sethpayne Posted July 23, 2015 Author Posted July 23, 2015 Duplicity is duplicity, ttribe. That's the term you used. I, for one, wouldn't trust such a person. Scott -- question for ya. Let's say there is a student at Liberty University. This student has signed the honor code which includes complete rejection of the Book of Mormon (and other religious books not the Bible). In their Junior year they meet the missionaries, take the discussions, and become converted and baptized. In order to avoid disruption to their grad school plans (where they may have early acceptance...) they choose to hide their LDS Church membership and attend meetings secretly because if they were found out, they would have to leave Liberty. Would you trust this Latter-day Saint? 2
ttribe Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 Duplicity is duplicity, ttribe. That's the term you used. I, for one, wouldn't trust such a person. Naturally, I'm not the least bit surprised at your hard-line approach on any of this. It's clear you consider any loss of faith, or expression thereof, as a willful act of betrayal.
HappyJackWagon Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 What you offer as a "compromise" seems scarcely that. Not that I'm advocating the following, but I will pose the question out of curiosity: Suppose the university told them they could stay provided they not only pay the non-member rate of tuition henceforth but that they go back and retroactively pay the difference between the member cost and the non-member cost for each and every semester they were enrolled up to the time they apostatized. Would see that as fair?I don't think that is fair at all but STILL better than expelling someone because of their beliefs. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) Scott -- I'm not sure I would see that as being fair at all. When members, they paid member tuition. When non-members, they wouldn't . Retroactive charges seem punitive.When they were offered the member rate for tuition at the time they enrolled as freshmen, it was with the understanding that they were Church members in good standing and would remain so throughout their entire enrollment. They are the ones that broke faith with the contract they made. Why should they continue to be privileged with that cost benefit? I don't like this proposal either, but I don't like it because not even this is fair to the university. I think the honor code should remain as it is. But this does bear out the fact that those who are allowing that the ex-members will continue on while paying non-members rates and are calling that a "compromise" are really not interested in making any compromise at all. Of course they would be paying non-member tuition; they wouldn't be members any longer. Who in his right mind would expect otherwise? But in the meantime, it is the university, not they, who is suffering all the consequences of their breaking faith with the contract they signed. Edited July 23, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 I don't think that is fair at all but STILL better than expelling someone because of their beliefs.I'm not surprised you don't see it as fair, considering the attitude of entitlement you have.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 Naturally, I'm not the least bit surprised at your hard-line approach on any of this. It's clear you consider any loss of faith, or expression thereof, as a willful act of betrayal.But we're not talking just about loss of faith here; we're talking about willful deception.
sethpayne Posted July 23, 2015 Author Posted July 23, 2015 When they were offered the member rate for tuition at the time they enrolled as freshmen, it was with the understanding that they were Church members in good standing and would remain so throughout their entire enrollment. They are the ones that broke faith with the contract they made. Why should they continue to be privileged with that cost benefit? I don't read the HC that way, Scott. Perhaps you can help me understand why your view is that students agree to remain members throughout their entire time at BYU. They are told, up front, that disaffiliation is an honor code violation but I don't see any indiction that they are agreeing to remain LDS for as long as they are at BYU. Only that they know going in that if they dissafiliate, the HC kicks in.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 Scott -- question for ya. Let's say there is a student at Liberty University. This student has signed the honor code which includes complete rejection of the Book of Mormon (and other religious books not the Bible). In their Junior year they meet the missionaries, take the discussions, and become converted and baptized. In order to avoid disruption to their grad school plans (where they may have early acceptance...) they choose to hide their LDS Church membership and attend meetings secretly because if they were found out, they would have to leave Liberty. Would you trust this Latter-day Saint?No. And I would consider his duplicity unbecoming a member of the Church.
HappyJackWagon Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 When they were offered the member rate for tuition at the time they enrolled as freshmen, it was with the understanding that they were Church members in good standing and would remain so throughout their entire enrollment. They are the ones that broke faith with the contract they made. Why should they continue to be privileged with that cost benefit? I don't like this proposal either, but I don't like it because not even this is fair to the university. I think the honor code should remain as it is. But this does bear out the fact that those who are allowing that the ex-members will continue on while paying non-members rates and are calling that a "compromise" are really not interested in making any compromise at all. Of course they would be paying non-member tuition; they wouldn't be members any longer. Who in his right mind would expect otherwise. But in the meantime, it is the university, not they, who is suffering all the consequences of their breaking faith with the contract they signed.Scott, you clearly have no understanding of what it means or how it feels for someone to have a faith crisis or go through a faith transition. If you do, your heartless attitude is even more appalling.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) I don't read the HC that way, Scott. Perhaps you can help me understand why your view is that students agree to remain members throughout their entire time at BYU. They are told, up front, that disaffiliation is an honor code violation but I don't see any indiction that they are agreeing to remain LDS for as long as they are at BYU. Only that they know going in that if they dissafiliate, the HC kicks in.But we are talking about a theoretical compromise here. That "the Honor Code" kicks in means they are out, no ifs, ands or buts. Some don't seem to like that and are calling for a compromise that would allow them to escape the consequences of their not abiding by the terms of the contract. I'm merely suggesting such a compromise. Apparently you don't like my suggestion; that's fine, I was just curious what the reaction would be. I'm finding out now. Edited July 23, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
sethpayne Posted July 23, 2015 Author Posted July 23, 2015 No. And I would consider his duplicity unbecoming a member of the Church. Interesting. I have a different view. In my mind this is more akin to Christians in countries where some forms of Christian expression are forbidden simply honoring their faith and being practical about not getting caught because if they did so, they would not be able to be there for their families.
sethpayne Posted July 23, 2015 Author Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) Apparently you don't like my compromise; that's fine, I was just curious what the reaction would be. I'm finding out now. It is an interesting idea. Just not sure how what practical purpose it would serve since no incoming student makes a commitment to maintaining LDS membership. But of course, as you state, the HC - as it stands today -- would require them to leave. Edited July 23, 2015 by sethpayne
Scott Lloyd Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 Scott, you clearly have no understanding of what it means or how it feels for someone to have a faith crisis or go through a faith transition. If you do, your heartless attitude is even more appalling.I'm "heartless" because I espouse fairness and honor? I find that even more telling than the fact that what you regard as a compromise is really no compromise at all, and when a true compromise is suggested, you say you don't like it. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 Interesting. I have a different view. In my mind this is more akin to Christians in countries where some forms of Christian expression are forbidden simply honoring their faith and being practical about not getting caught because if they did so, they would not be able to be there for their families. Liberty University is not a country. One enrolled there is free to withdraw at any time if he doesn't like the conditions. If they were as you envision in your hypothetical, I would expect the person to do just that.
sethpayne Posted July 23, 2015 Author Posted July 23, 2015 Some don't seem to like that and are calling for a compromise that would allow them to escape the consequences of their not abiding by the terms of the contract. I'm merely suggesting such a compromise. This is where I"m not quite following you. No incoming student signs a contract that they will remain LDS. They do agree that if they disaffiliate they will be in violation of the Honor Code and thus, be unenrolled.
sethpayne Posted July 23, 2015 Author Posted July 23, 2015 Good ideas. I propose that we take the "Free BYU" idea one step further. Make BYU free (at least to my children). LOL.... good one!
Scott Lloyd Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) This is where I"m not quite following you. No incoming student signs a contract that they will remain LDS. They do agree that if they disaffiliate they will be in violation of the Honor Code and thus, be unenrolled.I don't understand your confusion. They've violated terms of the contract and are suffering the penalty. I get that. Now some want a new agreement that would provide a compromise whereby they could remain at the university and not suffer the penalty for their apostasy. All I did was suggest such a compromise. Edited July 23, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
HappyJackWagon Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 But we are talking about a theoretical compromise here. That "the Honor Code" kicks in means they are out, no ifs, ands or buts. Some don't seem to like that and are calling for a compromise that would allow them to escape the consequences of their not abiding by the terms of the contract. I'm merely suggesting such a compromise. Apparently you don't like my suggestion; that's fine, I was just curious what the reaction would be. I'm finding out now.Do all honor code infractions result in expulsion or is there a range of consequences based on the violation? For example, is a student who cooks meth in his dorm room subject to an identical consequence as someone who gets caught drinking coffee or someone who wears shorts 1 inch above the knee? Or is there leniency in some cases? There is room for something to be a violation of the honor code without the consequence being expulsion.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 Do all honor code infractions result in expulsion or is there a range of consequences based on the violation? For example, is a student who cooks meth in his dorm room subject to an identical consequence as someone who gets caught drinking coffee or someone who wears shorts 1 inch above the knee? Or is there leniency in some cases? There is room for something to be a violation of the honor code without the consequence being expulsion.I'm not that well-acquainted with the honor code or enforcement procedures. You'll have to ask someone who is.
sethpayne Posted July 23, 2015 Author Posted July 23, 2015 I don't understand your confusion. They've violated terms of the contract and are suffering the penalty. I get that. Now some want a new agreement that would provide a compromise whereby they could remain at the university and not suffer the penalty. All I did was suggest such a compromise. Yeah.... perhaps I'm not being clear about my misunderstanding. You have proposed a hypothetical compromise that would require ex-LDS students to pay non-Member rates even for the time they were members because they violated the terms of the contract. Where I'm confused is that while they were members they were not in violation of the Honor Code. So why make them pay a "penalty" for not violating the Honor Code? 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) Yeah.... perhaps I'm not being clear about my misunderstanding. You have proposed a hypothetical compromise that would require ex-LDS students to pay non-Member rates even for the time they were members because they violated the terms of the contract. Where I'm confused is that while they were members they were not in violation of the Honor Code. So why make them pay a "penalty" for not violating the Honor Code?They have disappointed the university and in effect from the standpoint of the Church wasted the resources invested in them on behalf of the tithe payers of the Church, who expect BYU will prepare young people to be contributing and supportive members of the Church throughout their lives. Their paying the full cost of non-member tuition retroactively would, I suppose, mitigate that loss of investment to some degree. Does that make sense? Edited July 23, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Calm Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) If I understand the requirements adequately, Westpoint kicks out (or even legally forces former cadets to serve) anyone who changes their mind about serving in the US military...except for the 50 or so international students. They may even require them to pay all the subsidy which can amount to over $200,000.While definitely not identical, I think they are both similar in that their primary reason for existing is not to provide an education, but to create members who are contributing not only while attending but even more so in the future to the institution that is footing most of the bills. Edited July 23, 2015 by calmoriah 3
HappyJackWagon Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 I'm not that well-acquainted with the honor code or enforcement procedures. You'll have to ask someone who is.Okay. That's fair. I thought you were an expert. It would seem at least that there is a possibility for variation in consequences based on the violation. WIth this in mind, wouldn't it be possible for BYU to keep their honor code and simply alter the level of consequence? The student isn't breaking the law of chastity or the word of wisdom or cheating in classes, they haven't robbed their neighbor or killed a cat etc. Their belief changed. Maybe a little mercy in enforcement would be warranted to keep a good student who is living their life according to the honor code even though their religious belief has changed.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) If I understand the requirements adequately, Westpoint kicks out (or even legally forces former cadets to serve) anyone who changes their mind about serving in the US military...except for the 50 or so international students. They may even require them to pay all the subsidy which can amount to over $200,000.While definitely not identical, I think they are both similar in that their primary reason for existing is not to provide an education, but to create members who are contributing not only while attending but even more so in the future to the institution that is footing most of the bills.Now that you mention it, this rings a bell with what we were told when I visited West Point with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir on July 4. They are indeed required under penalty of law to pay back the taxpayer subsidy if they elect to drop out after (I think) a year of enrollment. And I think this is a very apt comparison to what I have suggested (but not advocated). Edited July 23, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 Okay. That's fair. I thought you were an expert. It would seem at least that there is a possibility for variation in consequences based on the violation. WIth this in mind, wouldn't it be possible for BYU to keep their honor code and simply alter the level of consequence? The student isn't breaking the law of chastity or the word of wisdom or cheating in classes, they haven't robbed their neighbor or killed a cat etc. Their belief changed. Maybe a little mercy in enforcement would be warranted to keep a good student who is living their life according to the honor code even though their religious belief has changed.Something about the finality of what they have done -- severed any membership with the Church with no expectation of ever returning -- makes me believe that anything short of dismissal would hardly be appropriate. There have been some suggestions made here that I perhaps could get on board with: allowing them to finish out the semester, providing counseling in transferring, that sort of thing. I would have to ponder it.
Recommended Posts