Making A Statement About Free Byu

[BTH&T]

These responses reminder me of Elder Ballard's statement from this "Doctrine of Inclusion" address:

 

"...if neighbors become testy or frustrated because of some disagreement with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or with some law we support for moral reasons, please don’t suggest to them—even in a humorous way—that they consider moving someplace else. I cannot comprehend how any member of our Church can even think such a thing!"

 

Neither of you really answered my question in the post you responded to regarding whether any freedom had been lost in my hypothetical.  I assume your lack of an answer indicates that you can see how some freedom was lost.

 

It actually isn't strange that one could study and pray and find that their testimony had changed.  It happens all the time.

 

For my hypothetical, you can assume that the person is not out of harmony with the restored Gospel and that they are living all other aspects of the honor code.  Free BYU is not arguing that students shouldn't have to live the honor code.

Then they should transfer prior to having their names removed. Simple, and do it with out a spotlight or a microphone.

[Sleeper Cell]

A young person who has been raised LDS applies and is accepted to BYU at the age of 17.  Five years later, they have served a mission and a 3/4 of the way to having completed their degree.  Through study and prayer they determine that they need to resign their membership as a matter of following personal revelation and their conscience.  Doing so would mean losing a tremendous amount of money & work in lost credit hours toward a degree if they are expelled from school in their final year.

 

You still don't see "one bit of freedom lost"?

I’m not sure I see the “conscience” part if they are not willing to sacrifice a semester or two worth of time, money and credit hours to maintain their integrity.  As pointed out multiple times in this thread, the “heroic sacrifice” of transferring to another school is routinely made by many college students.  

[jkwilliams]

I think this is exactly the issue.

If they do something to be excommunicated, there are consequences.

If they lose faith they can continue on while struggling with their faith.

Or they can transfer.

 

But look at what the "cause" people do;

they put themselves in harms way and then cry foul when they get hurt.

 

Like what I read of your book on amazon, I'll have to get it.

 

I don't take issue with the consequences, just whether people can finish a semester. I guess that is asking too much. *shrug*

[iWriteStuff]

These responses reminder me of Elder Ballard's statement from this "Doctrine of Inclusion" address:

 

"...if neighbors become testy or frustrated because of some disagreement with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or with some law we support for moral reasons, please don’t suggest to them—even in a humorous way—that they consider moving someplace else. I cannot comprehend how any member of our Church can even think such a thing!"

 

Neither of you really answered my question in the post you responded to regarding whether any freedom had been lost in my hypothetical.  I assume your lack of an answer indicates that you can see how some freedom was lost.

 

It actually isn't strange that one could study and pray and find that their testimony had changed.  It happens all the time.

 

For my hypothetical, you can assume that the person is not out of harmony with the restored Gospel and that they are living all other aspects of the honor code.  Free BYU is not arguing that students shouldn't have to live the honor code.

 

Honestly, I don't think Elder Bednar's talk has any bearing on the situation in question. In his statement, the neighbors are simply that - neighbors. They have no mutual contract between them. The Mormon neighbor isn't subsidizing his non-member's mortgage. If you want a parallel argument, try this:

 

Neighbor A and Neighbor B move into the same Covenant Controlled Community (school/HOA) with voluntary monthly dues. Both neighbors agree to the terms and pay their monthly dues (tithing). Later on, Neighbor B decides he no longer is in agreement with the Covenants he signed as laid down by the HOA. He decides he no longer needs to abide by the contract he signed, no longer needs to pay his monthly dues, and the HOA can stuff it if it wants to try and enforce the contract.

 

Neighbor A, meanwhile, is keeping all his covenants.

 

Does not the Community have a right to enforce the rules? Are penalties no longer valid because they don't favor Neighbor B's right to dissent? Would not the more logical conclusion be for Neighbor B to sell his house, even if at a loss, in order to find accommodations more to his liking? Or is it right and fair for the HOA to change their policy to accommodate the one neighbor who chooses not to abide by their covenants?

Edited October 8, 2015 by iWriteStuff

[Gray]

Honor seems one sided to the Free BYU team. The university should be obligated to allow them to violate their agreement and the members of the church should be obligated to continue subsidizing their tuition, but the student is obligated to.....???

 

The problem is that the honor code isn't very honorable, at least in some respects.

 

In any case, if the honor code were cleaned up, ex-Mormon students would have the same obligations as Catholic or Muslim students. Fairness for all. 

[stemelbow]

I don't know that enemy-making is ever a solution. I guess constantly being told we have enemies and need to find our enemies does that to us. BYU should treat these students kindly, as assets. That's my take. Treating them as outcasts, then justifying that by thinking of them as enemies is the very problem that should be addressed. Instead it seems all too often treating people poorly is celebrated at Church amongst us LDS. It's certainly not unique to LDS, but it's a problem we should address, I think. This thread serves a good example for me to explain why.

[Senator]

Honestly, I don't think Elder Bednar's talk has any bearing on the situation in question. In his statement, the neighbors are simply that - neighbors. They have no mutual contract between them. The Mormon neighbor isn't subsidizing his non-member's mortgage. If you want a parallel argument, try this:

 

Neighbor A and Neighbor B move into the same Covenant Controlled Community (school/HOA) with voluntary monthly dues. Both neighbors agree to the terms and pay their monthly dues (tithing). Later on, Neighbor B decides he no longer is in agreement with the Covenants he signed as laid down by the HOA. He decides he no longer needs to abide by the contract he signed, no longer needs to pay his monthly dues, and the HOA can stuff it if it wants to try and enforce the contract.

 

Neighbor A, meanwhile, is keeping all his covenants.

 

Does not the Community have a right to enforce the rules? Are penalties no longer valid because they don't favor Neighbor B's right to dissent? Would not the more logical conclusion be for Neighbor B to sell his house, even if at a loss, in order to find accommodations more to his liking? Or is it right and fair for the HOA to change their policy to accommodate the one neighbor who chooses not to abide by their covenants?

 

Why do you keep misrepresenting the argument? 

[ERayR]

I don't know that enemy-making is ever a solution. I guess constantly being told we have enemies and need to find our enemies does that to us. BYU should treat these students kindly, as assets. That's my take. Treating them as outcasts, then justifying that by thinking of them as enemies is the very problem that should be addressed. Instead it seems all too often treating people poorly is celebrated at Church amongst us LDS. It's certainly not unique to LDS, but it's a problem we should address, I think. This thread serves a good example for me to explain why.

 

If you are using that terminology they are being treated as the defunct assets that they are.

[stemelbow]

If you are using that terminology they are being treated as the defunct assets that they are.

I see that. That's too bad. They are or could potentially be as productive in society as anyone else, instead so many here want them to be "defunct assets". If this doesn't express exactly why this policy is a problem I don't know what would.

[Gray]

If you are using that terminology they are being treated as the defunct assets that they are.

 

Perhaps we should start referring to inactive members as defunct assets. I'm sure this will help the reactivation effort.

[rockpond]

Then they should transfer prior to having their names removed. Simple, and do it with out a spotlight or a microphone.

That's fair. But not religious freedom.

[rockpond]

I’m not sure I see the “conscience” part if they are not willing to sacrifice a semester or two worth of time, money and credit hours to maintain their integrity. As pointed out multiple times in this thread, the “heroic sacrifice” of transferring to another school is routinely made by many college students.

I'm not saying it's a heroic sacrifice, just a sacrifice that BYU shouldn't be asking students to make if they want to honor those students' religious freedom.

[jkwilliams]

Perhaps we should start referring to inactive members as defunct assets. I'm sure this will help the reactivation effort.

 

When I lived in Utah, it was obvious that a never-Mormon was treated differently than an ex-Mormon. It's fine to not be a member, but if you leave, some people assume it's for some terrible reason and treat you accordingly. It seems like the BYU policy just reinforces this notion. I will have to remember the "defunct asset" thing, as that is excellent. Now I just to find an opportunity to use it.

[Senator]

Perhaps we should start referring to inactive members as defunct assets. I'm sure this will help the reactivation effort.

 

Spending time on this board has at least one effect. It makes me appreciate General Conference and the tone and teachings of the Church leadership more and more.

[Scott Lloyd]

Why do you keep misrepresenting the argument? 

It's not a misrepresentation. It applies quite well as an analogy, in fact.

[Senator]

It's not a misrepresentation. It applies quite well as an analogy, in fact.

I disagree

[Scott Lloyd]

Spending time on this board has at least one effect. It makes me appreciate General Conference and the tone and teachings of the Church leadership more and more.

Are you aware of who comprises the BYU Board of Trutees? The individuals who set the "tone and teachings of Church leadership" are the same individuals who set and sustain the policies for enrollment at BYU. If you appreciate their "tone and teachings" so much, maybe you ought to ponder a bit more deeply why they set the policies they do.

Edited October 8, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

It is not about fairness,

If that were the case "women Preisthood movement" would be the same as well.

It's not about fairness? Maybe not to you but you asked for the root agenda and as far as I can see that's it.

 

Your 2nd line is perplexing. Are you suggesting that it can't be about fairness because if it were this same group would be pro-female ordination? Is that the argument?

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not saying it's a heroic sacrifice, just a sacrifice that BYU shouldn't be asking students to make if they want to honor those students' religious freedom.

They have their religious freedom.

 

Religious freedom does not incorporate license to renege on a contract with impunity or to unilaterally demand that a contract include provisions the other party is not willing to offer.

Edited October 8, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

Honestly, I don't think Elder Bednar's talk has any bearing on the situation in question. In his statement, the neighbors are simply that - neighbors. They have no mutual contract between them. The Mormon neighbor isn't subsidizing his non-member's mortgage. If you want a parallel argument, try this:

Neighbor A and Neighbor B move into the same Covenant Controlled Community (school/HOA) with voluntary monthly dues. Both neighbors agree to the terms and pay their monthly dues (tithing). Later on, Neighbor B decides he no longer is in agreement with the Covenants he signed as laid down by the HOA. He decides he no longer needs to abide by the contract he signed, no longer needs to pay his monthly dues, and the HOA can stuff it if it wants to try and enforce the contract.

Neighbor A, meanwhile, is keeping all his covenants.

Does not the Community have a right to enforce the rules? Are penalties no longer valid because they don't favor Neighbor B's right to dissent? Would not the more logical conclusion be for Neighbor B to sell his house, even if at a loss, in order to find accommodations more to his liking? Or is it right and fair for the HOA to change their policy to accommodate the one neighbor who chooses not to abide by their covenants?

Non-sequitur.

As I've said, BYU should be able to create and enforce the policy.

The point is that the policy doesn't support the religious freedom of the students.

[Senator]

Are you aware of who comprises the BYU Board of Trutees. The individuals who set the "tone and teachings of Church leadership" are the same individuals who set and sustain the policies for enrollment at BYU.

 

What in the world has that got to do with how the policies of those Trustees are defended on this board?

[Scott Lloyd]

Let's focus here.

No one is wanting to do away with consequences.

Some are proposing that in this instance there are unnecessary harsh consequences imposed.

Exactly.

What is so harsh about invoking terms of a contract that all parties agree to upfront?

Isn't it a matter of your not liking what the contract requires in the first place?

To that I would reply that BYU exists to fulfill a certain mission and that it is right, just, proper and fair to set policies pertaining to enrollment and other things that foster the school's mission.

Edited October 9, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[BTH&T]

That's fair. But not religious freedom.

How so? Each is free to choose whatever faith they desire.

 

Free to choose does not mean free to receive the reward if you do not hold up your end of a bargain.

BYU is not doing anything wrong by upholding it's side of the contract.

[HappyJackWagon]

What is so harsh about invoking terms of a contract that all parties agree to upfront?

 

Isn't it a matter of your not liking what the contract requires in the first place?

 

To that I would reply that BYU exists to fulfill a certain message and that it is right, just, proper and fair to set policies pertaining to enrollment and other things that foster the school's mission.

Yes. That's why I'd like to see the policy changed.

[Scott Lloyd]

What in the world has that got to do with how the policies of those Trustees are defended on this board?

Don't talk out of two sides of your mouth, on the one hand paying lip service to the "tone and teachings" of the Brethren at general conference and, on the other hand, criticizing and condemning the policies they set at the Church's flagship school.