Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HappyJackWagon

Changes to BYU Admissions Policy

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

While I'm certainly open to further information, so far as I'm aware she's a random commenter on Twitter with no real public personae. If giving an ill considered tweet entails courting publicity then probably all of us are guilty at one point or an other. I'm not sure that justifies taking her as personifying anything nor this treatment. If that entails 95% of the contributions, so be it. I doubt that but then I also confess I don't read most of the threads either. I'd hope most aren't attacking individuals of little importance as if they were major public figures.

I agree that one should not attack someone personally.  However, if one does not wish one's public comments to come under critique, one should be more circumspect about what s/he says and about where and how s/he says it.  There are plenty of online fora where her comment would have been cheered wildly with little or no pushback.  If she did not wish to encounter such pushback, she could have made it in such a forum with little or no likelihood that it would have come to the attention of anyone other than her like-minded fellows.  I see no reason why Elder Neal A. Maxwell's dictum that critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should not be allowed "uncontested slam dunks" should not apply to her.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

My wife is teaching early morning seminary for the second year.  They were asked last year to give a summary and recommendation for all of their students applying to BYU schools.  They seem to have to give that response in October or November.  Being their first year, they didn’t always know how good of a student they were and they were acting fine at the time.  Several girls started acting very snotty and goofing off after their recommendations were done.  She called BYU in January to ask if she could change recommendations and was told that she could.  She then had a talk with the students and their parents.  The families handled it differently with most very embarrassed by their kids behavior. One gave a bunch of excuses.  My wife got high marks from her students and loves them.  She doesn’t want to give any a bad recommendation, but she almost did.  

My own pet peeve is kids becoming inactive at a Church school.  My oldest son did that and I told him he should withdraw and we spoke to the elders quorum president about his inactivity.  He still graduated so I am assuming the bishop let it go.  I also assume that their education costs 30 to 40 thousand per year, perhaps 90 percent subsidized.  My youngest daughter had four roommates go inactive the second semester.  She would show up with her other roommate to church and  family night.  No guarantees after you graduate about your behavior or even a mission for that matter.  It is not right to continue going to a Church school with a poor attitude or inactivity and I think the Church has a right to try and get the kids who will be the most successful in helping to prepare the earth for Jesus second coming and gathering scattered  Israel.  The argument here probably comes down to how those kids can be chosen.  My BYU education was a real blessing for me and helped immensely in getting my.graduate education.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Smac posted her apology in his first post. She stated she didn’t wish President Oaks harm. She said she didn’t want Oaks to be prophet. She said she made a flippant comment (Calm had a very reasonable explanation a page back on why she choose a car crash). It was in poor taste. It was crass. It was rude. But it is not the same as wishing and hoping someone dies a slow and painful death. 

While I completely agree about the bizarreness and incivility, if you are going to get outraged by every bizarre uncivil tweet on Twitter, you are going to live a miserable life. 

A supposedly faithful Saint publicly wishing two ordained Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ die peacefully or violently (as she implied) rather than ascend to the Presidency is more than bizarreness and incivility, crassness, rudeness, and merits outrage. A car crash with fatalities is about as violent as it gets. I don't get why calling it out is controversial. Seems like the epitome of speaking evil of the Lord's anointed. 

In the meantime, as a private institution BYU can impose whatever admission standards it wishes. There are many other excellent schools to attend if one does not wish to comply with the standards or abide by the student code once admitted. To bad mouth it after graduation is ingratitude at its worst.

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, bluebell said:

Your experience with early morning seminary isn't everyone's though.

I loved early morning seminary (but early morning seminary for me was 7.  I know here in Utah they meet at 6, which seems crazy to me!).  Our teachers were really good and I learned a lot of the 'surprises' that people talk about finding out about and losing faith over during early mhorning seminary.  :pardon: 

I didn't mind early morning seminary.  It got me out of chores.  I hated milking the cow in the morning😋

Edited by sunstoned
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

As an add-on to my previous comment in response to Clark, criticism of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of its leaders is one thing.  To a certain extent, such criticism is to be expected, here and elsewhere in Cyberspace.  However, affirmatively wishing for ill to befall leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ is another thing entirely.  If it were to happen here, it would violate Board rules, but even if that were not the case, I doubt that very many critics of the Church of Jesus Christ here would sink to such depths.  I think that people of good will, even those who hold varying opinions about the Church of Jesus Christ and its leaders, as well as those who have varying levels of commitment to it, should and would condemn such sentiments as those that were expressed in the tweet.

Edited by Kenngo1969
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

 just an observation but you're digging a really deep hole you'll never get out of. Carry on.

Confucious say, if in really deep hole and man give you shovel and ladder, make sure use right one in order to get out of hole. ;):D 

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

... While I completely agree about the bizarreness and incivility, if you are going to get outraged by every bizarre uncivil tweet on Twitter, you are going to live a miserable life. 

No, not every bizarre or uncivil tweet on Twitter ... this one is particularly beyond the pale, so it's especially deserving of condemnation.  Indeed, it ought to be condemned even by people of good will who hold absolutely no brief for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or its leaders.

Crap, I just realized I interrupted my nap to respond to you.  Don't bother replying, as I don't wish to be disturbed. ;):D 

:lazy: 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Smac posted her apology in his first post. She stated she didn’t wish President Oaks harm. She said she didn’t want Oaks to be prophet. She said she made a flippant comment (Calm had a very reasonable explanation a page back on why she choose a car crash). It was in poor taste. It was crass. It was rude. But it is not the same as wishing and hoping someone dies a slow and painful death. 

 

Calm made a suggestion, but she was only surmising. I don’t think she knows any better than you or I what the writer of the tweet was thinking  

As I read the tweet and the subsequent “apology,” I don’t believe in her initial state of mind the author cared what kind of car crash or other form of death it would be so long as it got the two despised leaders out of the way so someone of her preference could take over. She acknowledged she hadn’t thought it through. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Kenngo1969 said:

No, not every bizarre or uncivil tweet on Twitter ... this one is particularly beyond the pale, so it's especially deserving of condemnation.  Indeed, it ought to be condemned even by people of good will who hold absolutely no brief for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or its leaders.

Crap, I just realized I interrupted my nap to respond to you.  Don't bother replying, as I don't wish to be disturbed. ;):D 

:lazy: 

Don’t worry. While you were sleeping I condemned it at least 5 times in this thread including the post you quoted.  You’d have to actually read my posts to know that though, so carry on 👍

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Calm made a suggestion, but she was only surmising. I don’t think she knows any better than you or I what the writer of the tweet was thinking  

Yet you carry on like you know exactly what she was wishing and hoping for!

Quote

As I read the tweet and the subsequent “apology,” I don’t believe in her initial state of mind the author cared what kind of car crash or other form of death it would be so long as it got the two despised leaders out of the way so someone of her preference could take over. She acknowledged she hadn’t thought it through. 

Yes this is correct. Which makes it crass and stupid. Worth condemning? Certainly . Worth imputing motives and calling evil, that seems overwrought. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Yet you carry on like you know exactly what she was wishing and hoping for!

Yes this is correct. Which makes it crass and stupid. Worth condemning? Probably. Worth imputing motives and calling evil, that seems overwrought. 

I can’t think of a person I hate intensely enough to wish death upon him/her, much less death by a violent cause. Yeah, I’d call it evil. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Don’t worry. While you were sleeping I condemned it at least 5 times in this thread including the post you quoted.  You’d have to actually read my posts to know that though, so carry on 👍

:lazy: 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Both men are old, making for a higher-than-usual likelihood of death by natural causes. So no, I’m not mollified about her wishing for or musing about such a horrible fate as death by car crash. 

I am not suggesting anyone be mollified.  People can choose however they want to react.

I find the idea it is a good thing for anybody to die in a car crash disturbing.  Even those with nasty terminal diseases or truly evil dispositions I wish could have a chance to say goodbye and die peacefully.  

I was just suggesting a possible, likely very superficial (in the sense she probably spent a few seconds coming up with it) thought process of how she arrived at “car crash” rather than “food poisoning at a shared lunch” or “terrorist bomb”.

She probably asked herself what is the most likely scenario where both Pres Nelson and Oaks are removed from leadership at the same time as quickly as possible.  The stupidity and jerkiness of the remark (not the person) for me is not that she went there (I would too for a realistic scenario for quickly removing two or more people from permanent positions), but that she didn’t self censor as ‘some thoughts are better left unsaid’.  She could have simply phrased her opinion as ‘best thing would be for both Pres Nelson and Oaks to no longer be in leadership however that happened’ (range could be ‘Church goes to retirement at age 70 for all leaders, not just Seventies’ to ‘both dying in their sleep due to overdoing it’ for nonviolent ideas).  She could even had turned it into more of a positive poke by saying best thing for the Church would be if Pres Nelson and Oaks were both translated tomorrow as that would imply as individuals they were good people deserving a good fate, even if she saw their leadership as detrimental in some fashion.

So there are definitely better ways she could have conveyed her opinion without the negative imagery of violent death. That she didn’t care enough at the time to try and find a less abrasive phrasing since she knew it would be in the public view is disturbing, though I am not going to label her as evil for it. Foolish and self centered in that moment I will go to. I have no idea if it is typical behaviour or something was really frustrating her at the time, so not judging her personality in general either. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

A supposedly faithful Saint

CFR (friendly, is she really presenting herself that way!? - I was unaware)

29 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

publicly wishing two ordained Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ die peacefully or violently (as she implied) rather than ascend to the Presidency is more than bizarreness and incivility, crassness, rudeness, and merits outrage. A car crash with fatalities is about as violent as it gets. I don't get why calling it out is controversial. Seems like the epitome of speaking evil of the Lord's anointed. 

What it boils down to, if you don’t want a senior apostle to become president, then under the current system of church governance they have to die before they become prophet. This is morbid to think about.  I personally don’t care who is prophet, but if I did, I might hope Elder Oaks doesn’t become prophet, and I might really hope Elder Uchtdorf does. This seems like an okay preference to have, similar to A hypothetical hope Elizabeth Warren doesn’t become President, and An equally hypothetical desire to see Senator Cruz elected.

I might even express the opinion that the best thing for the church would be a change in leadership. Again this shouldn’t be a controversial thing. But the way things work, a change in leadership means death in the church. Elder Uchtdorf becoming prophet means certain people die before others. Publicly musing about the death of people is crass rude and condemnable, but paradoxically death is the only way leadership changes in the church. That is why I take her at face value that she doesn’t wish any actual harm to Elder Oaks. What she said is ugly and rude, but hardly worthy of the outrage expressed in this thread. 

29 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

In the meantime, as a private institution BYU can impose whatever admission standards it wishes. There are many other excellent schools to attend if one does not wish to comply with the standards or abide by the student code once admitted.

I completely agree. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Oh you are allowed to explain yourself but clearly jaycln cannot. You meant a peaceful quick natural death and she meant a horribly painful death 🙄

What flashed through my mind was being taken out  by a massive truck coming at you sideways so not even enough time to be fearful. Or my favorite thought on some depressed days in my teens driving into a mountain cliff and going out in a massive fireball so all that is left is ash....before I started thinking about things people have to investigate or clean up after the main event or how some friends and family react to violent deaths, even if quick ones. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Actually, I'll credit you for the idea of JSU - ha - although I'm sure there have been others with the thought. Yeah, SVU is essentially LDS according to what I know, but is still quite private, officially unaffiliated school, and somewhat expensive. It is kinda out in the boonies though, so I think some other place would be better. I figure perhaps there is no time like the present to get started on the New Jerusalem... :) hence my suggestion of the Independence area. Nevertheless, my personal guess (Unresearched)  is that there will be more schools available further East. That is essentially what Duke did. He bought Trinity College, and then built a whole new campus to the west, and made it one of the preeminent universities of the nation. Rather than trying to make the main BYU campus bigger or limit students more, I think the Church would be better off starting a new University back East - buying a pretty little liberal arts campus is not a bad way to start. I would have considered BYU if it was closer - at the time I wanted to attend a school within one day's driving distance from home.

Yes, it would be nice to have at least one serious research university in Utah.  The notion that anyone in Utah wanting to do serious biblical or ancient Near Eastern study must go to Berkeley (UC, GTU), Chicago, Princeton, or Massachusetts is absurd.

Meantime, it would also be nice to have a good small liberal arts college like JSC somewhere (best in association with or neighbor to already existing school, like St Paul School of Theology) -- East Coast or middle America.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Just out of curiosity, I did a little search. Here is one that went cheap. It was very small but had nice modern buildings. It was an hour from both Louisville and Lexington, KY:

SOLD: Former St. Catharine College, St. Catharine, KY

Bid Deadline: November 27, 2018
Auction Date: November 30, 2017
Minimum Bids: College Property Tracts (4 Tracts – Offered Collectively) - $1,300,000
Bypass Property Tracts (3 Tracts – Offered Individually or Collectively) - $3,000 per acre
All Properties as a Package - $1,420,000

That is cheap for 90 acres and 8 mostly modern buildings. The corporation which bought it apparently plans to do organic/sustainable farming classes.... maybe another sale will be in the works.. 

It seems small religiously affiliated liberal arts schools are having some of the most difficulty. 

incredible.  These other denominations are losing members and money at an increasing rate, and have no choice but to unload such properties.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Smashed body bleeding out while rescuers unable to find a usable vein frantically applying the jaws of life to get the bent metal away that is crushing you and keeping you from breathing. Seeing your unrecognizable brother next to you broken, moaning in pain, delirious and calling for loved ones. Yep. That’s a great way to go.

It is how I plan to go out.

Last time I went over the statistics it was about 50/50 “instantaneous” to lingering deaths. The former are not all immediate but most of them mean you never regain consciousness.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think that’s a bad rap. Smac, in my estimation, is the most thoughtful, intelligent contributor in this board. My impression is he seldom, if ever, makes thread derails. 

George_Newman.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I can’t think of a person I hate intensely enough to wish death upon him/her, much less death by a violent cause. Yeah, I’d call it evil. 

Yeah, what kind of a crazy person would wish such a thing?

steve-buscemi-billy-madison.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Rather than trying to make the main BYU campus bigger or limit students more, I think the Church would be better off starting a new University back East - buying a pretty little liberal arts campus is not a bad way to start.

Not going to happen. My mission president before his assignment had been a regional representative in the eastern United States and had actually been approached by another Christian faith that hoped to unload a 'pretty little liberal arts campus' for a very reasonable price. According to what he told me personally, he rang Church headquarters to inquire how he should respond to this offer, helpfully labelled by the sellers as 'BYU-East'. He was rung back by Pres Hinckley, who, I was told, said, 'For heaven's sake tell them no! We have enough problems already with our three campuses; we don't need to compound those troubles with a fourth'. He then explained that if the Church could figure out how to divest itself of BYU, it would already have done so.

Quote

I would have considered BYU if it was closer - at the time I wanted to attend a school within one day's driving distance from home.

Firsthand account this time: I completed my BA and MA degrees in America, and at one point Pres Hinckely visited our campus. He said, to the best of my recollection, 'It's always a good sight to see so many Latter-day Saint young people doing what we wish all Latter-day Saint young people would do: attending a non-Church-owned institution close to home where they can build up the Kingdom of God locally'.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I suppose it may be possible that attitudes towards having church schools may change over time as college culture changes especially if marriage rates within the Church drop significantly for those attending nonlds schools, so Pres. Hinckley’s pov might be outdated sometime sooner or later. I would be interested to see comparison of rates between attending the byus, online Pathway schooling and other options.

It has only been a few years since they decommissioned NZ iirc, so possibly going with getting out of the business as much as possible still. 

Expanding online availability is likely the trend of the near future imo as it makes schooling accessible to more Saints than building more campuses. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Apparently BYU has been instituting these changes for the past couple of years, striving to move away from "activities checklists" and reliance on GPA and ACT scores (only).

The article discusses how BYU is looking to find people who better align with the school's/church's mission. That makes sense.

I find this interesting and a bit disappointing but I'm curious what your thoughts are. I've heard the question asked many times, "Does BYU require seminary graduation?" This new approach doesn't really answer that question but it does require a recommendation from a seminary teacher. I'm assuming it's in addition to a standard ecclesiastical endorsement and it seems like maybe it's a bit redundant, or maybe BYU isn't as trusting of the bishop's endorsement. I don't know. But basing college admissions on a student's engagement in seminary at one point in time during that student's senior year doesn't seem all that helpful. 

 

https://magazine.byu.edu/article/beyond-checkboxes-byu-admissions-changes/?fbclid=IwAR15MwtGDGSE2DuHeP9FtEaNCSnph7hB6OWRcqwMaDFSk6PqHFheaeLzXtI

I applied to and was accepted by BYU while I was serving my mission in 1974.  In my opinion my academic performance at that point in my career should have resulted in a polite letter declining my admission and a suggestion to start out at whatever local community college I happened to end up near.  I don't know if my status as a FTM counted overwhelmingly towards my acceptance, but I suspect it played a large role. Another factor would have been this: despite my poor academic record (because I was a very lazy pupil) I did learn a lot in school and got a 97th percentile pass in the GED and a high ACT score.  My education had also been rather eclectic, with some US, some Canadian, and some UK high school.  Given that the Canadian and UK school ranking systems were completely different from the US (Canada used percentages, and the UK's would have been nearly incomprehensible in comparison), maybe they were giving me the benefit of a rather large doubt, probably due to the FTM thing.

In the event, I ran out of money before the first semester was over, and joined the Army.  I didn't have a lot of choice, with a baby on the way and all that.  Besides which I had always wanted to be a soldier.

The letter BYU sent me confirming my withdrawal said that I was eligible to return under academic probation anytime I wished, so there's still hope!  

Edited to add:

I see that I have blabbered on about my personal ancient history and haven't addressed your request for thoughts on the seminary recommendation issue.  So here they are:

Unless I miss my guess, there is a huge demand for BYU attendance, and there has to be some way to filter applicants in some rational way to fill the limited number of new Freshman places.  Requiring Seminary recommendations (where it's appropriate) seems rational enough to me, as it's a Church school, after all, and Seminary (and Institute) is part of the Church Educational System, just as BYU is.  I have no objection.

Edited by Stargazer
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Because early morning seminary is stupid. (Sorry - it just is. I learned nothing from the time and all it did was make my own studies harder since I was more tired)

But there are other reasons such as being in a small ward/branch that doesn't really offer it. Of course there's independent study seminary. I wish it was easier to get here in Utah rather than having to go the seminary route at High School. I should also note that it's a problem for those going to private school or home school even in Utah.

Odd. I got a lot out of early morning seminary.  And I'm not even a morning person.  Of course, I was also a new convert, so perhaps I was more of a sponge than you were at the time.  I was quite enthusiastic about learning the gospel in those early years.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, smac97 said:
Quote

The church may now consider me to be a "nominal" member but I sure wasn't when I served my mission, attended BYU, married in the temple, served in multiple church leadership positions for decades.

Oh, brother.  Again, I referenced "nominal members of the Church who, upon graduating, turn around and bash BYU, the Church, its leaders, its members, etc. for any and every grievance under the sun."

And for the edification of all who might be thinking that "nominal" is necessarily a pejorative term, allow me to point out that "nominal" comes from the Latin nōminālis meaning "of, belonging to a name".  In a more neutral usage, we have lumber, whose dimensions could be referred to as "nominal" or "dimensional".  The standard US 2x4 is a "nominal" 2x4 -- because while we call it that, it's actually a half inch less in each dimension.  If I have a "dimensional" 2x4, however, it is actually 2 inches by 4 inches in cross section.  My house in Washington state is over 120 years old, and most of its 2x4s are dimensional, which causes me trouble whenever I do a remodel using nominal 2x4s. I have to make or buy 1/2 inch thick shims to compensate.

And the 2x4s in the UK?  They're not 2x4s either, they 47mm x 100m. Nominally and dimensionally, but some outlets call them 2x4s. Thus they are "nominally" 2x4s, but dimensionally they are 1 27/32" x 3 15/16", which differs from the US standard of 1 1/2" x 3 1/2".  This country is confused, I have to say.  Besides having a Queen with no real power, they're metric in some ways, Imperial in others.  I drive 5 miles to get to church, but put 5 liters of petrol in the tank.

But I digress.  Using the lumber analogy I introduce above, I consider myself both nominally and dimensionally a Latter-day Saint. The folks smac97 call "nominal" LDS are perhaps dimensionally not LDS.  Is @HappyJackWagon nominally but not dimensionally LDS?  I have no idea.  It is for him to decide.

"Nominally" is what you are called.  "Dimensionally" is what you actually are.  You can be both nominal and dimensionally something.  IMHO.

Although I suppose that in a Venn diagram sense, dimensional might be seen as comprising nominal, so using both is redundant?

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By blueglass
      Here is the 2019 end of year seminary assessment my kids received yesterday. Would love to hear your thoughts on the questions, the probable answers, and the doctrine taught.  Don't forget the last 4 questions pertaining to the Explain Doctrine section.  
      https://ibb.co/Dfz4JNr
      Read instructions before you start the test:
      Exam code: 8
      If you have difficulty taking the learning assessment in the traditional way, please talk with your teacher to figure out the best way to help you succeed.
      Use a no. 2 or HB pencil. Indicate your response by completely filling in the bubble on your answer sheet.
      Section name: Multiple Choice
        1.  Who will receive a place in a kingdom of glory? (1 mark)
      a) Every individual born into mortality
      b) All of God's children except the sons of perdition
      c) Only individuals who are worthy of exaltation
        2. Which of the following is a specific responsibility mentioned in the oath and covenant of the priesthood? (1 mar)
      a) To magnify their callings
      b) To pay a generous fast offering
      c) To not be idle
        3. Because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, in the Resurrection all individuals will receive ____ (1 mark)
      a) at least a terrestrial glory
      b) celestial glory
      c) glory according to the law they obeyed
        4. Which of the following blessings does God offer to those who keep the Word of Wisdom? (1 mark)
      a) They will not be burned at the Second Coming.
      b) Their bodies will be protected from all illness.
      c) They will receive wisdom and great treasures of knowledge.
        5. To be endowed in the temple means to receive ____ (1 mark)
      a) a guarantee of eternal life
      b) spiritual power and knowledge
      c) unique physical gifts from the Lord
        6. What does the existence of the precious truths in the Pearl of Great Pric teach us about the Prophet Joseph Smith? (1 mark)
      a) He no longer needed the power of God to help him translate.
      b) He was a prophet, seer, and revelator.
      c) He is the only prophet of this dispensation that can receive new scripture.
        7. As watchmen on the tower, modern prophets have a responsibility to ____ (1 mark)
      a) warn us of coming dangers
      b) stop Satan from tempting members of the Church
      c) change truth to fit modern times
        8. What is a bishop's or branch president's main responsibility when a teenager confesses sin to him? (1 mark)
      a) To prevent the person from being part of the Church
      b) To help the person receive forgiveness of the sins and regain peace of mind
      c) To inflict severe consequences and punishments from sinning
        9. Who visited the Prophet Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland Temple to restore priesthood keys? (1 mark)
      a) Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Malachi
      b) Moses, Elias, and Elijah
      c) Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
        10. According to the Doctrine and Covenants, what are tithing funds used for? (1 mark)
      a) They are the main fund the Church uses to support the poor and the needy.
      b) They are used to build temples and to accomplish the work of the Lord.
      c) They are used to pay ward and branch members for serving in the Church.
        11. While the Prophet Joseph Smith was falsely imprisoned in Liberty Jail, the Lord taught him that adversity and affliction
      (1 mark)
      a) will not occur if we trust in God
      b) are always a consequence of our poor choices
      c) can give us experience and be for our good
        12. Which of the following is a true statement about Relief Society? (1 mark)
      a) It was divinely organized to assist in the work of salvation.
      b) It was established during the trek west to help Saints who were suffering.
      c) It did not exist during the lifetime of the Prophet Joseph Smith.
        13. A man and a woman will receive eternal life and glory if _____ (1 mark)
      a) they love each other more than they love themselves
      b) they keep the new and everlasting covenant of marriage they made in the temple
      c) they are married in the temple
        14. Why do our ancestors who die without having a knowledge of the gospel need us to perform ordinances for them in the temple?
      a) Without these ordinances, our ancestors cannot progress toward eternal life. (1 mark)
      b) Without these ordinances, our ancestors cannot be saved in any kingdom of glory.
      c} Without these ordinances, our ancestors will not be resurrected.
        15. Marriage between one man and one woman is the Lord's standing law. Wen is the only time plural marriage is justified?
      a) Wen there are more women than men in the Church (1 mark)
      b) Whenever local laws and traditions allow members to practice it without breaking the law
      c) When the Lord authorizes it through the priesthood keys given to the President of the Church
        16. When the President of the Church dies, which quorum becomes the presiding quorum of the Church? (1 mark)
      a) The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
      b) The Quorum of the First Presidency
      c) The Presiding Bishopric
        17. Which of the following shows the correct chronological order (first to last) of places the Saints were told to gather to? (1 mark}
      a) A stake in their homeland; Nauvoo, Illinois; Winter Quarters, Nebraska; Salt Lake City, Utah
      b) Nauvoo, Illinois; Winter Quarters, Nebraska; Salt Lake City, Utah; a stake in their homeland
      c) Winter Quarters, Nebraska; Nauvoo, Illinois; Salt Lake City, Utah; a stake in their homeland
        18. After the Savior visited the spirit world, what did righteous spirits there begin to do?
      a} They were all resurrected and began entering the highest kingdom of glory.
      b) They began performing ordinances for those who had not received them.
      c) They began teaching the gospel to those in spirit prison.
      (1 mark)
        19. According to Official Declaration 2, the Lord revealed that all worthy male Church members may ___ _ (1 mark)
      a) receive the ordinance of baptism
      b) serve a mission at age 18
      c) receive the priesthood and enjoy temple blessings
        20. What principle is emphasized in Doctrine and Covenants 121:36, 41-2? (1 mark)
      a) Priesthood holders can draw upon the powers of heaven only if they live righteously.
      b) lf we actively seek to learn through study and faith, our faith in Jesus Christ will increase.
      c) If we obey the Lord, He will always keep His promises to bless us.
        21. Which of the following accurately describes Heavenly Father? (1 mark)
      a) He is without feelings or emotions.
      b) He is a personage of Spirit and can dwell in us.
      c) He has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's.
        22. Which of the following is a requirement for receiving exaltation in the celestial kingdom? (1 mark)
      a) Bearing testimony of the Savior is all that is needed.
      b) Receiving a patriarchal blessing
      c) Receiving and being valiant in the testimony of Jesus Christ
        23. Of the following groups, who will inherit the celestial kingdom? (1 mark)
      a) All children who die before they reach the age of accountability
      b) All members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
      c) All individuals who have been baptized
        24. Which eternal truth corrects the following worldly philosophy: "God doesn't care how marriage is defined"? (1 mark)
      a) Ever individual born into morality is a child of God, and God loves each of us.
      b) Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.
      c) God changes truth to meet the circumstances and needs of His children.
        25. Which eternal truth corrects the following worldly philosophy: "It isn't as important for couples to have children today as it used to
      a) Marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal setting for children to be born, reared, and nurtured.
      b) God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between a man and a woman who are
      lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
      c) God's commandment fr husbands and wives to have children remains in force today.
        26. Which eternal truth corrects the following worldly philosophy: "As long as two individuals love each other, physical intimacy is
      acceptable"? (1 mark)
      a) Marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal setting for children to be born, reared, and nurtured.
      b) Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.
      c) God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between a man and a woman who are
      lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
        27. Which eternal truth corrects the following worldly philosophy: "As governments continue to redefine marriage, God's definition of
      marriage will change to reflect the values of modern society"? (1 mark)
      a) Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.
      b) God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between a man and a woman who are
      lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
      c) Changes in the civil law do not change the moral law that God has established.
        28. Which eternal truth corrects the following worldly philosophy: "The only purpose of marriage is for adults to find fulfillment and
      happiness"? (1 mark)
      a) Marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal setting for children to be born, reared, and nurtured.
      b) Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.
      c) God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between a man and a woman who are
      lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
      Section name: Explain Doctrine _
      Instructions: Write your answer on a piece of paper. Compare your response with the correct answer received from your teacher. After self-grading the explain-doctrine question, bubble in your answer sheet.
      Self-grade your answer for each question:
      a. Yes, I explained this in my response.
      b. No, I left this out of my response.
        29. What is an example of a truth that was restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Explain why the truth you chose can help you receive eternal life. (1 mark)
        30. What is an example of an ordinance that was restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Explain why the ordinance you chose can help you receive eternal life. (1 mark)
        31. What is an example of priesthood authority that was restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Explain why this authority of the priesthood can help you receive eternal life. (1 mark)
        32. Share your personal thoughts on the importance of the Prophet Joseph Smith. (1 mark)
    • By Five Solas
      Got back home last Sunday after 8 days in London, England, celebrating my 10-year wedding anniversary with my wife.  Our three kiddos stayed at home with her parents—which was awfully generous of them.  (Other guys may complain about their in-laws, but not I.)  It was a great trip, perfect walking weather, peak tourist season not yet started. 
      We stayed at The Grosvenor adjacent to Victoria Station, which meant we had pretty near the whole city within ~ 30 minutes via the Underground (and Buckingham Palace within a six minute walk).  And I’ll share one small observation with the board for any discussion:
      Aberrant theology notwithstanding, the Jehovah’s Witnesses work pretty dang hard.  
      A number of times we saw them working the street.  And unlike Seattle where they will occasionally occupy a corner & smile gently at passers-by—here they seemed to be anxiously engaged with the vast diversity of humanity that occupies greater London.  Yes, we saw a lot of old churches and even a new one that could have been an Acts 29 plant.  But in all our time, we never once saw any LDS missionaries. 
      Recently there was a thread about religious persecution in contemporary Russia.  And this has hit the JW’s hard—because they’ve worked vigorously to establish themselves after the fall of the Soviet Union and have built quite a presence (~100K active worshipers in Russia).   But on that same thread, we couldn’t even figure out how many LDS stakes there are today in Russia (somewhere between zero and three).  Some other stats were tossed about along with an LDS “Locator” app which, among other things, pointed the user to what could have been a boarded-up McDonald's.  After nearly three decades since the fall, LDS here don’t know or seem to care (but a few certainly enjoyed discussing/debating political aspects of Russia).  It’s a stunning contrast to all the fevered speculation when I was growing up (70’s – 80’s) about the missionary/membership opportunity for the LDS Church if Communism were to fall. 
      I realize it’s all anecdotal, and with a life-expectancy assumption of 110 for lost members, we can expect the LDS Church to continue to claim modest membership growth into the foreseeable future (loosing track of people makes *much* better numbers than knowing who actually dies or quits). 
      The question I have is this: Have we entered a period of retreat and retrenchment for the LDS Church where the focus will shift more to Utah and adjacent states (plus perhaps a few parts of the “third world” where record keeping and independent verification of membership will conveniently not be possible).  Even at the national level, we appear to see an example of retrenchment with BYU’s divorce from USAF ROTC.  And on the front page we have a thread about whether “slowing growth” makes any difference to the LDS Church and its adherents.  And again, the LDS here don’t seem terribly interested or concerned. 
      What do you think?  Has Mormonism peaked?  Any will LDS really care if it has?
      --Erik
      ______________________________________________
      You left
      Your tired family grieving
      And you think they're sad because you're leaving
      But did you see Jealousy in the eyes
      Of the ones who had to stay behind?
      --The Smiths "London"
    • By Five Solas
      Thinking about BYU losing the US Air Force ROTC program it has hosted, almost since the inception of the Air Force (as a separate service from the USAAC).  Although some will play down the move to UVU – I think this could prove a watershed moment for BYU and for LDS.

      For over half a century the Air Force played by the rules of the LDS authored “Honor Code” at BYU and found officers willing to work within its constraints.  In return, BYU supplied thousands of competent officers. 

      And whatever the exact equation of costs vs. benefits for Air Force officer recruitment/training, one thing is certain: The LDS Church and its flagship university aren’t as valuable as they used to be.  They used to be worth accommodating--and now they're not.  LDS influence stands diminished. 

      A couple years ago, Daniel C. Peterson wrote an article that was perhaps prescient—

      Growing up in the fifties and sixties, it was easy to assume that American society respected Latter-day Saints. We might be out on the theological fringe, regarded as a bit quirky, but American civic religion was at least theoretically pretty much on our side. For example, Americans seemed to honor ideals of faithful, heterosexual marriage, with fathers taking the lead and mothers caring for children. Society was, in other words, largely in sync with, and supportive of, fundamental, practical Mormon values. In fact, Mormons seemed quintessentially American — which, in the postwar era of the Pax Americana, benefited our church not only in the United States but in Europe and Japan.

      Today, though, Mormonism and Western society seem to be parting ways in crucial respects.

      What do folks think?  Is the Air Force ROTC departure from BYU related to a broader trend Peterson wrote about in 2015?  
      --Erik

    • By SeekingUnderstanding
      http://news.byu.edu/news/news-release
      This looks to be a huge step forward and I applaud BYU for it. It will be interesting to see what exactly an amnesty clause looks like.
      Duplicate topic
    • By HappyJackWagon
      I'm very proud of BYU today. The advisory committee worked quickly to make their recommendations and BYU has accepted all 23 recommendations though some of them will be phased in gradually. Among the immediate changes will be that survivors of sexual assault who report to the Title IX office will receive amnesty for other violations of the honor code that occurred near the time of the assault. This will encourage more victims to step forward and report their assaults which will in turn help BYU get rid of the perpetrators and provide greater security on campus and among its students. This is great news.
      https://news.byu.edu/news/news-release
×
×
  • Create New...