call anyone that disagrees with my interpretation prejudicial and inherently biased. This is called identity Marxism.

Did they not hear Elder Holland this past summer, or are they doing this because they did hear Elder Holland? Either way, fire and brimstone awaits this wicked generation.

Wow! Can’t believe how far off the path this professor is. He emphasizes certain words to make his point which is not even correct in context. He obviously is speaking to an audience who is looking for validation. You always have the most interesting things to share.

If God is the same yesterday, today and forever then I don't think homosexuality would've been okay for peophets in the past but not for prophets now. The righteous men of today are no different in the standards they had to keep than the righteous men of yesterday.

An issue with postmodern thought is it’s predicated on the “death of the author” concept; any interpretation is as valid as the author’s intent or any other interpretation. This is a parallel issue to the situation Joseph Smith found himself in; the loudest, most popular interpretation must surely be the correct one, right? This video highlights a sticky problem: can “likening the scriptures unto ourselves” go wrong? If so, when? When it does happen, who has authority to correct it? I’ve seen Heavenly Mother advocates boldly declare that if the Brethren are at odds with your “personal revelation”, then you are justified in leaving the church and encouraging others to leave.

"The philosophies of men, mingled with scripture." are NOT what we should be learning. The author of those is Satan, not the Lord. Mingling scripture in with worldly philosophies is directly from the adversary and leads to destruction, as it represents the ideas as coming from the Lord when they do not. Anyone who espouses this sort of deceptive teaching is far down the road of apostasy and heresy. These professors are in a position to lead many away, and that is exactly what is happening.

This guys lost his mind !

Thank you, Brother Matsen, for being a watchman on the tower.

“Is this something only a gay character can do? To kind of give up the self?” I feel like this statement is quite insulting to men in general. It seems like you have to either be a “toxic” straight man and if you’re caring and compassionate, you must be gay. Does he, with this statement , attempt to insinuate that other selfless characters of the scriptures are gay, too? Including Jesus Christ? And my main question is “why?” What is the significance of these people being gay? What does it add to understanding of true doctrine and principles? Or is it an attempt to change current church policies?

I have never in my life, until recently, seen so many people grabbing hold of the iron rod and trying desperately to bend it to justify their actions rather than conform to it. Intellectualizing the scriptures without the guidance of the Spirit can lead to all sorts of inappropriate and incorrect paths.

A big part of these kinds of interpretations is overlaying modern definitions of words. For example, Terms like “gay” did not originally refer to homosexuality. According to my dictionary (Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 3rd Ed), this definition is an Americanism. In other words, it’s a modern American application of an older word, which we might then conclude that it is slang that has become mainstream. Looking at old language with modern definitions is no different than looking at old cultures and history through a modern morality. It’s dishonest to interpret the King James language this way. It’s wresting the scriptures “to their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:16) Another thing to remember, which you have implied here, is that academia is not necessarily inspired. Who are these rabbis he keeps referencing? Other academics. And they are academics rooted in a demonstrably apostate tradition. So, why should we trust their interpretation of spiritual accounts over those of people we sustain as God’s representatives, prophets, seers and revelators? Keep up the good work!

This is something the leaders have told us to not listen to and he is a professor at BYU? What God is he worshiping? Insane! Thank you for uncovering this.

This is an incredible stretch. I expected him to make at least one decent point but all of it was paper thin. Also, if Joseph was playing in a suggestive manner with his brothers, gay wouldn't even be the best word to explain that behavior.

Why even take rabbis' opinions and analyses? (Notice that he doesn't say that all rabbis see things this way.) You need the Holy Ghost to make sure you don't make egregious errors in your perception. Joseph took an evil report to his father. He tattled on them for being possibly vulgar, lazy, uncareful, lewd, not praying. Turn to The Book of Mormon. Laman and Lemuel hated Nephi because he continually preached to them about their sins. It sounds like young Joseph may have done the same. This is not esoteric. This is not rocket science. Inventing something like "he was different" is obviously going with an agenda.

Unfortunately, because we have become a society obsessed with sex and sexual identity, as well as racial identity, everything will be looked at through these lenses.

Thank you for your discussion. It concerns me that drivel like this is being spewed by BYU professors. His conclusions were total nonsense.

BYU needs looking after. Thanks for doing your part and bringing this to light as well as other topics that have come up. One has to worry about what other things the students are being bombarded with. You should have some rebuttal from the ancient scripture department. They would easily dismantle the thoughts he has come up with.

This is so bizarre. How can BYU just let this go??

I respect Brother Wayment’s scholarship, I bought his New Testament Translation, but I feel that his take on Joseph’s coat dismisses the key symbol we are to understand about Joseph’s robe. It isn’t that it was “fancy” but as taught in Alma 46 by Moroni, the coat was a symbol that if we do not stand fast in our faith in Christ we will perish, but that a remnant of the coat had been preserved as a symbol that a remnant of the seed of Joseph would be preserved. It also diminishes Joseph’s integrity when he resists the advances of Potiphar’s wife. For me Joseph and his coat are reminders to stay faithful to my covenants and to honor Joseph as one of our great patriarchs.

It seems to me like the trend is leaning towards "I suppose, I suppose, I suppose" instead of facts to back up ideas. I find this interesting as just last week I was discussing with my kindergartners the difference between opinion writing and informational writing. Hopefully my 5 year olds don't forget what they've learned by the time they hit college. 🤪

You did a great job with this research. This professor is totally taking the scriptures out of context and reading into them. My thought is: So this professor thinks Joseph was gay because: 1. He "played" with his brothers 2. He had a "fancy" coat 3. He "cared for his clothes" and was "good-looking" 4. He used "sexual metaphores" 5. He was forgiving? These all are normal heterosexual male behaviors. You don't even have to know that his translations are wrong to see that he has a really bad argument. Also, if Joseph was actually gay, then one could probably argue that him denying Potiphers' wife was more not really him being chaste but just not interested in her or just unimpressive.

Thanks for what you do Greg, parsing thru topics and issues like this, trying to sift out the kernel of truth from tares. Sometimes I think you spend too much time doing that, but I'm grateful. With my kids starting college, I think that they have a greater chance going a stray and leaving the Church after attending BYU as another state run school because of how these topics and issues are couched in the gospel. It's discouraging to say the least.

For those asking "where are the Brethren?", if Angels are under instruction to wait until the harvest is fully ripe then it might be safe to ussume the brethren are also to wait. The lord is keen to know who is on his side and so opposition is permitted for a time, even within the organisation of the church. Doctrine and covenants 86:4 But behold, in the last days, even now while the Lord is beginning to bring forth the word, and the blade is springing up and is yet tender- 5 Behold, verily I say unto you, the angels are crying unto the Lord day and night, who are ready and waiting to be sent forth to reap down the fields; 6 But the Lord saith unto them, pluck not up the tares while the blade is yet tender (for verily your faith is weak), lest you destroy the wheat also. 7 Therefore, let the wheat and the tares grow together until the harvest is fully ripe; then ye shall first gather out the wheat from among the tares, and after the gathering of the wheat, behold and lo, the tares are bound in bundles, and the field remaineth to be burned.

I wonder sometimes if these thoughts are being taught because the teachers themselves have this issue or concern, or characteristic and then do seek to justify themselves. I don't claim to be well-learned, but in a class I've taken at BYUI we read in a textbook that often people classify themselves as Gay because they have certain male or female characteristics or tendencies. It doesn't mean that they are wholly the other sex or have to be attracted to the same sex. I think these things are going beyond the mark.

Whether or not this professor has valid point from books you've read or other videos of him, doesn't mean much to me. This shows that he is separating himself from truth and looking to preach the philosophies of man mingled with scripture. Yes, you can find truth everywhere, but when someone has had light and truth and start saying things like this, they are going down a different path and everything they say from now on, and maybe from the past, should be viewed through a lens of wanting the fame and acceptance of the world by preaching what others want to hear. Additionally, this prof. sounds gay or effeminate so it makes sense to me that he would want someone in the scriptures to be gay, so he is searching for it. Our world needs to be validated in everything. Whether it's their struggles with something or their feelings or views or lifestyle choices. Ppl need, to the point of forcing through canceling, everyone to support them. Why is our world soo freaking obsessed with sex and everything associated with it?? He is pushing the left's agenda. That is the purpose, whether he knows it or not.

I can't fathom how anyone can possibly bring "playing with the boys" into the argument. The boys I knew growing up who turned out to be gay were the ones who played with the girls. Playing with the boys back then probably included moving an air-filled goat bladder around an open piece of ground. Joseph should have kept his dreams to himself. The interpretation was obvious and his brothers' furious reaction to young Joseph's obnoxious behavior, while in no way reasonable or justified, was certainly understandable. To blame their actions on anything else... Well, let's just say you're being very kind to call it "a stretch".

It doesn't say "playing" anywhere. He was working - feeding the flock with his brothers!

It seems clear to me that this man WANTS Joseph to be gay. He is stretching SOOOO far. It would be like saying since the 12 apostles were so willing to leave their wives for long periods of time to hang out and travel with 12 other men that they must have been gay. Or that since Ammonite soldiers buried their weapons instead of going to war, they were obviously very compassionate and must have been really effeminate and therefore likely gay. A whole army of them! Or that because the scripture says that “the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David” and they made a covenant, that they were gay and even had a gay marriage, even though it’s VERY clear that Judaic law prohibited that. The reasons given for Joseph being gay are far more spurious. This REALLY IS just like CRT and Anti-racism which LOOK for reasons to cry racism and CREATING it where there isn’t any evidence of it. This professor is buying into and TEACHING LDS students, at an LDS school, to LOOK for gayness in righteous people of God, even where there isn’t any evidence of it, for what seems to be the purpose of almost praising it. He’s emphasizing that Joseph, a “savior”- lowercase “s” was gay. I guess we can see what’s coming next. There’s no reference, (other than his being called Rabbi) that Jesus was married. Wait for it. It’s coming.

Another great video thank you Greg for what you are doing to help preserve truth and light

Excellent and important video, as always. Thank you, Greg!

You're nicer than I am. This guy deserves to be called out. I think the most concerning part of his presentation is the assumption that someone who lived 4000 years ago would have similar cultural behaviors to someone today. If we start shoehorning in modern western culture to people who lived in non-modern, non-western cultures truth will absolutely start to disappear. We will stop understanding why people did things the way they did for all of human history and that is a dangerous game to play.

I wonder what Aseneth would have to say about this.

Prof Weymount takes a very postmodern approach, stating clearly this is "his" personal take based on "the rabbis" analysis, NOT the plain meaning of the text. Which rabbis? Deceptive, in my view, to hide behind behind a fringe view and couch it to a non-Jewish, non-scholarly audience as though it were orthodox amongst Jews. Prove it, Prof Weymont!

Let God prevail …. And let these professors go.

Oh to be learned! My uncle was an academic involved with other fringe byu academics in the 80's and 90's. Needless to say, it led him no where good.

I always find it interesting that people are so willing to put so much weight into what old rabbis used to think about the scriptures. Clearly the rabbis and the thought pedigree that they came from got a lot wrong. Why do we think we can rely heavily on them to get this thing or that thing right? Seems strange to appeal to them for authoritative takes on the scriptures.

Thanks for posting this. I can easily see how other sacred stories from scripture could be deconstructed and re-cast using critical theory to destroy faith. I don't doubt that we will see more of this in the church in the coming years. I think we need to be aware so that we can warn and guide people who may be deceived, starting with our own families.

There is an Old Testament Book called "Joseph and Aseneth", it is a pseudepigraphal work about Joseph and his wife Asenath, so you kind of have to take it at face value but if true, it clearly shows Joseph was not gay and loved his wife very much. It is a romantic story of sorts that explains how by Joseph's example of righteousness, he helped to covert his wife to the true gospel and worship of one God instead of idol worship with multiple gods. You should check it out if you haven't before, its a great story in my opinion.

I don't find any of this flattering. ... They do have the RIGHT to defame what We find HOLY. But I don't like it, and have no respect for them or this agenda. I do however am grateful for 20 years of warnings and preparation to be ready for THESE days in wich live. Thank you GREG.

This is pure speculation about Joseph. No basis in fact. We could just as easily speculate that Prof Wayment is gay. Just because someone has feminine qualities does not imply gay. Jordan Peterson readily admits he has more feminine qualities than his wife, yet he is clearly neither gay nor transgender. This whole discussion on the speculation of Joseph is an utter waste of time and this professor should be concentrating on more useful scholarship.

How am I supposed to watch this with out laughing. I can't take this guy seriously seems to me he has a personal interest in trying to get us to believe this.

This professor is preaching Gospel according to him. To me this is twisted viewing something through a faulty, contorted prism. This isn't even an academic analysis. What little references or sources he makes are tenuous at best! He misquotes, creates content that isn't there and obviously has a deceiving agenda. Do these professors not have ethical and quality reviews or supervision? He is NOT making quality and credible summations. This "professor" needs to lose his job!

The "professor" is personification of 2 Nephi ch9 vs28. Additionally, when you have a woke agenda, it creeps into the way you interpret everything. It's a slippery slope that leads away from the covenant path.

This is what's going on at byu?! Old nibley must be rolling in his grave. Crazy how fast it can all shift. Can't wait to hear his Mormon Story.

I like that you are trying to be respectful, and I get why. However, I feel you are being to kind. Moroni made these things very clear: Mormon 8:38 “38 O ye pollutions, ye hypocrites, ye teachers, who sell yourselves for that which will canker, why have ye polluted the holy church of God? Why are ye ashamed to take upon you the name of Christ? Why do ye not think that greater is the value of an endless happiness than that misery which never dies-because of the praise of the world?” If they alter things to fit their ideology and not the absolute truth, then they are the people that Moroni was speaking too. I am not trying to condemn, as you are not. However, Moroni saw our day and did not mince words to save the feelings of those that would alter the interpretation for the opinions of the World. We shouldn’t either.

Next: Jacob was a furry (Genesis 27) ...lol smh

I don’t know if I agree with the premise of Dr Wayments presentation either but there is a good lesson here about the mistreatment of those who are different. Whatever different means or meant in the case of Joseph. You’re probably right that it had more to do with his dreams and spiritual ideas. Either way we should be kinder to those who are different.

Sorry Greg, this is nefarious. The secret combinations have their claws in deep.

The rest of Genesis is pretty blunt and straightforward when it comes to matters of sexuality. Reading into the story of Joseph a hidden theme of homosexuality is a drastic change from the rest of the story of Abraham and his descendants. But hey, I guess if generosity is a quality only gay people possess, maybe I've been gay this whole time and never realized it.

Man this is freaky stuff...I feel whether these profs and others that change these characters and stories to fit their narrative are for sure nefarious whether they know it or not.

Thanks again for your insightful commentary. Badly needed in our day. We are told in the Book of Mormon that the day would come when the gentiles as a culture would reject the fulness of the gospel and I think with the sexual revolution in the 60's and its war on morality and family values along with the Woke revolution of the 2020's and its social justice marxist agenda replacing the gospel principles of faith, hope charity with diversity, equity and inclusivity we are witnessing that rejectiion right before our eyes and in "real-time" as they say. With social justice, identity polictics and cancel culture the Book of Mormon is an easy target. For example, Nephi is "toast" from the very get-go ... he's white (racist), he's male (sexist), he's straight (homophopic), he's an Israelite (Islamaphopic), he upholds the nuclear family (xenophopic), he's exceedingly rich (white privelege and oppressor of the poor), he's large in starture (a bully - bullies Zoram), and with all these negative identity makrers he still believes he is highly favored of the Lord (a narcissist). I can't think of any other negative identity markers at the moment but I am sure there are plenty of others. So, again, what we are witnessing is the rejection of the fulness of the gospel by the gentiles and the transition soon to the house of Isreal. At least, that's how I see it.

Did you notice they began the discussion with a prayer that began “Our Heavenly Parents”

What I don’t get at all is why is there so much put on sexuality? These scholars put too much into the sexual aspect of things! It’s sickening!

Notice that he is no longer on the BYU Religion faculty. Left in 2018. His reasoning seems to have become a bit far fetched. Thank you for bringing this out and helping us see where this reasoning may have come from. Mr. Wayment's reasoning is so out of line with the gospel and what we know about Joseph and the Savior.

Joseph married Asenath has Ephraim, Mannaseh and is gay? False doctrine! This guy has got to go.

Jaw slacking! Watching this BYU prof dig, stretch, and draw conclusions (that seem to be pure projection to me) 😳Here’s a take on the coat of many colors: While in Scotland on tour with Robert Millet, former head of BYU Religion Dept; photographing my first Scotsman castle guard in full military regalia, he suggested I “turn that outfit white”. (Try it!) in my mind. It sure helped me see the House of a Israel influence in Scotland! Then I learned that the tartans of the various clans- all plaid woven cloth - denoted status and the more respected your clans profession was, the more variety of colors would be in your plaid; signifying the high eat nobility. Joseph’s coat’s “fanciness” simply denoted his birthright/heir status. Ben ancient Israel’s “chosen” families experienced sibling rivalry. That’s the comforting message for me personally.

And from what purse is this professor paid? "And now, because of the glory of the world and to get gain will they say this, and not for the glory of God." - 2nd Nephi 27: 16

I am sorry but this is shocking . To take someone from the past and attribute qualities based on 2022 interpretations is slanderous . In an historical group I belong to based on Victorian England it is strictly forbidden to even insinuate something in a persons life that isn’t WELL Documented or written in their own hand . To have a presentation based on feelings at BYU is anything but scholarly, especially feelings based on todays obsession with All things sex/gender based . I am dismayed to even hear it is discussed at BYU much less given ANY weight . If this is our new “standard “ of knowledge count me out .

Listening to the professor's reinterpretation of the story of Joseph and why he thinks Joseph was possibly gay the reasons for that, could be applied to Jesus Christ as well. By twisting the story and the meaning of the words, we could say well, Jesus never married, and he hung around with men (his apostles) all the time we could do all kinds of things with various simple facts and make them sound like there's something they're not! So I see this as it progresses just going into everything and making it about race or sex or something that really when it was about charity, faith and obedience. It is the Hallmark of turning truths into fables and Myths!

LOVED this take from a weird speculation from this professor. Thanks I could not agree more! It absolutely does not matter if Joseph is living the right way.

I am not familiar with the gentleman presenting his opinion. What I am about to say is in no way a negative or slight (don't care about intimate choices individuals make either.) Given his micro dissection of specific wording, their translations and cultural meanings, if this gentleman were also guy, would it not be conceivable his own biases/world views would be sensitive to such an interpretation? You hav asked why would he (the presenter) would even focus/present/suggest Joseph was gay. Well. I think he may be likening the scriptures unto himself. We each looyk for validation and likenesses in our seeking for truth.

Joseph was the great hero of the Old Testament.

Projection .

A leftist is someone too broad-minded to take their own side in a debate.

A story- I am a convert to the Church, with 25 years last year. I was introduced to the Church by a very special girl that I dated in High school my junior and senior years. I joined the Church my senior year. I had planned to go into the military following High school, but then I joined the Church, and my girlfriend inspired me to serve a mission. She told me she would not marry anyone that was not a returned missionary- it meant that much to her. We were in love, crazy about each other. Our unique history will always make me smile. However, I knew from day one that I had lighting in a bottle, that I was behind, meaning she had so much more gospel understanding than I did. She was raised in a strong member family, good parents, etc. I trusted her judgment. I always felt the Spirit when I was with her. She surely inspired me in the best ways. I put in my papers and was called to a foreign mission. She had been accepted to BYU. I prayed about our relationship, desiring to know what to do. I was willing to accept whatever the answer would be. Being away from her was truly heartbreaking. I loved her. The answer to my prayer hurt. It was direct, without any uncertainty. She and I would not be together. It was time for us both to move forward in progression. She would marry, and I would be serving a mission. She loved BYU, as it was her dream to go there, and she was getting a lot of attention. I accepted the reality of where we both were on our paths. I hated it. She begged me to see her one more time before I left on my mission, but I refused. I couldn’t. I couldn’t do it. I had to stay focused. I had received an answer and I knew it was correct. I wrote her one time in the MTC, thanking her for everything that she had done, all her support and guidance, her patience and her love. It was sincere, but written with heartbreak. Then, I got to work. I closed my heart and went to my mission field, not looking back. It wasn’t until 10 months in that I received another letter from her. She wrote telling me about a guy she was dating, that she thought was getting serious. She thought he might soon propose. She wrote me to sincerely ask what I thought about it. I was so focused on my mission at that time that I responded as a missionary, without any thought of us whatsoever. I told her he sounded great, studying to become a medical professional, he would be a good provider and take care of her, and that she needed to obviously pray about it, to sincerely seek spiritual confirmation. I sealed the letter and sent it feeling content with the response, without hesitation. I had prayed about how I should respond. I ended the letter by advising her that if she did get married, I would need to be distant. It wouldn’t be right for us to stay in contact. Four months later, 14 months into my mission, I received the Temple Wedding announcement. It was a beautiful P-day. We were all playing soccer when the pouch arrived. I opened the envelope, and read the announcement. Her wedding was to be in five days. Our mail was often delayed by about 3-4 weeks from home. It just so happened that was when I got this letter. No note. Just the announcement. For the first time in my life, I truly felt my heart BREAK. The previous pain I felt in answer to my prayer was nothing in comparison to this wrenching pain. It was as if I had received news that a sibling or parent had died. I had bottled up my emotions so well, to try and avoid this exact experience, but it didn’t matter. I was emotionally crushed. We weren’t waiting for each other. We really never broke up, but were just separated due to the timing of what we both needed to be doing- our duties. Fortunately, I had the best companion of my mission with me. He and I had served together for six months, which is a long time without transfers. We ultimately had 8 months, and we baptized a lot of people, including his future wife! What does any of this have to due with BYU and this professor, you ask? Well, my heartache did not go away. That’s the kind of pain that scars the heart, and it heals over time, but it never really goes away. It’s been 25 years, and I still can feel that emotional bullet. It tells me that she was very special to me, and not just some girl I dated for two years. She greatly blessed my life, and every time I felt the Spirit, it hauntingly would remind me of her. To be expected. Do I have regrets? To think I could ever erase my 21 year marriage and not have my children and wife that I’ve had all these years, thinking that this special woman got away and that I regret my life… heck NO! Wouldn’t change a thing. Doesn’t mean the heart doesn’t wonder, or even remind me every once in awhile about how I loved her. Those two people, our 18yr old versions of ourselves don’t exist anymore. Just memories now. But, what does this have to do with BYU?! Right- to that point… when I came home from my mission, she and I went out to lunch. She was still a newly wed of almost 1 year, and I was engaged. Our lunch date was, in my opinion looking back, a huge mistake. When she and I saw each other, it was emotional for both of us. The last day we had been together was New Years Eve, a few months before my mission. That night, I kissed her goodbye with no thought that I wouldn’t see her again until this moment. It was that night that I prayed about our relationship, and it was a day before she would fly back to Utah for school. I told her over the phone that I couldn’t see her off again, as I had done the previous August. I couldn’t do it. She was confused and even upset about it, but I had to take a major step back. Two months later I got my mission call, and two months after that I was in the MTC. She even asked to come see me as I would attend the Provo Temple. BYU was right there. For those 8 weeks, we were just yards from each other. But, I told her I couldn’t meet with her, even if just in passing on the sidewalk. I couldn’t do it. I knew it would kill me. So, we went out for lunch, just the two of us. Probably a mistake. During this lunch, with her now married and me engaged, we fought through the strangeness of it all, both of us feeling like we were in the Twilight Zone. It felt like just another day that we had had together so many times. I picked her up at her parents house just as I had a couple hundred times before, and when we made eye contact as I waited at the door with her mother, as she came down the stairs… it was a time machine! And there was no denying that we both realized it. She looked at me just like I looked at her- it was like we were just brought back together as though we had been separated by death. Again, it was probably a mistake. It wasn’t free. My heart, speaking for me, surely paid a heavy price for years after that visit. After we had lunch, we said our goodbyes, and in the awkwardness of the moment, we said we would stay in touch, but we both immediately said out loud with a smile, “maybe not too often”. We never called each other or wrote to each other once since then. We both knew we couldn’t do that. BYU. When we had lunch, we talked about the gospel, and I was rather shocked at how she had become somewhat of a critic of some past Church leaders, even discounting some of their quotes. It struck me as odd, and new coming from her. She cited her BYU education as foundation for her position, and it has never escaped me. For the first time ever in my experience, she didn’t seem full of light as I had literally always known her to be. She brightened every day I shared with her prior to my mission. Every day! Never had I experienced any uncomfortable spiritual feelings when talking with her, but this conversation was noticeably different. It was rather disappointing. I even rebuked her, softly of course, and I think that surprised her just as much. I was a returned missionary. I was not ignorant or young in the gospel anymore. I could easily quote scripture and leaders, and cross examine with a doctrinal foundation. She had never seen me do that. I surely wanted to impress her, subconsciously. I had spent all my days with her trying to live up to her expectations and to be worthy of her, so it came natural. But, it was not flirting. It was independence. I stood on my own. My point to all this is, BYU is a school, and surely members put their trust in the system to teach the truth. However, even BYU can be corrupted, even subtly, and it can impact even the best of us. This girl was, in my opinion, the best of us. In my book, she didn’t belong here at all. It was sad to see that outcome manifest from her experience at BYU. It seemed to have taken something from her, not just her single/unmarried status. It’s nice to see a member speaking out on these issues today. Based on my experience, perhaps it’s been slowly sliding that direction for a while. Elder Holland is correct about these academic matters, as he generally is on all subject matters related to the Church and to the gospel. He surely has my sustaining vote, as does President Nelson. We know who the Lord wants us to follow, and last I checked, it wasn’t the modern BYU professors that we have been asked to sustain.

I hate the cultural misuse of the word "gay." Struggled with same sentence attraction, OK, but "gay" implies activity. I can't stress it enough. I can't think of ever hearing the misuse of the word "gay" in general conference. Can you? I just hate the corruption of language.

I am so glad you are here providing these commentaries. While I'm not deceived by this, I understand who the world is and who academia is trying to appease, I don't understand why professors at BYU are doing this? I to am very fond of this professor's New Testament translation and study help. I use it often. I detest this CRT and SJW identity political view of the scriptures. We have passed the 200 year mark of the First vision which, in the past, has marked the point of the beginning of the apostasy after Christ in the old world and the new world. What we are seeing is the beginnings of apostasy of this dispensation also and the only thing that will save us will be the return of the Savior. I pray every day that it happens soon because my particular trials are prophesied in 1 Tim 4 and 2 Tim 3 and it is deteriorating my wife's health. She has Lupus, RA, severe depression and anxiety with a very low quality of life. It is tough right now and we see a lot of last days coming to reality and have a deep desire for the Lord's return. Thanks for all you do.

I find it very curious that on Rate My Professor this man had very high ratings, yet only about 34% of the students said that they would take another class from him. Why is that?

Another very important reason to seek the Spirit. President Nelson told us we would not be able to spiritually survive without the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. People are listening to their professors instead of the Spirit.

The problem with academia is they tend to overthink things and miss the mark.

Thanks, CWIC for all your discerning and revealing presentations. And what signs does that professor show about himself? Why would he say that? In the 70's I knew 3 students who were gay. Two were in the ballroom dance program and another was in my ward. I assumed that they were keeping the code of conduct for a BYU Student. It is not my role to judge them. Let's focus on the Eternal Plan and not on man's secular cultural ideas. My sister-in-law has same-sex attraction and works in the Temple and is dedicated to keeping her covenants. Let's allow everyone to be equal "members" of Christ's church.

I think this professor is "projecting" onto this account from his own orientation.

What Rabbis say that Joseph was gay? I studied Judaism for five years, I don't know one Chumash (Commentary on the Torah) that comes near to implying that. What is going on with BYU, Professor Weymouth in another video recommended that Latter Day Saints use the NIV Bible Translation. Even most protestant denominations have abandoned this translation because of its Gender Nullification and overly liberal (academically critical) translations of verses.

Joseph was a baller. An absolute Chad. A super choice spirit who presides over one of the greatest, most important legacies in the history of the world. Thomas Wayment, otoh...

I'm deeply troubled by the philosophical idea. I don't think we should mingle our own ideas from our own political views into the scriptures.